The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 2001/08/27~~ CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2001 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California • • CHAIRPERSON ~JA~VIES VANDERBILT COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: TONY A~NO~D PA~JL B~~~'~VFCK, PHYLLIS BOYDSTUN, STEPHEN BRI~TbL, GAI.L EAS~MA~~JOHN~KO~$ ~~ STAFF PRESENT: ~' ~~~~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorriey~~ Greg Hastings, Zoning Di~'~io ~Manag~ Greg McCafferty, Principa~~Plart~er ' Brad Hobson, Deputy Q~rrecto~of~Co~nm: Melanie Adams, Asso~ate ~n~r~ee~r~ ~ Kelly Jung, Investigatpr; F~ lice Q~_pt~Eic~ Monika Troncoso, CQ~timunityy~e~ielopm ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ i y.~~ ` rF :;~ ~` ~ zu~~ ~ ~-~ ~ 3 .~ ~~ ~::;. • H-xre~~~aa, rrtr~~ ~~~' Judy Dad'ant, S~e~ ,:~ Dave See, Setli~o~ levelop. Roger Bennion, G Linda Eaves, Seni Detail K~rxy Kemp, Com n Planner AGENDA POSTING~~'~bm~J~ete~copy of`th'e~'Prannmg ~pmrniss~ Ager~pa w Friday, August 24, 2Q~~1, inside the dis~pla~~c~se located m the fo~~r,~f th~,e C'~o~ outside display kiosk ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,~ ~~~ „ ~ . , ~ ~ ~ ~ ; PUBLISHED: Anaheirn~Bulletrn~~lewSp~aper~~h r'sday, A~u~u'st,2, 20~1~ $ ~. ~~~ ~ ~ s~`~~~ ~~ CALL TO ORDER `_~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ m~ ~~ ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISS~IQN.MORNIN`~~5 ~ I(,1NT751~OO~A.M ^ STAFF UPDATE~~Q G~(JlVIMISSIpN~OF ~IO~S Gi`~~Y~'.~,.. N DEVELOPMENTS ~f~~ ISSUES (AS~REQUEST~D BY" PLANNING COMMISSION}~~~~ • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION nt Officer ~ E .~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ;; osted;at 10:00 A.M. on Charri~ers, and also in the ~~ ~~.~ RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Boydstun PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H:\DOCS\CLERICAL\MIN~JTESWC082701 lannin commission anaheim.net 08-27-01 Page 1 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE 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-E on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-A, 1-C & 1-E) as recommended by staff. CONSENT CALENDAR WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Consent Calendar Items (1-B & 1-D) were removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. FoOowinq approval of the Consent Calendar: The applicant for Item 1-C arrived, late, and Commissioner Koos suggested re-opening the Consenf Calendar to allow the applicant to speak. Furthermore, Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney noted that the action taken on the termination item should have been offered by resolution, not a motion, and directed the Planning Commission to re-vote on the termination item. ~ Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, to re-open the Consent Calendar for discussion and/or action pertaining to Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-A and 1-C. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 527, 995. 1037, AND 2701 Terminated (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04437) AND VARIANCE NO. 2365 (TRACKING NO. vAR 2001-04454) - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: (Vote: 7-0) Nehemiah Corporation, Attn: Scott Syphax, 1851 Heritage Lane, Suite 201, Sacramento, CA 95815, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 527, 995, 1037, and 2701 and Variance No. 2365. Property is approximately 3.7 acres with a frontage of 350 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue located 970 feet east of the centerline of Knott Street (3335-3351 West Lincoln Avenue). TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-114 SR2086DS.DOC C~ 08-27-01 Page 2 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ~ B. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV. APPROVED) b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4100 (TRACKING NO. 2001- 04418) - REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF FINAL SIGN PROGRAM: Donco and Sons, Inc., 725 North Cypress Street, Orange, Ca 92867, requests review of a final sign program. Property is approximately 3.3 acres located at the southwest corner of Old Canal Road and Weir Canyon Road (905-985 North Weir Canyon Road). ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, 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 Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Sign Program for Conditional Use Permit No. 4100 (Tracking No. CUP 2001-04418) based on the following stipulations: (i) That the monument sign face be opaque with routed out letters for all permanent text. (ii) That the "Car Wash" text on the freestanding commercial identification signs be removed. (iii) That only the gasoline brand, pricing and name of the auto care center be permitted on the freestanding commercial identification signs. Approved Approved Final Sign Plans (Vote: 7-0) SR8062VN.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item 1-B as a request for review and approval of final sign plans for property located at 905-985 North Weir Canyon Road. The request is related to a previous approval under Conditional Use Permit No. 4100 to construct a self-service gas station and auto care complex. Commissioner Boydstun stated that her concern is that staff recommendations do not permit signage of the car wash, and since the car wash is at the back of the building with the car rental, there should be some indication that it is there. She commends the sign that is in the plans, but feels otherwise there would not be anything on the property that shows there is a car wash. She cautions Commission that it would be better to go with what they know they are getting rather than have some unknown, which may turn out tacky and inappropriate. She affirms there cannot be a business without some advertising. Greg Gover, with Don Co. and Sons, states there is no objection whatsoever to Commissioner Boydstun's suggestion for the advertising of the car wash because there is a definite need to indicate the car wash is there. He states the only entrance for the development is off of Old Canal Road, and the elevation of that road is quite a bit below the elevation of the development. So if they are only allowed to have a car wash sign on the building itself and since that is the only place where you can enter, people driving by would not be aware of the business having a car wash. Commissioner Boydstun apologized and stated that she also thinks it needs to be on the monument sign at the front where people come in. Chairperson Vanderbilt referred to staff and asked if the proposal from Commissioner Boydstun, for the sake of discussion, presents any issues contrary to the zoning code, etc. 08-27-01 Page 3 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. McCafferty stated that the scenic corridor allows identification of the center on the freestanding sign as well as one major tenant. He explained that in this case, the car wash would be an additional use that the scenic corridor would not allow, so they would have to come back and request a variance from Commission in order to allow that additional use to be identified on the freestanding sign. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, pointed out that there are several commercial businesses in the scenic corridor that are not identified on freestanding signs. The intent is just to identify the center and one major tenant. In spite of the repeated argument from many of the commercial centers, staff has been trying to stick to the code provision. Commissioner Arnold stated that it seems to be an unusually located property, and one which has experienced some difficulties maintaining viable tenants. Mr. Hastings stated that the sign being on the frontage where access is not available makes this business unusual. He points out that there is an additional sign near the point where access is available, however, there is presently no development on the property due to construction. Staff originally expressed concern about the number of uses on the property and trying to fit everything on the site, and they have appeared to be able to do that. Another concern was trying to make sure the signage was such that it was not over signed, since it is in the scenic corridor. Mr. McCafferty added that a client is not necessarily going to visit the car wash unless going to the gas station, or the Easy-lube, because at the site there is the gas station, the convenience market and the Easy-lube. So normally if a client is going to the gas station, he might drive his car into the car wash, but not necessarily the other way around. This is based on past experience at the site. So staff really considers the car wash an accessory to the gas station. • Chairperson Vanderbilt replied that Commission now understands what they are required to work with, therefore he asked if any Commissioner wished to make a motion with regard to Item 1-B. Commissioner Boydstun suggested leaving the car wash in, since there are three businesses currently on the sign. Commissioner Arnold asked if Commission had to do something as specific as a waiver or something. If so, he suggests continuing Item 1-B. Mr. McCafferty stated that the applicant could come back and request a waiver of the sign code. However, Commission could move forward on the other portions so that the applicant has approval of some of the signs. Commissioner Boydstun decided to move forward on the motion, and allow the applicant the opportunity to come back to request a waiver for the sign. 08-27-01 Page 4 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • C. