The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 2001/04/09~ ~ • CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 9, 2001 Counci) Chambers, City Haii 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRP~RSON; JOHf~ KOOS ~ ~~ COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: TQNY A~~JO~D,~PAUI~ ~~STW~~K, PHYLLIS BOYDSTUN, ~TEPt~~,~V~aISTOL; ROBERT N~P~QLES, JAMES VANDERBILT ~~- ° ~ ~~~ ~~ , ....,~ STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann, Assistant Ci1 Greg Hastings, Zonmg D~j~~ Greg McCafferty, Seniar;~' Linda Johnson, Princip~i~ F ~ ~ `~ AGENDA POSTING ~A°cc Wednesday, April 4, ~D(~~h; the outside display kiosk :~ _ _ . ..,......,.., _..,r...•~ _ Natalie Meeks, Developri Ossie Edmundson, PC `S Janice O'Connor, Senior ,t:, munity Development r. Public Works Dept. PUBLISHED: er on ~oste~ GiI~Ch 4:30 P.M. on ~ers, and also in PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Boydstun PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H:\DOCS\CLERICAUMINUTESWPRIL 9~AC040901.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net 04-09-01 Page 1 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 1-A through 1-D on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll cali vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the P{anning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion for approval of Consent Calendar Items 1-A through 1-D, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun, vote taken and motion carried. 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1-A. a) CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061(b)(3) Approved. b) ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2 Directed City Attorney's SPECIFIC PLAN ADJUSTMENT NO. 4 Office to prepare an (SPN TRACKING NO. 2001-00007): Walt Disney Imagineering, Attn: John Ordinance pertaining to Graves, 888 S. Disneyland Drive, 4th Floor, Anaheim, CA 92802, Adjustment No. 4 to the requests a Specific Plan Adjustment to consider modifications to the Anaheim Resort Specific • Anaheim~Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 Zoning and Development Plan No. 92-2 and Standards (Chapter 18.48 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) pertaining to recommended adoption temporary parking requirements. The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan of said Ordinance to the Area, which is located within The Anaheim ResortT"' in the City of City Council. Anaheim, encompasses approximately 550 acres and is generally located adjacent to and southwest of the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) (Vote: 7-0) between the Disneyland Drive off ramp and Orangewood Avenue, with a portion located north of the I-5/Harbor Boulevard interchange. Continued from Planning Commission Meeting of March 26, 2001. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the proposed Specific Plan Adjustment falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15061(b)(3) as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Planning Commission does hereby direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for City Council consideration to amend Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, Zoning and Development Standards (to amend Chapter 18.48 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) to incorporate Adjustment No. 4 pertaining to temporary parking requirements; and does also recommend that City Council • adopt said ordinance. SR7950LJ.DOC 04-09-01 Page 2 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISStON MiNUTES • John Graves, Walt Disney Company, 888 South Disneyland Drive, applicanYs representative. Requested clarification. Mr. Graves was directed to speak with Linda Johnson, Principai Planner. Following approval of this item, Sheila King spoke for the opposing Parkwood Village Apartments and its owners, who want to give their opinion regarding temporary parking being adjusted to five years, and how it will affect their community and their residents, as it will back right up to this community. Chairperson Koos asked Linda Johnson to meet with Ms. King regarding her concerns. Greg Hastings, Planning/Zoning Division Manager, summarized and clarified the series of Conditions applicant was asking for changes to. Staff was supportive of those with exception of the barbed wire. It was his understanding that the way that Planning Commission approved this was according to staff's recommendation that the condition still stand. Chairperson Koos indicated it is his understanding that this is a Code provision and there would have to be a variance and public hearing for that. Greg Hastings agreed. This item is actually a continued item at the City Council with public hearing, so this matter will also be brought before City Council. • • 04-09-01 Page 3 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1-B. a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 21 (PREV.- APPROVED) Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3790 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001-04353): Recommend City Bobby and Tony Gilbert, 17300 17'h Street, #J231, Tustin, CA 92680, Council to amend requests review of revised plans and conditions of approval for Conditions of recommendations to the City Council on a City-initiated request for Approval (as modification or revocation of a previously approved conditional use permit. shown in italics). Property is located at 1514 West Broadway - B and J's Tree Service. (Vote: 7-0) ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved CEQA Categorical Exemption Class 21 (Enforcement Actions by Regulating Agencies) is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of the following modified conditions of approval (shown in italics) based on the size and shape of the property being adequate to accommodate the business as proposed, and that the conditions, as modified, will ensure the safety, health and well-being of the surrounding properties and the citizens of Anaheim: 9. That only equipment, trailers, and vehicles incidental to the tree trimming business or the personal property of the business owner shall be stored at the property in the designated locations as shown • on the revised site plan. 2. That a maximum of six (6) shipping containers and six (6) roll-off ,bins shall be maintained on-site in the designated areas as shown on the site plan. 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 and equipment shall not exceed the height of the required perimeter fencing. 7. That any oil, fuel or fluid waste products shall be disposed of in an approved manner. 8. That no retail sales of firewood shall be permitted on-site. • 04-09-01 Page 4 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMtSS10N MINUTES • 9. That all major engine, equipment, and truck repairs and/or overhauis shall be prohibited at the property and only oil changes and tune-ups shall be permitted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 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 and off-site landscaping (adjacent to the west property line abutting the railroad) and irrigation system shall be refurbished and maintained in compliance with City standards and Exhibit No. 1, Revision No. 1 of Conditional Use Permit No. 3790 (CUP Tracking No. 2001-04353). In the event that the off-site landscaping is removed, revised landscape plans shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval for adeguate screening • from the residential properties to the west. 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 shall not be mulched or allowed to compost on-sife. Plant debris shall be removed on a weekly basis between June and October. Plant debris shall be removed within 30 days the remainder of the year. At no time shall any plant material or equipment be visible above the fence line. 16. That signage shall 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 required parking area shall be used for outdoor storage uses. 18. That the petitioner shall submif a waste diversion and recycling plan fo the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division for review and approval. Any trash and/or recycling containers stored on-site shall be located behind the office building and not visible to the public right-of-way. 19. That subject use permit shall expire six (6) months from the date of this resolution. • 04-09-01 Page 5 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 20. That subject property shaii be developed and maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1, Revision No. 1 of Conditional Use Permit No. 3790 (CUP Tracking No. 2001-04353) and as conditioned herein. 21. That Condition Nos. 3, 4, 13, 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 findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. C ~ • SR1097TW.DOC 04-09-01 Page 6 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1-C. a) CEQA EXEMPTION - SECTION 15061(b)(3) b) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00393 c) THE DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-1 (SPN TRACKING NO. 2001-00012) d) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4078 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001-04356)_ Robert H. Shelton, Anaheim Center for Entertainment, LLC, 30 Calle del Sur, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688, request to consider initiation of (a) a General Plan Amendment, (b) an Amendment to The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1, (c) an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 4078, and other related zoning actions, regarding development of Pointe"Anaheim. The project site consists of approximately 29.1 acres located between Harbor Boulevard and Clementine Street, and Disney Way and Katella Avenue; and is further described as 400 West Disney Way, 1737 South Clementine Street, 1755 South Clementine Street, 1700 South Harbor Boulevard, 301- 311 West Katella Avenue, and 401-409 West Katella Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun , and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the proposed project falls within the definition of a CEQA Categorical Exemption Section 15061(b)(3). ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve initiation of applications for a General Plan • Amendment, an Amendment to The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92- 1, an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 and such other zoning actions as may be appropriate in connection with the proposed modifications to the Pointe*Anaheim project, for the 11.24 acres of the project area shown on Attachment 1 to the staff report dated April 9, 2001, and more specifically described as the 1.35-acre City parcel, the 1.02-acre Ursini parcel, and the 8.87-acre Pyrovest Anaheim Plaza Hotel parcel. Approved Initiated applications for General Pian Amendment and Amendment to The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1, an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 and other zoning actions as may be appropriate in connection with proposed modifications to the Pointe*Anaheim project. SR7968AS.DOC Chairperson Koos stated that for Item No. 1-C, one piece of correspondence dated March 12, 2001, was received from the law firm representing one owner for that item. • 04-09-01 Page 7 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1-D. Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of March 26, 2001. Approved (with correction to page 20, paragraph 6 and a correction to Mr. Kahng's name on Item No. 5). ~ • 04-09-01 Page 8 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved RECLASSIFICATION 2001-00046 Granted, unconditionally VARIANCE NO. 2001-04431 Granted TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2000-233 Approved (SUBTPM 2000-233) (Vote: 7-0) OWNER: Bruce H. Dohrman and Sheliy R. Dohrman, 711 East Imperial Highway, Suite #200, Brea, CA 92821 LOCATION: 1253 North State College Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.77 acres located 650 feet north of the centerline of Romneya Drive. Reclassification No. 2001-00046. Request reclassification of subject property from RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) to RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) or a less intense zone. Variance No. 2001-04431. Waiver of (a) minimum depth of lot adjacent to an arterial highway and (b) minimum lot frontage to establish a four-lot single- family residential subdivision. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2000-00233. To establish a four-lot single-family residential subdivision. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-37 VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-38 SR1095TW.DOC ~ ~ Introduction by Staff: Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item as a request for Reclassification, request for Variance and a Tentative Parcel Map for property located at 1253 North State College Boulevard. Applicant's Statement: Bruce Dohrman, 711 Imperial Highway, applicant of the property. He reviewed staff's comments and was in agreement. He asked for clarification of requirement to furnish a maintenance agreement for the block wall along State College Boulevard. The City purchased about 1000 feet of property from previous owner and contiguous owners, the property is located by the 91 Freeway and State College Boulevard and is part of the City's widening of State College Boulevard. He believes the City is going to install curb/sidewalk/gutter and new wall along property line. He spoke with the Engineering Department in charge of street widening and the original intent was that the City would restore the driveway and existing chain link fence. The applicant has asked that this not be done and install a block wall instead. It is still unknown if this will be done. If they do, he would ask that they take care of the maintenance because the City owns the property in front of the block wall and the landscaping. 04-09-01 Page 9 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristo! commented that on the site plan location map provided, the street light and fire hydrant are turned around. Mr. Dohrman indicated it will be changed. Greg McCafferty stated that regarding the conditions on page 7 of the staff report for Item No. 1-B, the Public Works Department indicated they do not need that condition, so staff recommended deleting it. Regarding Condition No. 4, he clarified the covenant would pertain only to Lot No. 4 where the existing single-family home is now for maintenance of wall and landscaping. Staff recommended changing Condition No. 6 by deleting reference to Condition No. 1. Commissioner Boydstun asked if staff wanted to add utility to the easement in Condition No. 2. To clarify Condition No. 2 that it is a Public Utilities easement. Mr. Dohrman asked about Condition No. 4 the maintenance block wall agreement (a maintenance covenant), if this is only in regard to Lot No. 4 also on that parcel map. He is in agreement with the maintenance agreement required. Feels this is premature, property contiguous and their frontage was purchased 1%z years ago for street widening. This area is included in a widening curb/gutter/sidewalk and landscaping plan. He is not sure whether the City or private homeowners will maintain it. If language can be agreed on that it is necessary that the homeowner will be installing and maintaining this, just want clarification from Public Works regarding the frontage on Item No. 4. Natalie Meeks, Public Works Department. Public Works Department purchased a portion of frontage of this property along State College Boulevard for the street-widening project. At this point, Public Works does not have plans to construct a wall, so the house would remain. There is an option of fronting this house on State College Boulevard as it is now, and continuing to have the driveway, which would not • work well if a block wall was across it. She indicated the applicant could install a new block wall across his properties and this one would be independent if he chooses to put a block wall there and change access to that property. Mr. Dohrman asked if the City would install landscape and maintain that area if it widens State College Boulevard and decides to reinstall the existing chainlink fence instead of installing the driveway? Ms. Meeks indicated the City would maintain any landscaping that they install along State College Boulevard. The project calls for tree wells, which will be put in along the City's street project, and the City would maintain these. City will not maintain any other additional landscaping, screen walls or anything that would be required. Mr. Dohrman indicated he would agree with Condition No. 4. Commissioner Boydstun indicated the need for a condition to have a block wall along that side. Commissioner Boydstun stated it says "existing" so there is a need to have it changed. Mr. Dohrman stated that it is a proposed block wall along the frontage. Greg McCafferty stated this is not a requirement of the Code. If the applicant ultimately decides to take access off State College Boulevard, the wall would not be practical. As long as it says "proposed" on exhibit, it is at the election of the property owner if they want to construct it. If they do construct a wall, it should be appropriately landscaped to prevent gra~ti. Commissioner Bristol asked the applicant if he intends to take access off State College Boulevard? This • should be specific. 04-09-01 Page 10 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Dohrman stated no, he will terminate that access and take it off Rosewood. The property currently has access off State College Boulevard and this was not withdrawn when the City purchased the frontage. He agrees with Commissioner Bristol. Commissioner Boydstun stated if the City bought property, it is up to the City to do what they want to do as far as landscaping is concerned. Ms. Meeks stated the City did not buy the whole property, just enough to widen street along State College Boulevard. She indicated the wall would be on private property right behind the right-of-way. If someone constructed a block wall, it would be behind the sidewalk on private property. Commissioner Boydstun asked if it states "proposed" on the plans, is it required? Greg McCafferty stated Code does not require a block wall there. If they are taking access off Rosewood, it is good planning sense to have a wall along the side lot line so that there is only access off Rosewood. From a planning perspective, if they are not going to take access of State College Boulevard, they should have a wall there and the wall should be landscaped to eliminate graffiti. Commissioner Boydstun asked Ms. Meeks if the driveway will be put back when they take City right-of- way? Ms. Meeks stated the plans currently show leaving/reconstructing that driveway back at the new curb line. She indicated she has had discussions with the property owner about eliminating that driveway if he chooses to and the City would just continue the curblgutter and sidewalk if he chose