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV. APPROVED) b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3935 (TRACKING NO. 2001-04438) - REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF FINAL PLANS: Bhikhu Patel, 24351 Re De Gaugin, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677, requests review and approval of final sign plans. Property is approximately 1.5 acres with a frontage of 280 feet on the west side of Magnolia Avenue located 280 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue (1125 North Magnolia Avenue - Magnolia Plaza Office Building). ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bosfinrick and MOTION CARRIED, 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 Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bosfinrick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Sign Plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 3935 (Tracking No. CUP 2001-04438) with the following modifications, as requested by the applicant: • • That the proposed sign on the south wall elevation be internally- illuminated with blue and red channel ietters with no visible conduit on the building elevation. • That no wall sign shall be permitted on the east elevation of the building. Approved Approved, in part Final Sign Plans (Vote: 7-0) SR1016CW.DOC Commissioner Koos asked if the public hearing could be reopened for Item 1-A, because he noticed a persistent situation occurring with one particular applicant coming in late and desiring to present his request, after the consent calendar had been approved. Chairperson Vanderbilt verified with the applicant that he was with Item 1-C. Commissioner Koos stated that since he was the one who made the motion on the Consent Calendar, as a gracious move toward the applicant, he was willing to have him come forward rather than continually forcing him to come back. This afforded the applicant an opportunity to get his opinions in the records because otherwise, the Item had been approved again as staff recommended. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, advised that there were a couple of things Commission could do. They could open up the Consent Calendar again to bring up an item, since everybody was present at the point and time the motion was made and the vote taken. The other issue regards the termination being done by resolution rather than by motion. Chairperson Vanderbilt agreed that it was appropriate to reopen the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Koos made a motion to reopen the Consent Caiendar Items for the purposes of discussion of any items on the Consent Calendar that perhaps the applicant was not present to comment on, contingent on the applicanYs desire to speak on Item 1-C. • The applicant stated he did want to speak on Item 1-C. 08-27-01 Page 5 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Koos stated that Item 1-B was taken care of in a formal way, and Item 1-D needs to be redone. Chairperson Vanderbilt explained that 1-A requires a resolution and a button vote. Therefore, he requested a motion to reopen the Consent Calendar to discuss Items 1-A and 1-C. CommissionerArnold agreed to go along with this one but he let it be known that he preferred adopting a policy on not doing this in the future because he thinks applicants would constantly be coming back to the Consent Calendar part way through the hearing. Commissioner Koos stated that he agreed with Commissioner Arnold completely, but he was concerned with having the one particular applicant return every finro weeks. Commissioner Arnold contended that the Planning Commission Meeting starts at 1:30 p.m. and there is a process to keep, so he would rather Planning Commission not reopen the Consent Calendar on a regular basis. Chairperson Vanderbilt thanked Commissioner Arnold for his suggestion, and agreed to go reopen the Consent Calendar this time. ~ ~ 08-27-01 Page 6 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Deen Bahshi, Mega Brite Sign Co., standing with Mr. Sonny of the Shehnai Bombay Club, stated that they were present to request Commission to consider individual channel letters on the wall, and the colors blue and red rather than yellow. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he believed staff has the justification for recommending the yellow color as opposed to red and blue, so he supposed there was no change in their position. He asked Commission if they had any questions in regards to the color change request. Hearing none, he asked for a motion in regards to Item 1-C. Mr. Bahshi stated that also they would be front lit, internal illumination individual channels with neon lights. Commissioner Bostwick stated that it is not quite what was reported in the staff report; going from external to an internal lighting that is neon. He asked staff if they were comfortable with the changes that Mega Brite Sign Co. is proposing. Mr. McCafferty replied that it is staff's recommendation as specified in Paragraph 10 and 11 of the staff report, that the wall sign on the east elevation is not needed because they are already advertising on the freestanding sign, and that the sign on the South building elevation be as specified in the recommendation and be externally lit, not only because of the design of the building, but the difficulty of running conduit in order to accomplish an internaf illuminated sign. Commissioner Bostwick asked the applicant if staff's recommendations posed a problem for him. Mr. Deen Bahshi replied yes, because all the branches of Bombay Club in their cuisine had signage that were internally illuminated and are with blue and red colors. Plus City has approved them to put up a color scheme on the pole sign which is red and blue, so on channel letters if they have brass, he feels it makes • no sense. In the entire neighborhood, all are internally lit channel Vetters, and the conduits would not be visible at all. Commissioner Koos asked the applicant if there were other locations of his restaurants with the proposed design. Mr. Deen Bahshi replied yes, they are all channel letters. Commissioner Koos advised Commission that other restaurant chains, which they have previously approved, have not been asked to change their copy for the sake of aesthetics. For instance, Jack In the Box is red and white, and Commission does not require yellow and white. He offered a motion to approve the proposed Item with the change to go along with the applicant's statement, that the internally lit sign copy be with their proposed colors, and a removal of the east facing sign. Commissioner Bosfinrick suggested putting something in the motion about no exposed conduit. Commissioner Koos agreed. Chairperson Vanderbilt announced a motion by Commissioner Koos and seconded by Commissioner Bostwick. The motion passed. Mr. McCafferty clarified for staff's sake that the approval was for the blue and white letters on the South elevation, internally illuminated, no exposed conduit, and eliminate the east wall site. • 08-27-01 Page 7 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ D. a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 913, 2318 AND 2596 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04442) - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Newmark Merrill Companies, Attn: Sandy Sigal, 18801 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300, Tarzana, CA 91356 requests termination of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 913, 2318 and 2596. Property is approximately 27.11 acres located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and State College Boulevard (2124 and 2156 East Lincoln). TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-115 ~ U ~ This item was removed from the Consent Calendar, in error. Therefore, this item was not discussed. Terminated (Vote: 7-0) SR8065AN.DOC 08-27-01 Page 8 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r ~~ ~~ • Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of July 30, 2001. Continued from the August 13, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 13, 2001. Approved (Vote: 7-0) Continued to September 10, 2001 (This item was not discussed) (Vote: 7-0) 08-27-01 Page 9 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISED) 2b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00395 2c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00054 2d. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04443 2e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 16254 AND 16255 2f. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2001-00001 2g. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF ITEMS 2a, 2c, 2d. 2e AND 2f OWNER: Hazei I. Maag Revocable Trust, Attn: Lloyd Copenbarger, 4675 Mac Arthur Court #700, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Melvin and Marriam Schantz, John & Jo Schantz and Robert and Alice Pernell, 21 Chelsea Point, Dana Point, CA 92629 AGENT: JL Hare Associates, Attn: Holly Sandler, 505 N. Tustin, Suite 212, Santa Ana, CA 92705 LOCATION: 5801 East Santa Ana Canvon Road. Property is approximately 24.5 acres with a frontage of 1,306 feet • on the west side of Solomon Drive, located 112 feet north of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road. General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00395: Requests a general plan amendment from the General Commercial land use designation to the Hillside Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation. Reclassification No. 2001-00054: To reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000(SC) Zone to the RS-5000(SC) Zone. Variance No. 2001-04443: Waiver of (a) required frontage on a street, (b) maximum permitted fence height, (c) maximum lot coverage and open space requirements, and (d) minimum lot width, to establish a 128-unit detached single-family subdivision. Tentative Tract Map No. 16254 - To establish a 106-unit detached single-family subdivision. Tentative Tract No. 16255 - To establish a 22-unit detached single- family subdivision. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2001-00001: To remove 97 specimen trees. Continued from the July 30 and August 13, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. • GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to September 24, 2001 08-27-01 Page 10 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. SR1170JD.DOC Commissioner Bristol offered a motion for continuance to September 24, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun, vote taken and motion carried. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the September 24, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to assure that all interested parties have an adequate opportunity to review the mitigated negative decfaration. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • • 08-27-01 Page 11 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~~ 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04411 OWNER: Southern California Edison, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770 AGENT: The Consulting Group, Attn: Paul Kim, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 870, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 2720 West Yale Avenue. Property is approximately 3.9 acres with frontages of 265 feet on the south side of Yale Avenue and 265 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue located 240 feet west of the centerline of La Reina Circle. To permit a telecommunications antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment. Continued from the August 13, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO Continued to September 10, 2001 SR8069KB.DOC FO~LOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the September 10, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the petitioner additional time to submit revised plans to the Zoning Division for the co-location of the antenna on the existing lattice transmission tower. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 08-27-01 Page 12 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3349 (READVERTISED) Approved modification (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04381) OWNER: Western Medical Center, Attn: Patrick Rafferty, 1025 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 965-1075 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately 9.2 acres with a frontage of 1,020 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard, located 485 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road (Western Medical Center). To modify previously-approved exhibits for an existing hospital and to construct a new finro-story* medical office building with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. *Originally advertised as three-stories. Continued from the June 18, July 2, July 16 and July 30, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-116 SR2074.DS.DOC ~ Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 4 as Conditional Use Permit No. 3349. It is a request to permit a two-story medical office building, and also to modify previously approved exhibits for Western Medical Center, with a waiver of minimal number of permitted parking spaces. Applicant's Statement: Richard Boureston, developer and owner of the construction company for the site, stated they have reviewed the conditions of approval and agree with them. Mr. Boureston reported that they have worked very closely with the City, the Redevelopment Agency and also the hospital to design the property to conform to all request and recommendations. He feels it is going to be a very nice project and enhancement to Anaheim Boulevard. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos stated that at the morning session there was lengthy discussion regarding traffic circulation, recognizing that northbound on Anaheim Boulevard there is only one left turn driveway to access the property. Similarly to go north on Anaheim Boulevard to leave the property the same driveway must be used. He asked the applicant if that was a concern to him. Mr. Boureston responded that they worked with the overlay plan, and the hospital and medical office building. He admits it is not the most idea situation, but it is something that as a whole they feel they can work with easily. There is a reciprocal easement agreement with the hospital for patients of the medical office building to go across the property to come to the medical office building, they feel it is workable and probably the best way they can possibly do it. Mr. Boureston stated they have had a traffic study and looked at all of the possibilities and it looks like it is the most optimal way of doing it. • Commissioner Koos referred to Alfred Yalda and asked if there was a traffic study as opposed to a parking study that shows before and after baseline traffic flows. 08-27-01 Page 13 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, suggested Redevelopment should speak to give a more detailed report on the issue at hand. Commissioner Koos stated that it was not included in their packet, but he would be interested to see the number of cars that turned left at the site in the peak hour. Mr. Kemp, Redevelopment, stated there was a Conditional Use Permit Required Parking Study that evaluated the parking for both the Western Medical Center and the Medical Office Building as a combined shared use. In addition, there has been a trip generation and traffic analysis that assigned vehicle trips to and from the medical office building to learn where traffic would go based on the existing conditions of Anaheim Boulevard and Ball Road and along Anaheim Boulevard where there are no left turns. Commissioner Koos clarified it would just be to the site and it would not show to which driveways the trips are arriving. Mr. Kemp agreed that it did not actually say that they would go into the driveway or out of the driveway. It was mostly based on where they would be going once they left or before entering. Commissioner Koos explained that his concern stems from his visit to the site coming from Ball Road. He stated that he wanted to turn at one point, but an island, which would have resulted in an illegal turn inhibited him, so he made the one turn that he could make. But just to illustrate how tricky it is getting around the site to the area where the office building is actually located, there are speed bumps, pedestrians, etc., at the main hospital entrance. Therefore he is wondering what it would be like during peak hours. Mr. Boureston responded that the site plan is going to be redone. There will be two different parking lots all combined into one parking lot. So what is being seeing now, with the flow of the parking lot north of the . hospital, will be redone in conformity with the medical office building, a consistent plan will be designed. Commissioner Arnold asked why Planning Commission did not receive the traffic report in their packets. He reminded Mr. Boureston and staff that questions were asked at the morning meeting which did not receive good data in response. He finds it hard to consider the entire project thoroughly without the appropriate information. Mr. Yalda responded that there was a study done by Redevelopment for the whole area, and the area was completely designated as a medical area. So therefore Transportation was not required to do a traffic study. He stated that if they had not had reciprocal parking with the hospital, they could have built the facility by right, and it would not have been necessary to come in front of Commission with traffic issues. But for the