to relocate his driveway. That is not part of project right now. • Commissioner Boydstun stated they are now planning to put the driveway back in. Ms. Meeks indicated that is the way the project is planned right now. Commissioner Boydstun indicated once the City curb and sidewalks it without a driveway, they are not going to let them go back and curb cut there. Ms. Meeks indicated for the City to have done that, they would need to have purchased the access rights from the property, which the City did not do. Greg McCafferty advised if access to State College Boulevard is relinquished to the City of Anaheim, a block wall should be constructed along that north property line for Lot 4? Commissioner Boydstun agreed. Greg McCafferty clarified to petitioner that Item No. 2 is the east property line not the north property line. ~ 04-09-01 Page 11 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • • ~ ~- • • • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 2001-00046, unconditionally. Granted Variance No. 2001-04431 for waivers pertaining to (a) minimum depth of lot adjacent to an arterial highway and (b) minimum lot width to estabiish a 4-lof single-family residential subdivision. Adding the following condition: 12. That should access to State College Boulevard be relinquished to the City of Anaheim, a block wall and landscaping shall be constructed along the east property line of Lot 4 of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2000-233. Modifying Condition No. 9 to read: 9. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 12, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in • accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 2000-00233 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report with the following modifications: Correction to introductory Tentative Parcel Map paragraph on page 7 of the staff report, dated April 9, 2001, to read: "Tentative Parcel Map No. 2000-233". Deleted Condition No. 1. Amended Condition Nos. 2, 4 and 6 to read as follows: 2. That the legal property owner shail provide the City of Anaheim with a public utilities easement across the property to be determined as electrical design is completed. 4. That prior to final parcel map approval, a maintenance covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division and Zoning Division for review and approval providing for the maintenance of the biock wall and landscaping abutting State College Boulevard. The covenant shall only pertain to Lot 4 and shall be recorded concurrently with the final map. 6. That prior to final tract map approval, Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, above- mentioned, shall be complied with. • 04-09-01 Page 12 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Added the following condition: That if access to State College Boulevard is relinquished to the City of Anaheim, a block wall and landscaping shall be constructed along the east property line of Lot 4. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 12 minutes (1:36-1:48) • • 04-09-01 Page 13 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4125 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000-04339) OWNER: Robertson Properties Group, Attn: Mark Miiler, 120 North Robertson, Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048-3102 AGENT: James Beam, 3745 West Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA 92868 LOCATION: 2150 South State Coilege Boulevard. Property is approximately 8.48 acres on the south side of Orangewood Avenue, located 280 feet south of the centerline. Request reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (approved on June 21, 1999 to expire June 21, 2001) to retain an outdoor swap meet facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-39 Approved Approved reinstatement for 1 year (to expire on Aprii 9, 2002) (Vote: 6-1, Commissioner Bostwick voting no) SR1096TW.DOC • Introduction by Staff: Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 3, Conditional Use Permit No. 4125 and CUP Tracking No. 2001-04339, for property at 2150 South State College Boulevard, this is a request by petitioner to reinstate an outdoor swap meet. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Statement: Mark Miller, Director of Real Estate, Robinson Property Group, the in-house representative for the swap meet and theaters and the original representative for the swap meet when they received the CUP 18 months ago. They are asking for an extension of the CUP. They undertook $800,000 to $900,000 worth of improvements to the property, according to conditions of the original CUP, including but not limited to landscaping, paving, fencing, off-site traffic mitigation's and other items, including police-oriented items which were of concern to Council and Commission. Things are running smoothly, there are no formal complaints by neighbors. They have been working with City of Orange staff to define a vision for the future development of that area, including property. Twelve monfhs after the original CUP was approved, they worked with City of Orange's consultants and staff to decide long term use for the site as this use is an interim use. In the meantime, they have to maintain property, pay taxes; and the swap meet allows them to pay for these items. His job is to find the alternative uses for long term development. Four and a half years ago a proposal was submitted to use the entire property as a CarMax Auto Super Store, however this was denied by the City of Orange. Subsequent to that, they worked with a number of users and developers to find alternative uses but none worked out, so they continue to work with the City of Orange to find out what they want. Their vision study was completed six to eight months ago, they are making some revisions to that study now, he is working with them to find what changes they may or may • not want to make. They will consider anything economically viable and anything that is acceptable to both cities. He is requesting a two-year extension. 04-09-01 Page 14 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked Mr. Miller to explain what City of Orange's interests are. Due to the property's proximity to the Stadium, the City of Anaheim has a different perspective on urgency for use to be determined. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked applicant if he couid get a letter from the City in response to what he has presented to them? Mr. Miller indicated the letter was at their request, they wanted the City of Anaheim to know that they have been working with the City of Orange to find a long term future use, but they want to do what both cities want. Unfortunately they have to take direction from one city or both, in this case the City of Orange has taken somewhat of a lead because the majority of the property is in the City of Orange. Of the 19 to 20 acres, 12 acres are in Orange, their acreage is adjacent to the freeway. Orange took the lead last fime and they continue to follow that lead. Chairperson Koos asked about long-range plans, how big is project area that they are looking at for this specific plan? Mr. Miller stated it is much larger than their property, he understands that there may be an attempt to combine this project area with another project area. It could include the old Cinedome Theater, hotels, CalTrans properties, it could be as much as 40 or 50 acres. The original vision designed was at least 40 to 45 acres. Chairperson Koos asked what role Mr. Miller plays in the development of that vision. He owns maybe 20% of the project area, he should have a role in developing that area. • Mr. Miller indicated they submitted what they felt was an economically viable, long-term and a good project to the City. They embraced some of their suggestions and others had some slightly different ideas. There was an opportunity to present their vision. They met with the City of Orange's consultants on many occasions. Chairperson Koos asked how Anaheim's Stadium Area Master Plan fit in with the Orange plan, or what is being developed in Orange if at all, and how does Mr. Miller see them integrating? Chairperson Koos stated we have a plan that is two years old, if Mr. Miller were two separate property owners we would be pushing whoever owned the property in Anaheim to develop it. We have identified this area to be the gateway to our Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan, The Gateway Park. Two years ago, as part of our decision making process, we allowed the interim use to occur, because we did not have the off ramps ~nished, did not have circulation worked out and that is part of the findings we made two years ago. Now it is pretty clear, this is now a big vacant lot right in the gateway of our Stadium area. Are you saying that we should just wait until Orange figures out what they want to do until we implement the piece of our plan? Mr. Miller stated the vision study was completed six months ago, but it is his understanding that there were some significant changes in land uses and potential land uses within the City of Orange. Also, some transportation issues may have altered what they originally thought was appropriate there. He has not been made aware of those conversations and decisions subsequent to the approval of the originat vision, which was in fact a low-rise office/campus with hospitality supplementing it. He does not know what direction they are going in now. He has met with a subsequent consultant who is looking at alternative uses, urban village type uses, mixed uses, just to determine if the changes that have occurred are the appropriate uses. Whether that is complimentary to the Stadium Overlay Zone or the Stadium Area, he cannot say. Chairperson Koos feels it should compliment Anaheim's plan. ~ 04-09-01 Page 15 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Miller indicated he would assume it is, they have addressed what they feel is appropriate for their property as far as the other three-quarters of the properties in the project area. Chairperson Koos indicated it sounds unsure as though Mr. Miller has no idea if he will be back in another fwo years for another interim permit. Mr. Miller stated that if the City of Orange tells them, and the City of Anaheim agrees, this is the use that should be here long term, then they could actively market and spend the money for pre-development. They have informed the City of Orange what they feel will work, what is viable today, what type of project could be built there today, and have taken a portion of that into consideration but it is not something that at this point Orange is embracing. Greg McCafferty was asked what kind of interaction was there between staff of Anaheim and Orange? He indicated that he and Greg Hastings met with Orange staff during last approval period. Some of this was in redevelopment, last he had heard they were to begin to comprehensively plan that area. He is not aware that the City of Orange has submitted any Environmental Impact Reports or land use plans to Anaheim Planning staff to look at. James Beam, Consultant, 3745 W, Chapman, Orange. Stated his conversation with Linda Bloom, Economic Development Director for the City of Orange, indicated she has been in communication with Anaheim, but he is unsure who she is speaking with in Anaheim. They, as property owners, know that whatever comes forward has to be in agreement with both cities and they will tell Orange they have to talk to Anaheim staff. Commissioner Bostwick indicated this is the appropriate thing to do. They need to have some economic liability of the property in the meantime. He recommended approval for a two-year extension. He also • requested staff work with the City of Orange to get some dialogue going between them, so they can bring something together that will fit with Anaheim's plan for the Stadium Area. Chairperson Koos concurred about an extension, however, he felt it should only be granted for one year not two. From a land use perspective in that area, he felt that vacant would be better than a marginally acceptable use. 7hat is a high profile area and there is a lot to change that image. Commissioner Bosfinrick stated this is true, but similar to the Anaheim drive-in site on Lemon, which took a number of years to finally come together with a tenant and proposal that was agreeable, there are two cities involved and more than 20 acres. This will not happen in a year. Two years is fine. Chairperson Koos concurred but they were already given two years. He feels that one year would send a clear message that something should be done. Commissioner Arnold agreed with Commissioner 8ostwick on the importance of providing opportunity for economic viability on the property, and noted that this is private property and the property owner is entitled to an economically viable use. He does not want to see the properry vacant and it is fine as a swap meet for interim use. He would be opposed to two years because he would like to see it come back. This is not a way of putting pressure on the owner, but keeping tabs on what is going on to insure some sort of progress toward a plan. If in a year there is progress, but it is not quite there, there would be two more months on the existing CUP, for a totai of fourteen. He is uncomfortable with 26 more months, but not for the reasons Chairperson Koos suggested. Chairperson Koos pointed out that April 9, 2001 is the expiration date. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked what are the hours of operation. Condition No. 14 page 6, limits the ~ hours of operation, based on what he has seen, some of the vendors come as early as Friday evening to set up. What are hours of operation, are they hours of use? 04-09-01 Page 16 APRI~ 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Miller replied that from the original approval, they would not be setting up prior to 6:00 a.m. or operating beyond 5:00 p.m. He does not think they would be selling anything at 6:00 or 6:30 a.m. Vendors would not be setting up prior to 6:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m., and are not selling at 6:00 or 6:30 a.m. Jay Swerdlow, Pacific Theaters, 120 North Robertson, Los Angeles. Vendors do set up. The actuai operation of the swap meet is 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Vendors set up in preparation for opening earlier. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if a vendor shows up early and claims a spot, can they then use that? Mr. Swerdlow indicated they reserve their spaces monthly. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if there is any benefit to arrive the Friday before? Mr. Swerdlow stated no. The only advantage to lining up early is for those who are not reserved. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if they would have any objection to language in the condition that requires that the lot remain vacant until 5:00 a.m. He indicated he drove by at 6:00 p.m. or 7:00 p.m. last Friday and there were vehicles setting up. Mr. Swerdlow stated that he believes there are vendors that might line up prior to 6:00 a.m., but cannot understand why they would be there on Friday night. He also stated language would be fine. Commissioner Bristol stated he can see both sides of the argument. About the length of time, it looks like another two years, so there could be a swap meet for half a decade. A number of changes have been • made on that street as a Gateway to the Stadium area. He agrees there has to be some economic value to the property, numerous people in Anaheim and elsewhere have infill projects that are vacant and would like to be able to put some use there. He still thinks this should be okay, he proposed a compromise of 18 months He went by there over the weekend when the swap meet was going on and it is very unsightly looking through chain link fence, he would like to see some decorative slats. Commissioner Vanderbilt agreed. Commissioner Bristol suggested 18 months instead of two years. Commissioner Bostwick indicated there is a conflict in that Condition No. 13 states no required parking area should be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage or other outdoor event. He knows the City does not want any storage on this property. With additional fencing this might create a target for graffiti, opens it up for other unwarranted activity to go on in there when the swap meet is not on and there is no way to monitor activities inside. He does not like the chainlink fence either, but it is temporary. Commissioner Bostwick indicated that there is nobody on site all the time, if you put something up there it is a target for graffiti, cars, etc. Greg McCafferty advised. they would like Condition No. 16 to be complied with within 30 days from the date of the resolution. Staff would like to modify Condition No. 17, as follows: "that this use permit is granted subject to Conditional Use Permit No. 2290-99 remaining as an entitlement on the property and that any changes, revisions, modifications, etc. to said Conditional Use Permit shall necessitate additional action by the Anaheim Planning Commission or City Council as determined to be necessary by the Anaheim Planning DepartmenY' and the rest remains the same. • 04-09-01 Page 17 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ~ • ~ ~~ ~ ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4125 (CUP Tracking No 2000-04339) for 1 year (to expire on April 9, 2001). Amended Resolution No. PC99-118 in its entirety and replaced with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: 1. That this permit shall expire one (1) year from the date of this resolution, on April 9, 2001. 2. That the applicant shall comply with all conditions imposed on this project by the City of Orange regarding traffic mitigation. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval showing conformance with the current versions of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. • 4. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum one (9 )-gallon sized clinging vines planted on maximum three (3)-foot centers or, tall shrubbery. 5. That an on-site trash truck turn-around area shall be provided and maintained in accordance with Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 and maintained to the Streets and Sanitation Division. 6. That the property owner or swap meet operator shall pay an annual fee for Police Department detectives to monitor the activities of the sellers and patrons within the City of Anaheim portion of this property. The number of detectives, hours of monitoring and annual fee costs shall be determined by the Burglary Detail of the Anaheim Police Department. 7. That no signage and no Special Event Permits shall be permitted within the City of Anaheim portion of this property. 8. That the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall not be permitted on the City of Anaheim portion of this property. • 04-09-01 Page 18 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 9. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall not exceed twelve (12) feet in height and shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonable illuminate the window areas of adjacent land uses. 10. That trees shall not be unreasonably trimmed to allow increased visibility of the swap meet facility. 11. That no amplified (i.e., loud speakers) music or entertainment shall be permitted on the premises; and that noise levels shall comply with Code requirements. 12. That all vendors shall comply with California State law regarding the sale of aerosol spray paint. The property owner shall be responsible for compliance with this condition. 13. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage or other outdoor uses. 14. That the hours of operation and occupation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays, the day after Thanksgiving and during the week before Christmas, with customer hours ending at 4:00 p.m. and trash clean-up and vendor display/vehicle removal concluded by 6:00 p.m., . as stipulated to by the petitioner. 15. That no loading/unloading what-so-ever shall be permitted on Orangewood Avenue or State College Boulevard. 16. That within 30 days from the date of this resolution, the owner of this property shall submit a letter to the Zoning Division requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 4036 (to permit an automotive sales lot with accessory service/repair facilities and two 10-foot high, 150 square foot monument signs and with waiver of required parking lot landscaping, permitted location of freestanding signs, maximum sign width and minimum sight distance requirements); Conditional Use Permit No. 3842 (to establish swap meet operations on the City of Anaheim portion of the Orange Drive-In Theater); Variance No. 4158 (to waive required lot frontage in order to establish a two-lot commercial/office subdivision); Conditional Use Permit No. 3106 (to permit and govern the construction of one 18-story commercial office building and parking structure in Anaheim and two 10-story and two 18-story buildings in Orange); and Conditional Use Permit No 1144 (to establish a drive-in theater to be used periodically as a swap meet facility with waiver of maximum fence height, building setback, maximum number of freestanding signs, minimum distance between freestanding signs, maximum sign area and permitted location of freestanding signs). 17. That this use permit is granted subject to Conditional Use Permit No. 2290- 99 remaining as an entitlement on the property; and that any changes, revisions, modifications, etc., to said use permit shall necessitate additional • action by the Anaheim Planning Commission or City Council, as determined to be necessary by the Anaheim Planning Department. Conditional Use 04-09-01 Page 19 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Permit No. 4125 (subject conditional use permit) shall be contingent upon compliance with all conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2290-99. 18. That if any of the conditions of approval of this conditional use permit (such as required trash enclosures) are provided entirely on the portion of this facility tocated within the City of Orange and that plans are submitted to and approved by the City of Orange showing those improvements, a copy of those approved plans shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim Zoning Division and filed with this petition (Conditional Use Permit No. 4125). Said approved plans will satisfy the applicable conditions in this use permit. 19. That the developer shall be responsible for compliance and any direct costs associated with the conditions of approval imposed by the City of Orange and the City of Anaheim 20. That the business operator shall pay for a fee for each individual vendor located within the City of Anaheim on a monthly basis as determined by the City of Anaheim Business License Division of the Finance Department. 21. That the vendor sales area is subject to Fire Code requirements which pertain to access lane widths and minimum spacing between canopies. Approval of this conditional use permit does not guarantee a minimum number of vendors. Fire Code requirements may reduce the number below that shown on the approved site plan (Exhibit No. 1). • 22. That all gates on State College Boulevard shall be open at all times when the property is occupied and shall be closed when the premises are vacated. The gate on Orangewood Avenue shall be open only for vendor use and shall be closed at all other times when not in use by vendors. 23. That subject property shall be developed and maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1; and as conditioned herein. 24. That the use of overhead power lines shall be prohibited. 25. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-1 (Commissioner Bostwick voted no). DISCUSSION TIME: 29 minutes (1:57-2:26) • 04-09-01 Page 20 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 32 4b. CONDITtONAI. USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04338 OWNER: Mayo Family Trust, Alvin Mayo Trustee 2450 White Road, Irvine, CA 92614 AGENT: Armet, David, Newlove Architects, Attn: Victor Newlove, 1330 Olympic Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90404 LOCATION: 1074 North Tustin Avenue. Property is approximately 1.42 acres located 350 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. To construct two drive-through, fast food restaurants. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. introduction by Staff: Continued to May 21, 2001. SR7944KB.DOC Meeting began with Chairperson Koos advising that there were a number of comment cards for Item No. 4. The staff is recommending a continuance as they want more opportunity to review the developer's plans that that was submitted at the end of last week, and to review traffic circulation issues along Tustin Avenue and on-site itself. There will be more information at the meeting this is continued to, the staff • report will be amended to reflect the new information and it wil{ be more appropriate to return with all the new information. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated to the public that he feels Commission is not opposing the development, they are interested in preserving the existing use. Planning Commission's purpose is to make some determination about the proposed use. Page 5 of the staff report lists findings that the Planning Commission is to make with regard to the proposed project. When comments are made, state them in such a way that it covers proposed use, not current use. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 4, Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04338, property located at 1074 N. Tustin Avenue, a request to construct two drive-through restaurants. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Statement: Dino Savant, 3333 Michelson #550, Irvine stated he was present on behalf of Mr. Mayo and Mr. de Carion. They have been working with City staff on this project and has worked diligently to come up with every solution that they can so the desires and concerns of staff are met and heard. They prefer this item not be continued, they are looking for a land use approval and if Commission would like to continue item based on architectural designs, they would rather have those set forth as conditions and brought before staff. Chairperson Koos stated there are traffic circulation issues and they can discuss those issues today. He cannot guarantee that it will not be continued, but they can address the issues. ~ 04-09-01 Page 21 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Savant stated he would like to go through those issues today. He has been dealing with this for 1%z years now, with staff and the Redevelopment Agency to come up with standards that they would like to s e e. T h e r e i s n o c l e a r d i r e c t i o n f r o m s t a ff a s t o t h e a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e s i g n t h e y w o u l d l i k e t o s e e. H e d o e s not know where to go, what to do. He asked for Planning Commission's comments and suggestions. Mr. Savant gave a PowerPoint presentation explaining their proposal. Tustin Avenue above the 91 Freeway, project sits on 62,000 square feet of land. It only has two uses on it, one is EI Pollo Loco Restaurant, using 2,915 square feet of building space, and they will have a drive-through. Starbucks takes 1,838 square feet of building space. The project as it sits is pushed back from the street about 20 feet. One request from staff as well as Redevelopment, is to try to put drive-throughs in the rear of projects to hide them from the view of the street. They feel they have accomplished that because Starbucks in rear, EI Pollo Loco drive-through starts in rear and ends up in front. By pushing back the project, an extra ten feet of landscaping, they were able to put berms in front of the landscape and hide the drive-through along the front and side. Parking ratio displayed, and they are over parked at 110% of what is currently required. He presented a 3-D image of the building, the current building and actual street elevation. Implemented into the picture is the Starbucks Restaurant as well as the EI Pollo Loco. There is 20 feet of landscaping along the front, with the berms and trees it fully covers the drive-through. The car pictured coming out of the drive-through, they used an S.U.V. height vehicle so Commission can see exactly what is covered. In comparison to a Chevy Suburban or Ford Expedition height. A standard car would be much lower. Redevelopment liked the original