purpose of number of parking spaces, Transportation looked at the parking study and also the number of trips generated by the project to update the previous study to understand what impact it is going to have on the intersection of Ball Road and Anaheim Boulevard. Commissioner Arnold clarified that there was information on trip generation and the information was not included in the Commissioner's packets. Mr. Kemp clarified it did come to Commission previously pursuant to that action. He believes the records should indicate the South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor Overlay Zone had a mitigated negative declaration and an environmental study, and all of the traffic generation was analyzed as a part of the overlay zone in those documents, including the medical office building use on that site and in that location. At this point, it is implementing that action and basing it in reality as to what would happen at the Anaheim Boulevard and Ball Road intersection. Mr. Kemp points out that the whole idea is that the overlay zone is based on certain levels of development and also the landscaping plan for the overlay zone was incorporated into that analysis from a year ago, and it includes a left turn lane where needed. In fact, there is one existing right at the alley, when travelling northbound on Anaheim Boulevard. To summarize, the South Anaheim ~ Boulevard Corridor Overlay Zone did have the environmental review that was necessary for this level of development. 08-27-01 Page 14 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Arnold stated that his question is not so much "does CEQA require to look at a particular document." He is not asking about a legal requirement built into CEQA, he is asking for information available to staff in the project that may also be useful to Commission. He demonstrated that Commission gets an array of things that Planning Staff provides them on a regular basis that is useful to understanding the scope and nature of the project, but that are not necessarily required by law. So he asks, is it possible to get that kind of information, as it obviously was available to staff, and in case there is a continuance on the item. Commissioner Bosfinrick stated that he thinks the project has changed, or at least the area has changed, since the time it originally came to Commission. He states that a park has been built on the corner of Vermont Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard that does not provide parking, so anybody in the neighborhood driving over there or some families from blocks away that care to drive to the site, would have to park in the medical office building parking lot or on the street. Commissioner Bosfinrick explains that there is only one entrance to go northbound out of the facility, and the building is right up to the sidewalk on one side of it, so there is very limited or blocked visibility. There is no set back from the right of way. He feels there must be a redesign of the cuts in the center divider to allow for access. He realizes that Redevelopment does not want it and would want to have landscaping and other things, but feels there must be some type of access plan to the entire property that fits with the large scale being created. Hypothetically, he states, in regards to pedestrian traffic, the medical office building across the street may or may not change use to something else, it may still be medical offices in the future and they would want to walk across the street to the hospital, but the plan presented does not allow for that. So even if the area is not striped, there needs to be a dedicated curb, or corner or something where pedestrians can make the crossing safely. Commissioner Koos verified that they were separate parcels, and it has been stated that the parcel where the office building is proposed has been permitted by right to something being put in there assuming they have met all of the development standards. But the unique thing is they are going to be sharing circulation with the adjacent property. He feels if they were totally isolated, then staff would want to have an access ~ from northbound, unless people are being encouraged to go down to the nearest signalization and make a U-turn. Mr. Boureston responded that actually that is the key; encouraging people to either go to Ball Road or Vermont Avenue and make U-turns and left turns there. To clarify on the overlay zones related to traffic cuts and median island on Anaheim Boulevard, the traffic study that was done to adopt the overlay zone actually had higher level of development in this block, related to medical uses. However, it did take into consideration the neighborhood park without provision for parking. So the medical office and medical uses in that area were entitled under the adoption of the overlay zone, the medical office building is providing their parking on their piece of property, and they do have an entrance and exit on their property. They are sharing entrances and exits with the hospital, which actually works well because the idea is for the whole medical complex to work as one project, and while it is a comprehensive project, getting the businesses to share everything is encouraged, without overbuild in parking for either party. Commissioner Koos pointed out that the linkage befinreen the two uses only creates an automobile link. He desired to go a step farther and have pedestrian linkages between the finro uses, which he feels has not been a consideration in the site plan. Mr. Boureston responded that they wanted to operate as one project and the main pool of parking for both uses is in the middle befinreen the two facilities. Referring to questions on pedestrian access across the street, he stated they talked about it with the developer, the hospital, the traffic manager and his staff and setting up the mid-block pedestrian crossings has always proven not the best thing to do. But with regard to the medical uses and their limitations that are currently in the office buildings, those tenants are going to move to the medical office building on the west side. No one knows what would happen with specific uses in the buildings in the future, and he is certain that Transportation would continue to monitor any problems that may arise in the future, related to pedestrian crossings in that block. He states the idea of the new medical facilities on the west side is current-modern, and he feels that is where the medical users are going • to want to go, including those that are left over in the buildings on the east side. He stated with regard to potentially continuing the item related to this data, it is up to Commission to continue the items, and only 08-27-01 Page 15 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • information can be brought to Commission with an explanation of its use. Mr. Boureston states that the calculation of trips to the site was really done in terms of identifying traffic fees, if any. Commissioner Arnold stated that he gets the feeling, within his request for data, everyone is thinking that there is some representation or some statement which really is not significant. But usually when Commission considers something that may conceivably have some traffic impacts, it gets to see the data behind it. Therefore, he expressed having a level of discomfort knowing that there is some data out there that Commission did not get to see. Mr. Boureston stated that he would be happy to share it with him again. The focus of this action is the parking, the use is entitled under the overlay zone. When they sit down with Traffic and Planning, they look at all of the elements, including whether or not it makes sense to have the left turn lanes; and in this instance it does. Mr. Boureston stated they would be happy to give Commissioner Arnold the trip generation numbers; they are by time. They are not very large and relatively insignificant with regard to the rest of the activity going on in the area. Mr. Yalda stated that they have some distribution, and generally when there is an overlay zone for these type of projects, and the reason Transportation looked at the trip generation for this project was to calculate what would be the amount of fees they are going to be paying for the improvement at the intersection of Ball Road and Anaheim Boulevard, but would not otherwise ask specifically for the project to do a traffic study since a traffic study was previously done for the site. In other words, the site was identified as a medical area and Transportation knew what the trip generations were. Mr. Yalda offered to clarify trip distribution statistics to assist Commissioner Arnold in better making his decision: 25% on Ball Road going eastbound, 40% westbound, 25% southbound and 10°!o northbound. As far as the distribution at the intersection of Ball Road and Anaheim Bouievard, 25% making right turns, southbound Anaheim Boulevard;10% making U-turns; 25% making left turns; 10% going south; 55% making right turns. For the eastbound traffic, 40% making left turns; and 10% going