elevations, but staff did not and encouraged them to do something better. Staff indicated they did not want to see a prototypical building. They worked with EI Pollo Loco and Starbucks Corporate Offices for approval for deviation on the standard prototypes. Staff did not feel that this was something they would look for. In comparison with Anaheim Hills EI Pollo Loco, the building cannot be used due to changes. [Slide 7 of 19] Starbucks [Slide 8 of 19] tried to tie the projects together, in design. Slide 9 of 19 shows surrounding • property, Home Expo, next door to that is Catelleus project, Taco Be41 [Slide 11 of 19], standard basic design, view from street, buffered landscape but they have their drive-through window on the street. Carl's Jr., a tie-in building ties in with our design. Their drive-through sits on the street, not hidden by landscaping. Building to south [Slide 17 of 19] shows no uniformity of building facades to "tie in" to the landscape. To find something acceptable to staff and redevelopment, they think they have appeased concerns and desires af staff and redevelopment and would like to go forward, request some sort of land use approval with conditions set forth on the architectural design that would allow them time. Some staff comments were that they would like to review the full floor plan from Starbucks. This was never given to them or they would have tried to get it in. Commissioner Bristol asked if there were traffic studies completed on this project. Mr. Savant indicated there was not. Alfred Yalda explained that the traffic study was not required for this site as it was an existing site. Staff felt it was only one driveway, but that it is a very busy street. They spoke with applicant 1 to 1%2 years ago and suggested looking into additional access to the south and north. When the operator comes and looks at the site and sees the difficulty of vehicles getting in and exiting, they complain to the City about their business losses, due to people not being able to get in, they do try to address these issues before it is built. Congestion on-site is a concern. He suggested they work with the neighbors to the south and north for additional access on site. Mr. Savant stated they were asked to talk to property owners on either side, other owners said they were not able to tie in with the light for the Home Expo, that they are upset with City, that they tried to get access across their property south and north. The same person controls the land lease to the south of • them and owns the property to the north of them. They sat on three separate occasions to try to get the project integrated with their projects and they said no, they did not need to do that at that time. 04-09-01 Page 22 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • He aiso stated he met with Mr. Yalda again and informed him what had taken place, this was another reason they pushed the landscaping back, so that the entrance would be 25 feet of ingress/egress. Commissioner Bristol felt Tustin Avenue to the 91 Freeway is the busiest area in the City, the success of the center across the street is also helping to make that street even busier. When standing on the property to the south at the right hand turn lane, there is no indication of what vehicles are to do, no stop, no stop painted on driveway, no light, but there is a big "No U-turn" sign. Although, a U-turn is permitted in left turn lane, if going southbound on Tustin. Phil deCarion, 543 Emerald Bay, Laguna Beach. His partner AI Mayo and he have owned this property since 1977 (formerly Bessie Walls). Something about that property that does not lend itself well to an ordinary situation. The problem is that they would like to do something with the property, they have owned it for almost 25 years and have not maximized their money on it. Mr. Criss cannot afford to buy it at this time, which leaves them with the alternative of trying to do something else. He has worked with the City to try to come to a conclusion of what to do in a tasteful manner for serving the community. Valens Hernandez, 8829 Swallow Avenue in Capistrano Valley. She stated that all ages group, all kinds of people, community center, not one group, not one interest, and that Memories Dance Club is not just about swing dancing, it is a learning center for all kinds. Memories is trying to give them something worthwhile to do, it is a good place, a safe place. It is more than dancing, there are workshops, activities, live bands, and the biggest thing is not to limit Orange County. Mo Jones stated Memories is a place where you are transformed to another place, another era. There are many Starbucks, but there is only one Memories building. It is a different atmosphere in there, a place they call home. Commission should discuss what can become of the property. Commission mentioned • Findings 22e and 22a of the staff report, traffic and well being of the City of Anaheim. This is a society of two family incomes and young people have no place to go. He is a teacher at Memories, watching children grow up to find a love that will stay with them. Young people go there after school and are among non-drug users, no criminals. Moms and dads upstairs look at their children downstairs in wonderment. They can do this at another location, but they do not want to leave Memories. He submitted approximately 168 e-mails and 12 letters, most say do not close Memories. They are from people from all over the country, even those who have not visited it. It is a boys and girls club for the whole family. Everyone knows each other there. You will not find this at any other club. It is an all ages swing club. The building is an artwork. There is history in this building. He spoke to Mr. Criss three years ago about a workshop in Orange County, there is a Saturday lesson, the 48`h workshop with 210 children, adults, and grandparents to 100. In a letter from Ron Knotts, Transportation Planner in the City of Anaheim, he has not done a study in this area, traffic there is very hectic, lives are risked going in and out of there, they do it though seven nights a week. Jack Smith, PO Box 402, Burbank, California. He agrees with Mr. Mo Jones that the Commission has a responsibility to the community. His son was troubled until he found Memories, now he is safe and there are no problems. There are traffic concerns in and out of there during the day that Commission should look into. If you allow two restaurants it will be worse. Most of Memories traffic is later in the evening. Much more conducive to the street. The left turn pocket going into the property and into Memories, is a hazard, if there are U-turns there and traffic coming out of the property, this needs to be addressed, there needs to be a major traffic study conducted. A signal light is the only thing that would work. Yet if it is busy, the light is useless. There are 135 signatures of support of Memories. • 04-09-01 Page 23 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Terry Wylie, 2912 Wellsey Court, Fullerton. He is a Board Member of the West Coast Swing Dance Club and is affiliated with several clubs, over 682 members. The traffic situation needs to be seriously looked at, lots of work going into this project on the other side. Traffic will not vary, it is chaos at rush hour. Memories is a destination, people drive in one to six hours, there is a separate exit for them. During this time, there is not a constant traffic flow, not normally during rush hours. He said he speaks for 1,000 people. Charles McAbee, 429 W. Amerige, Fullerton. He teaches at Fullerton College, he is a swing dancer, 20 years ago. He was 100 Ibs. heavier and out of shape. This place has helped him and his son. These customers are not taking drugs. It is a nation of fast food, be creative, find another way. It can be done. Traffic situation, he goes to Carl's' turns right from La Palma to get to Memories, you have to cross four lanes of traffic, it is dangerous. They brave it because they want to be at Memories. Turning right onto Tustin from La Palma, there will be a lot of broadsided motorists. Northbound over the freeway, come down too fast, to turn right there, you will see the fast food hidden with foliage or not. Accidents will happen. Eldon Dvorak, Ph.D., 9834 Lewis Avenue, Fountain Valley. He has a Ph.D. in economics, ballrooms dance studios, people teach at Memories that he knows. He has a letter to Mr. Mo Jones addressing the article, (letter read). Karen Kaye, 2955 Champion Way #98, Tustin Ranch, offered another perspective. Memories is their playground and community center. It is a nationally known for swing and other partner dancing, the club provides tourist revenue. People fly in from all over the country to dance. A Starbucks or EI Pollo will add tax revenue, but only serves the local population, not value to the community, rather than another repeat of what is considered light design or strip mall centers, which already cover every street corner as it is. She asked Commission to take the position that benefits the Anaheim community, deny the request to • convert Memories into a strip mall. Focus on businesses that are not aimed at revenue, recognize the need for businesses that are not aimed at profit, but instead give back to the community art, dancing, music. Michael Morris, Riverside, California. The Taco Bell across the street is difficult getting in and out of. He is concerned about driving down Tustin Avenue toward the 91 Freeway East, crossing the island, into a fast