northbound. He contended the trip distributions ~ were done to standard, and was added with the project and existing facility. Mr. Yalda presented Commissioner Arnold with a copy of the trip distribution statistics. Chairperson Vanderbilt posed a question to Traffic, stating there was some mention earlier about the overlay landscaping that has been approved by the Commission on Anaheim Boulevard and how this has been taken into consideration for all the traffic use and its beautification. The question he wanted to raise was in regards to the parking stalls that will run up against Anaheim Boulevard on the east side of the property. To comply with the landscaping requirements, there are islands for trees and they are placed in a way that take some consideration in the layout of the property. One thing that concerns him a lot as he travels up and down Anaheim Boulevard is the location of the bus stops, and the decision by the City to go with the green metallic benches. It is very hard for him to find any Iocated where there isn't any sort of tree. He is not sure if the City's plans that have already been put into effect to increase landscaping will have trees near the bus stops as they exist now. So he wanted to take advantage of the project and ask if it is possible that any of the landscaping might also coincide with the bus stops, since they are going to place landscaping on the east side of the property, is there any chance they might end up where the bus stops exist so that they can provide some shading there as well as perhaps encourage mass transit use. Mr. Yalda offered to address the bus stop area. He stated the bus shelter contract is going to expire next year, and while Transportation is going through the bidding process they could include that area. He stated that whomever is going to bid on the process to have a bus shelter there they should request provisions for a shaded area. Mr. Yalda informs that Transportation is looking city-wide in areas that currently do not have bus shelters, so when the contract expires, they could always look into it and see if they could add new bus shelters. Chairperson Vanderbilt responded that he appreciates Mr. Yalda consideration of the bus shelter, but he asked if there was any additional consideration. • Mr. Boureston stated they support the program, and in this instance if there were a bus shelter that were adjacent to the project, the developer would certainly look at enhancing the landscaping there, and so would the agency. 08-27-01 Page 16 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Kemp stated the hospital has enthusiastically embraced the transportation demand management program and tying in with that to help increase ridesharing and use of mass transit different programs to help further minimize vehicle trips and the demand for parking spaces. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if he was saying that the applicant would institute subsidies for bus passes for their employees. Mr. Kemp responded that whether it is subsidies or what form, it is a Condition of Approval to the Conditional Use Permit that they will do a transportation demand management program which could include subsidies or van pools, bus passes, items of that nature. Commissioner Bristol commented that in listening to everything, it appeared the issue is the northbound left-hand turn into the project, not so much the parking. There is a little bit of circulation inside obviously, but the left-hand turn and maybe the need to have a larger left-hand turn lane. So according to staff that is fine. Mr. Yalda responded that Transportation could always monitor that area. Commissioner Bristol referred to Transportation and confirmed that it is not really a problem if somebody misses the left hand turn because they could go up to Vermont Avenue and make a U-turn. Mr. Yalda stated that he actually drove that area today at lunch time and concluded that it makes more sense to use Vermont Avenue because it is closer and there are really nice U-turn possibilities there. Commissioner Bosfinrick stated that at the present time there is a small isfand at the alley, and there is a left turn lane that goes into the alleyway to the north of the existing hospital, he suggests removing the island ~ so traffic could turn left out of the property going northbound on Anaheim Boulevard; and widen the driveway to four lanes at the entrance into the parking area so that cars could exit and enter as opposed to stacking. Mr. Yalda responded that it is a good suggestion but attention also has to be given the east side of the street so as not to compromise the traffic that is entering the existing street. He states Transportation would have to a look and see what is best for both sides. Commissioner Bostwick suggested if the driveway were widened and the island removed it would facilitate a better flow in and out of the property, and it would be better service to ambulances, as they use the driveway to enter and exit the property. Mr. Yalda responded they could work with Redevelopment for a design that would be appropriate. Commissioner Amold offered thanks to staff for the information they provided because it helped to put it more into context. • • ~ - e Ilue: • . d-- - •1111 •~ _ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Approved modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 3349 (Tracking No. CUP 2001- ~ 04381) to modify previously-approved exhibits in conjunction with an existing hospital and 08-27-01 Page 17 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • to construct a new 2-story medical office building based on the findings as listed in the staff report dated August 27, 2001. Amended Resolution Nos. 71 R-358 and PC90-256 in their entirety and replaced with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: 1. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway or in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public streets. Installation of any gates shall conform to Engineering Standard Plan No. 609 and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. That any existing or proposed roof-mounted equipment shall be screened from adjacent streets and properties in accordance with Section 18.44.030.120 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the CL Zone. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 3. That an unsubordinated restricted covenant providing reciprocal access and parking, approved by the Community Development Department and Zoning Division and in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, shall be recorded with the Office of the Orange County Recorder. A copy of the recorded covenant shall then be submitted to the Zoning Division. In addition, provisions shall be made in the covenant to guarantee that the parcels north of the hospital complex shall be managed and maintained as one (1) integral parcel for purposes of parking, vehicular circulation, signage, maintenance, land usage and architectural control, and that the covenant shall be referenced in all deeds transferring all or any part of the interest in the property. • 4. That the property shall comply with all signing requirements of the CL Zone unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the City Council or Planning Commission. 5. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped with decorative lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernable the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the window areas of nearby residences. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 6. That the owner shall comply with Ordinance No. 5209 and Resolution No. 91 R-89 relating to the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies by joining and participating in the Anaheim Transportation Network and developing a TDM program consistent with the demographics of the labor force. 7. That no compact parking spaces shall be permitted. That the detached auxiliary building located immediately north of the Western Medical Center hospital building shall be demolished and a parking lot layout plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department and City Traffic and Transportation Manager showing the new parking lot layout in conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 601, and 602 pertaining to parking standards. The parking lot shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plan. 9. That the existing parking lot south of the hospital shall be restriped in conformance ~ with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 601, and 602 pertaining to parking standards. A restriping plan for this parking lot shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and City Traffic and Transportation 08-27-01 Page 18 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Manager and shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plan. 10. That emergency vehicles shall be prohibited from taking access from Lemon Street. If approved by the City Engineer, removable bollards may be used to control vehicle access. 11. That the granting of the parking waiver is contingent upon operation of the use in conformance with the assumptions and/or conclusions relating to the operation and intensity of use as contained in the parking demand study that formed the basis for approval of said waiver. Exceeding, violating, intensifying or otherwise deviating from any of said assumptions and/or conclusions, as contained in the parking demand study, shall be deemed a violation of the expressed conditions imposed upon said waiver which shall subject this permit to termination or modification pursuant to the provisions of Sections 18.03.091 and 98.03.092 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 12. That a landscape plan sha!! be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval showing minimum 24-inch box sized trees along Anaheim Boulevard and within the parking lot. The plan shall specifjr the planting of groundcover and shrubs in the planter areas, and vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers adjacent to perimeter walls. Any decision by the Zoning Division regarding said plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission/City Council. Said plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Zoning Division prior to issuance of Building Permits. Said plan shall be implemented prior to final Building and Zoning inspections. 13. That a Lot ~ine Adjustment Plat shall be submitted to the Development Services Division of the Public Works Department and approved by the City Engineer and then ~ recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder to combine the existing lots, and/or to adjust existing property lines, such that any new building lies completely within one (1) parcel. 14. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses. 15. That 3-foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the view of the street or adjacent properties. Said information shall be shown on plans submitted for Building Permits. 16. That al! existing mature landscaping shap be maintained and immediately replaced in the event that it becomes diseased or dies. 17. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 18. That final site, signage, elevation and landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. 19. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the Ciry of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and as conditioned herein. • 20. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution or prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this 08-27-01 Page 19 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 15, and 18, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 21. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 8, 9 and 19, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 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 requfrement. 23. That the hospital complex shall be limited to a maximum of 214 beds and 97,000 square feet of gross floor area for the remaining area not containing rooms with beds. That the medical office building shall be limited to a maximum area of 41,000 square feet. 24. That the driveway at the al(ey shall be widened to four (4) lanes. VOTE: 7-Q Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 33 minutes (1:52-2:25) ~~ ~J u 08-27-01 Page 20 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i 5a. CEQA NEGATiVE DECLARATION Continued to 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT September 10, 2001 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04366 OWNER: Living Stream, A California Non-Profit Corporation, 2431 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: John Pester, 2431 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 2411 - 2461 West La Palma Avenue and 1212 North Hubbell Wav. Property is approximately 40.4 acres located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street, and at the northern terminuses of Hubbell Way and Electric Way. To permit a teleconferencing center and private conference/training center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the June 4 and July 16, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR1107TW.DOC ~ Commissioner Bristol offered a motion for continuance to September 10, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick, vote taken and motion carried. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the September 10, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow additional time for staff to review the submitted studies. VOTE; 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 08-27-01 Page 21 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Item No. 6 was discussed and then trailed, to allow the applicant to review the staff report as recommended by the Planning Commission. Following Item No. 8, ltem No. 6 was called back. 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARQTION fPREV.-APPROVED) 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 6c. CONDITtONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2521 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04385) OWNER: Braille Institute, Attn: Gene Mathlowetz, Assistant Director, 741 North Vermont Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90029 AGENT: Ware and Malcomb Architects, Inc., 18111 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 600, Irvine, CA 92692 LOCATtON: 527 North Dale Avenue. Property is approximately 1.75 acres located at the southwest corner of Crescent and Dale Avenues (Braille Institute). To permit an addition to an existing private schoo! with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from July 16, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. C~ J CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-117 Approved Approved Approved modification SR1006CW. DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 6 as a request to modify Conditional Use Permit 2521. It is for the existing Braille Institute, located at 527 N. Dale Avenue, and is a request to permit an addition to the existing private school. ApplicanYs Statement: Gene Mathlowetz, the Assistant Director of the Braille Institute, stated he had not read the staff report and its recommendations. Chairperson Vanderbilt recommended Mr. Mathlowetz take a few moments to read the report because the report was used to base Commission's decision, and Commission would trail Item 6 on the agenda. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if the applicant had a chance to review the staff report, and if he had any questions in regards to what it contains. Gene Mathlowetz, the Assistant Director of the Braille Institute, stated he had read the staff report and its recommendations, and understands it completely, and did not have any questions on its contents. . 08-27-01 Page 22 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Approved modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 2521 (Tracking No. CUP 2001- 04385) to permit an addition to an existing private school based on the findings as listed in the staff report dated August 27, 2001. Amended Resolution No. PC83-239 in its entirety and replaced with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptabfe to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum 1-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 2. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection and a plan for recycling shall . be submitted to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division for review and approval. 3. That an on-site trash truck turn-around area shall be provided per Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 and maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. Said turn-around area shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 4. That a Lot Line Adjustment shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division to merge all existing parcels into one legal lot. The Lot Line Adjustment shall be approved by the City Engineer and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 5. 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. 6. That all existing mature landscaping shall be maintained and immediately replaced in the event that it becomes diseased or dies. 7. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3. 8. 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 and 4, 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. 08-27-01 Page 23 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 9. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 7, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 10. That the approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it compfies with the Anaheim Munic+pa! 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: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (2:26-2:28) trailed (2:40-2:41) . • 08-27-01 Page 24 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATtON 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04410 OWNER: Essex Wire, 1075 North Patt Street, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: The Consulting Group, Attn: Paul Kim, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 850, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 1075 North Patt Street. Property is approximately 8.43 acres with a frontage of 1,280 feet on the west side of Patt Street located 30 feet south of the centerline of Commercial Street. 