food place, having to clear three lanes, make a U-turn and get on the freeway. He concurs with others, does not want to shed heritage for fast food. He does not think that people would notice Starbucks/EI Pollo Loco if driving toward La Palma Avenue. Chairperson Koos reminded audience about repetitiveness. Brandon Grumbaum, 10302 Monitor Drive, Huntington Beach, is a DJ/dance instructor at Memories. He has been on the lot at Memories every single hour of the day. He spoke about the driveway and traffic. He has waited ten minutes to get out of the driveway and someone else steals his spot in traffic and then waits ten more minutes. As the traffic is piling up at La Palma, moving the driveway down will jam it elsewhere instead of where it is. Moving the driveway will not change the current traffic congestion. He feels the Anaheim City Seal is an accurate portrayal of Memories, farmland and an adobe house. He asked that Commission preserve this place. Lisa Kirsten, 3400 Marcus Avenue, Newport Beach. The City is not interested in the traffic issue, but the Community Development Department was interested in this being a historical landmark. She knows the City has offered to help by moving the building, but feels that will destroy integrity of that site. She knows a lot of people who go there. Devon Daries, Riverside, California. The owner would like to sell and make the most that he can, they ~ have someone who wants to buy the business, it is zoned for a restaurant, they would like it re-zoned for commercial use. He can afford it as a restaurant, but wants commercial use out of it by selling to 04-09-01 Page 24 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Starbucks and EI Pollo Loco. He has a potential buyer right now. They have a dance floor there, if it is moved it will have to be completely rebuilt. There is no guarantee that if it is moved they will find the dance floor, plus they have a buyer and a seller. Terry Wylie had one last question for staff regarding a survey, he asked if the Commission would have staff survey how many restaurants and fast food places are within 1%2 mile radius of Memories and maybe that would help with the decision of what is going on the site. He does not feel that the feasibility study would support this area. Mr. Savant stated that in speaking with Mr. Yalda and Greg McCafferty, a concern is the ingress/egress at the mouth of the property, to alleviate the concerns as they are overparked by eight stalls, they will try to take away the front two stalls on Starbucks side of the plan to alleviate any further congestion. Alfred Yalda stated the U-turn is allowed for southbound traffic at that traffic signal, and it is a protected U- turn. Southbound Tustin at the intersection of Expo a U-turn is allowed. Commissioner Bristol asked about the traffic going right up Tustin Avenue from the property south? Alfred Yalda replied the people who have the green light have the right-of-way, not the people exiting the driveway, they have their own signal light. Commissioner Bristol stated he did not see a signal light there. Alfred Yalda responded not at the driveway, but at the driveway that has the signal light. With additional access and provided easement, that will eliminate congestion anticipated to be there as they could go back and forth and utilize the signal more. • Chairperson Koos asked Mr. Yalda what triggers the need for a traffic study. Alfred Yalda stated traffic studies are triggered when properties generate over 100 trips during the peak hour, either a.m. or p.m. peak. Chairperson Koos asked if this is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers?. Alfred Yalda stated that is correct, in this case peak hours are 83 trips for this site. Chairperson Koos asked if this is based on a cumulative of both square footages? Alfred Yalda stated he would check and comment. Commissioner Arnold indicated there are a couple of uses that are being disagreed upon. He lives in the general vicinity and tends to think that both swing dancing and Starbucks are good for the area. This is a situation typically seen before the Commission that they cannot force a landowner to keep a property dedicated to a particular use if it is not economically feasible. There are some serious questions whether this property can support a use with increased intensity of traffic. The current use is not turning out to be economically viable in comparison with other proposed uses. It seems to serve some real public value as a kind of community center feel, historic structure, and recreational entertainment center. That serves some very significant purposes in some ways. Perhaps as with building sports facilities where kids can play basketball and so forth and not be out on the street, and where people can come together. Is there any sense that the City has carefully studied this as far as how they evaluate those public benefits? Is there any plan with respect to the property, the structure? • 04-09-01 Page 25 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Brad Hobson, Deputy Director Community Development, stated they have not specifically looked at the current use in that building. From a land use perspective, it is the Canyon Industrial area, the most intense area of the Canyon industrial Project area. They would certainly like to see a sit down restaurant in that area, the place shuts down in the evening. They have resigned themselves to Starbucks, high quality fast food, as long as it is appropriate from a traffic perspective. The use serving the area, which is the main goal, 2,400-acre contiguous industrial area, is consistent with the Redevelopment Plan. When the issue with regard to the old Bessie Walls building was brought to their attention, they did begin to look at feasibility of building, is it historic? Moving it? Relocating is? What would that use be? They are still assessing if all of it or parts of it can be moved as there are numerous additions on that building. They have not sat down with the business owners to talk about their particular interests or desires, he heard that they may want to buy it. Short of being a public facility, he would not say there is a mechanism there to preserve this existing use even with the support it appears to have. Commissioner Arnold stated part of what he is saying is due to its location in the Canyon Industrial Area, it would not be a prime target for being a public facility, that they typically might not think of it as a community center and yet, there seems to be some evidence it serves something of that function even though privately operated. He stated that perhaps maybe this broad philosophical question cannot be answered today. He asked if there is any possibility, given its proximity to the middle east/west it is sort of at the south end of the corridor, whether it could be thought of as connecting to the broader Anaheim community? Mr. Hobson stated they had not looked or thought of it that way, they certainly will. At this point, their recommendation would be to support the industrial users out there, that is why it is in a Redevelopment Project Area. The Agency has invested over $100 million dollars over the last decade in that area to support entitlements out there and the jobs that are developed in that area. He will talk to operator and find out what his needs are and if there are alternative locations. It sounds like a fine operation. • Regardless of what the ultimate use on the site perhaps, if there is a chance that the building may be demolished, they are interested in saving the building, maybe even in another location. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that regarding the southbound left turn off Tustin that they assume many people would try to make to get into the property, looking at it from a safety issue, when a car would go left into property as it exists now, they are not having to make a compfete U-turn, its more of a tight left turn or a left turn with a greater angle to get into the existing driveway. Alfred Yalda stated the driveway is too close to the intersection, but it is not for that signal. The signal is for the other property that functions, not that driveway. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if it was reasonable to think people going southbound on Tustin are making that kind of a turn. Alfred Yalda stated yes, but they are proposing to change the driveway to move the driveway 68 feet southerly, so it will be off of the actual signal location. The existing driveway will be closer than what they are proposing now to the driveway that is served by the signal now. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that assuming that EI Pollo Loco and Starbucks worked with the existing driveway, would he say this is a safer turn now than it would be by moving? Alfred Yalda indicated he thinks this is why they recommended moving the driveway as far as possible, so there would not be confusion that that driveway is also served by the signal. The driveway that is served by the signal is the driveway south of that. ~ 04-09-01 Page 26 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Vanderbilt indicated to people making a"hairpin" turn and quick right, it seems more complicated and dangerous than a gentler U-turn because the of where the driveway exists now. Is it safer the way it is proposed or the way it exists? Alfred Yalda stated when the turn is made, it is safe because the northbound traffic is stopped, so that is a "free" turn, when you make a left or U-turn. The northbound traffic is stopped when you are southbound making either a left or U-turn, the turn is safe. Commissioner Bristol stated that during the peak hour if vehicles are making a U-turn, it is a possibility they are stacked all the way back to the site and with the right turn, northbound Tustin from the south property, there is nothing there to stop those vehicles from making a right-hand turn up that street. Between the signalized section and the U-turn, they could be stacked in that same area. Alfred Yalda stated that could happen during the p.m. peak hours, and that would be a vehicle blocking the intersection, which is in violation of vehicle code. Commissioner Bristol stated people complain about stacking beyond the 91 Freeway. It takes three or four signal lights to get to La Palma Avenue. He feels a traffic study is needed to be able to go further on this issue. That land use might be too intense for that intersection right now. Alfred Yalda addressed Chairperson Koos by stating that based on the traffic generated on this site, the applicant was not required to conduct a traffic study, however Commission can direct the applicant to do a traffic study. They did not request a traffic study as the p.m. peak hour did not meet the criteria needed for a traffic study. Commissioner Arnold asked if this is determined by square footage? ~ Alfred Yalda stated it is based on the square footage and the use, how many trips are generated. He uses the Institute of Transportation Engineer Trip Generation Manual for the whole City. The term is what the p.m. peak hours are generated by each type of use. Commissioner Arnold asked if this includes the fact that these are primarily drive-through type of facilities? Alfred Yalda stated this is correct, they look at restaurants as two types of restaurants, fast food without drive-through and fast food with drive-through. Commissioner Arnold indicated he understands this standard approach. It seems to him, from living in the area and driving on Tustin Avenue, there is something more going on with the traffic than the typical assumptions may provide. They do not want to burden applicants unduly, that is a problematic area in terms of traffic. This will intensify given the differences in hours of the tra~c going to this particular site given the proposed use versus the current use. Alfred Yalda stated if it is Commission's desire, they can request the applicant conduct a traffic study, that is a standard, the whole country uses to determine traffic generated during a.m./p.m. peak hours. Commissioner Boydstun stated this is in the middle of the block. Most fast food establishments are either on the corner or an area where there is a signal to let the traffic in and out, this is neither, and will create a worse traffic problem. Alfred Yalda replied not necessarily, sometimes these types of uses may not generate new trafFic to the area, but absorb some of the existing traffic that is already on the road traveling. . 04-09-01 Page 27 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Koos agreed but noted that the patterns of the street in that area creates complications where they normally might not. It is the distribution not the actual votumes there that are probably the key with this site in particular. Commissioner Bristol stated the applicant indicated they wanted a decision, that is not a good idea today. He is still in favor of a continuance regarding the traffic especially at peak hour. He feels there is something wrong at that whole area. It is one thing to have a use where someone drives there and stops and spends a few hours, versus coming and going in that area. Commissioner Bristol offered motion for a continuance to May 21, 2001, to allow the applicant sufficient time to conduct a traffic study, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun, vote taken and motion carried. Commissioner Vanderbilt added he is curious about circulation of traffic. The applicant mentioned working with the City for some time, he is not sure how many variations of parking plans they have gone through. He agreed with canceling out two of the western most parking spaces near the Starbucks as a compromise to alleviate the traffic that might be stacking up as cars are trying to enter into the property. He also mentioned that there were eight parking spaces over what is required, he wondered if they may consider in the parking study also, variations of eliminating even more of those parking spaces closest to the entrance that would make getting into the property much easier and therefore, not eliminating or reducing any risk that traffic might stack as cars try to turn right into the lot. Six weeks should allow su~cient time to discuss this. OPPOSITION: 182 documents, 168 e-mails, 12 letters, one petition with approximately 143 • signatures received in opposition, and one print out of the building history. 13 people spoke in opposition. ACTION: Continued subject request to May 21, 2001, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow staff sufficient time to review plans. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hours, 23 minutes, (2:27-3:50) ~ 04-09-01 Page 28 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04340 OWNER: Albert and Susan Shankle, 4214 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Nextel Communications, Attn: Chris Glass, 310 Commerce Drive, Irvine, CA 92602 LOCATION: 1150 North Richfield Road. Property is approximately 0.29 acres, located 450 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. To permit roof-mounted telecommunication antennas and an accessory ground-mounted equipment structure. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-40 ~ -.__I Introduction by Staff: Approved Granted SR7957KP.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 5, Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04340. For property located at 1150 North Richfield Road and this is a request to permit roof-mounted telecommunication antennas with the accessory ground-mounted equipment. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. ApplicanYs Statement: Chris Glass represents the applicant Nextel Communications. They agree with staff the report and all conditions of approval. Chairperson Koos indicated in the north elevation of photo simufation shows the building height as 5'8", 5'9", 5'10" tall, and a ten-foot screen. He asked if the simulation accurately reflects this? Mr. Glass feels it is accurate. The building is 30 feet in height, it looks about a quarter of the overall height and is usually scaled off well. Chairperson Koos stated it seems rather short. Mr. Glass stated the photo simulator is given the pictures and drawing copies and it is scaled off as best they can. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if there were any elevations available. Chairperson Koos stated yes. He asked Mr. Glass why 40 feet and not right above the parapet? Mr. Glass stated the building height is not very tall to begin with and they are trying to cover the 91 Freeway. They did provide RF propagation studies to the staff showing that they need the actual 40-foot height to provide sufficient coverage. 04-09-01 Page 29 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairperson Koos indicated the design is close to one at Tustin and La Palma Avenue. ~ Mr. Glass stated this is a high traffic area since it is close to the freeway. Chairperson Koos asked Mr. Glass whether there was any problem complying with Condition No. 2? Mr. Glass replied no. They can put a finish on it so it appears seamiess. Chairperson Koos stated there is a Nextel facility off of Weir Canyon Road that he may want to look at. He believes that facility did not turn out as well as the photosynthesis showed. On the Eastwood Insurance Building the bolts on the outside can be seen. Mr. Glass indicated they are familiar with that and this is now resolved with drive-it acrylic finish that goes over the screening so its seamless and it does not affect the signal. That has been a concern from some cities. Chairperson Koos stated if Commissioners is satisfied, he can support this. Greg McCafferty suggested changing Condition No. 7, that Condition No. 4 to be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ~ ACTION: Approved CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 3 Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04340 (to permit roof-mounted telecommunication antennas and an accessory ground-mounted equipment structure) with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: That prior to ~nal building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 3, 4, and 5, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (3:51-4:00) ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION: Greg McCafferty advised Chairperson Koos that in the morning work session the Planning Director that some of the School Districts would like to have a morning workshop with the Commission the end of April or the first part of May, if the Commission wishes to direct staff to agendize that, they will. Chairperson Koos stated that the morning session shouid be on May 7, 2001, at 10:30 a.m. • 04-09-01 Page 30 APRIL 9, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MlNUTES ADJOURNED AT 4:01 P.M. TO MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2001 AT 11:00 A.M, FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. ~Aice .O' n ~~`''U~~ Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~~~°~%' / ~ Respectfully submitted, 04-09-01 Page 31