7o permit a telecommunications antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment. Continued from the August 13, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to September 10, 2001 SR8057KB.DOC Commissioner Bristol offered a motion for a continuance to September 10, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun, vote taken and motion carried. ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the September 10, 2001, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant for purposes of redesigning the subject request. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 08-27-01 Page 25 AUGUST Z7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES L_J 8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 (READVERTISED) 8b. CONDI710NAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04407 OWNER: Clausen Enterprises, 2795 West Lincoln Avenue #F, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Jong Chung, 1448 Post Road, Fullertan, CA 92833 LOCATION: 2663 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 0.76 acre located at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and La Reina Circle. To establish land use conformity with existing Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing commerciaf retai( center and to permit a coin- operated laundry. Continued trom the August 13, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMiT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to September 10, 2001 SR1018CW.DOC OPPOSITION: 1 person was present who represented WAND (West Anaheim Neighbprhood Development Council) and spoke with concerns regarding the subject request. ~ ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the September 10, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the applicant to meet with Planning Department staff regarding the recommended conditions of approval. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (2:29-2:39) Following action of Item No. 8; Item No. 6 was called back for discussion/action. . 08-27-01 Page 26 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04417 OWNER: Leedy Ying Trustee, 12550 Whittier Boulevard, Whittier, CA 90602 AGENT: GPA Architects, Inc., 1240 North Jefferson # J, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 101 East Ball Road. Property is approximately 3.4 acres located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Anaheim Boulevard. To establish a three-unit commercial retail center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ~~ ~ ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to September 24, 2001 SR8068KB.DOC Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion for a continuance to September 24, 2001 at the petitioner's request, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick, vote taken and motion carried. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE Pl.ANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the September 24, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the petitioner additional time to meet with staff regarding site planning issues associated with devefopment of subject site. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 08-27-01 Page 27 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV. - APPROVED) 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2992 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04426) OWNER: Leonard Chaidez, 507 South Lemon Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Cyndie M. Chaidez, 507 South Lemon Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 507 South Lemon Street. Property is approximately 0.56 acre located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Street and Lemon Street (Leonard Chaidez Tree Service). Requests reinstatement of this permit and modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on July 31, 2000 to expire on July 31, 2001) to retain a tree service contractor's yard. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-118 Approved Approved reinstatement for 1 year (to expire on August 27, 2002) SR8055AN. DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 10 as a request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2992, for property located at 507 S. Lemon Street. It is a tree service and is a request to retain the existing tree service contractor's yard that is on tF~e property. ~ Applicant's Statement: Richard Wentworth, a representative of Leonard Chaidez Tree Service, stated he would like to request three years instead of the one-year recommended. Although the staff report states that they have not been complying consistently to the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit, Mr. Dominguez, Code Enforcement, has not made them aware of any fines, penalties, or any times where they have not complied, other than making a suggestion or two while visiting. Therefore, he requests Commission extend the approval to three years, contingent upon their clean record for the last finro years. THE PUBLlC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Arnold referred to staff regarding a lack of penalties or fines against Mr. Wenfinrorth for code violations. He stated it is his understanding from the morning meeting that it is more a matter of leniency on the City's part and not a lack of code violation. Linda Eaves, Code Enforcement, stated they have been doing the monthly inspections as required per the CUP, however, there are times where there are days when the yard is more in compliance than others. In terms of the debris removal, the gates are often not closed and monitored by the radio device that is required in the CUP; numerous times through the mornings and afternoon both gates on Lemon and Santa Ana Sfreets were open; and the lot which is required to have a certain number of parking spaces (11 on the north side of the street), were totally obliterated by the amount of debris that had been generated, perhaps, over the course of the weekend. However, as the staff report indicates, on July 24, 2001, Mr. Dominguez, inspected the lot and it was clear; so, as previously discussed, it points to the fact that the timely removal may not be as consistent as required. The odor that permeates from the debris that is allowed to compost on the site is quite prevalent at certain times of the day or evening, which impacts the surrounding neighborhoods. Although, Ms. Eaves cautions Commission to understand that Code Enforcement is a ~ complaint driven organization, she admits they have not had numerous complaints, nor any complaints regarding the aroma that emanates from the yard. She admits Chaidez has attempted to do a much better 08-27-01 Page 28 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • job in maintaining the landscaping over the last several years. However, Code Enforcement still observed some storage of the equipment above the height of the fence; there is some graffiti that was not observed in the staff report on the 24'h that appears to have been along the north side of the fence on Lemon Street, which has not been removed in a timely manner, and the vines have not grown to their efficient height to cover it. And finally, Code Enforcement has written several parking citations for parking on Lemon Street; the commercial vehicles have not been contained entirely in the yard. Commissioner Bristol asked an explanation of Ms. Eaves, regarding Conditional Use Permit 2992Z on Condition No. 6, which says that "the sorting and transfer of tree trimming debris shall be limited to debris retrieved in the normal operation of the subject tree trimming service with no further on site processing being permitted". Ms. Eaves stated that her recollection of that condition is that previously there was also an alleged wood sales operation where the trees were being cut up, and she had observed a hauling unit up in the mountains coming down from Arrowhead. So the condition pointed to it being additional, other than just the storage of the materials before they were removed from the lot. So there was a wood related business allegedly operated from the premises. Commissioner Bristol asked if they were allowed to do mulching on the property, with additional machinery. Ms. Eaves replied no, that is not one of the conditions; it was just to be a place for the debris to be stock- piled for a certain period of time, but removed in a timely basis so that it would allow for the required employee parking on the lot and also to minimize the debris above the fence and not have the aroma that is generated by the composting material. Commissioner Bristol asked if large trucks were required to remain on site when not being driven. • Ms. Eaves replied that she would have to refer to her notes about that, however, they were mostly concerned with the parking spaces because the employees had to park on Lemon and Santa Ana Streets, compromising parking available for the residences. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Wenfinrorth if he had large trucks, and if so, what name was listed on the outside of them. Mr. Wentworth replied, "Certified Tree Care," for the majority of them." Commissioner Bristol stated that befinreen 11:00 and 12:00 on Saturday morning he was at Mr. Wentworth's site and observed finro of his trucks parked along Santa Ana Street in front of some residenYs houses, and he knew when he drove by his site why they were there and not in his yard, it was because he had the composting machine, about 15, 20 feet in the air. Commissioner Bristol asked if he was allowed to do that there. Mr. Wenfinrorth replied, no, however, it is a brand new piece of machinery, which they just picked up from Michigan, and their intent is to find a place in Irvine or in Silverado where it,will be a permanent fixture. They then will sta~t to deliver all of their tree debris there, and process and compost it there as well. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Wentworth, in that regard, if he felt it is okay to go ahead and pertorm his operation, and if he did not think anyone was going to see the piece of machinery there. He states the smell is unbelievable. Mr. Wenfinrorth stated that it is not so much the smell, because the smell is somewhat permanent there. He states the beautiful smell of Eucalyptus and Pepper tree permeates the neighborhood at no charge. li is a brand new piece of equipment and it will be gone. They have had it for almost a month, and it has been in Blackstar Canyon, and the owner brought it in to work some bugs out with the mechanic and play ~ with the mulch over the weekend. However, it will be gone and will not be a part of their operation. 08-27-01 Page 29 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. McCafferty stated that all they are allowed to do there is bring back the debris from the job, collect it there as long as it is not above the fence, and immediately hau! it off the site. No onsite processing whatsoever is permitted by the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Eastman asked if the piece of equipment that is going to be located off site alleviates the condition where debris is piled visibly over the fence, as well as the odor. Mr. Wentworth stated that they spend Saturday's and Sunday's transporting green waste off the site so that Monday's and Tuesday's they are looking pretty nice, but towards the weekends it gets kind of full. Commissioner Eastman stated that she has seen the ill conditions on Monday mornings as well. Mr. Wenfinrorth stated that is the purpose of buying the new piece of equipment so that from now on they will not be taking their green waste to the site, they will run it out towards Irvine or the Canyon areas and process and mulch it there so that will permit a lot of room locally. Commissioner Bosfinrick suggested changing Condition No. 8, to read the outdoor storage of materials, including tree trimming debris shall not be permitted on site so that way there will not be a pile; they will have room for their trucks and that will eliminate some of the problems. Commissioner Koos asked Commissioner Bosfinrick if he has a comfort level that Chaidez would follow the Conditions of approval even though they have not in the past. Commissioner Bosfinrick stated that it is still a one year Conditional Use Permit, and since the neighborhood in the area is changing and Redevelopment is supposedly going to come with a plan for that corner across the street, he thinks one year is adequate. ~ During the Action: Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated just for clarification, the only thing that will be allowed on the property would be the trucks, and there will not be any contractors storage equipment; or he wondered if Commissioner Bosfinrick was speaking only about not allowing tree trimming debris. Commissioner Bostwick clarified not allowing tree trimming debris; it will basically be their equipment storage or equipment yard, and they could park their trucks on the yard; no storage of debris, and no trimming. Mr. McCafferty clarified with Mr. Bostwick that specifically it means when they come back from a job they would have to take the debris somewhere else. • • 1 - e 11 11 ! : • . ! - - - • 11 11 • ~ _ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bosfinrick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2992 (Tracking No. CUP 2001- 04426) for one year (to expire on August 27, 2002). Amended Resolution No. PC2000-92 in its entirety and replaced with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: ~ 08-27-01 Page 30 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1. That this conditional use permit shall expire one (1) year from the date of this resolution on August 27, 2002. 2. That any proposed freestanding sign(s) on subject property shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item and shall be a monument-type limited to either: (a) One (1) sign, a maximum of eight (8) square feet in area and a maximum of eight (8) feet in height, if located at the corner of Lemon Street and Santa Ana Street; or (b) Two (2) signs (one facing Lemon Street and one facing Santa Ana Street), a maximum of four (4) square feet each in area and not exceeding eight (8) feet in height. In lieu of monument-type signs, subject sign(s) may be attached to, and parallel with, the proposed masonry block walls adjacent Lemon Street and Santa Ana Street. The sign copy shall be limited to the street address and the business name. 3. That the legal property owner shall be responsible for the removal of any on- site graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours after its application. 4. That at least one (1), minimum fifteen (15) gallon-sized, tree for every twenty (20) linear feet of street frontage shall be maintained along Santa Ana Street and Lemon Street, with appropriate irrigation facilities. 5. That non-deciduous clinging vines, planted on maximum three (3) foot centers, and non-deciduous shrubbery, planted on maximum five (5) foot centers, shall ~ be maintained adjacent to the existing masonry block walls facing Lemon Street and Santa Ana Street to prevent graffiti opportunities. Said plants shall be maintained with an automatic watering system and kept in healthy condition. If said landscape materials become diseased, die or are otherwise unsightly, they shall be replaced in a timely manner. 6. That the sorting and transfer of tree trimming debris shall be limited to debris retrieved in the normal operation of the subject tree trimming service with no further on-site processing permitted. 7. 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 Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No. 1, including maintenance of a six (6) foot high block wall along Lemon Street and Santa Ana Street. 8. That outdoor storage including temporary storage of materials (including tree trimming debris) shall not be permitted. 9. That tree trimming debris shall not be allowed to compost on site. 10. That solid gates shall be maintained in the driveways along Lemon Street and Santa Ana Street. Said gates may remain open in the morning from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. and in the afternoon from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. and shall be closed befinreen 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. A two-way radio communication system shall be used for opening the gates between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. . 11. That the property shall be maintained in compliance with Engineering Standard No. 137 pertaining to sight distance visibiliry for monument-type signs and/or wall and fence locations. 08-27-01 Page 31 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 12. That the property shall be subject to monthly inspections by the Code Enforcement Division to assure compliance with all code and condition requirements, the cost of which inspections shall be reimbursed to the City by the property owner within thirty (30) days following receipt of monthly invoices. 13. That all vehicles pertaining to this business shall be parked on-site in designated parking spaces and that the public streets and adjacent properties (including the vacant property immediately south of this facility) shall not be utilized for any parking or storage related to this business. 14. 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 Boydstun voted no) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 14 minutes (2:42-2:56) 08-27-01 Page 32 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~ 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 11b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00055 Granted 11c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 11d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04427 Granted OWNER: Joseph D. Huarte Trust, Attn: David J. Huarte, 5036 Tierra del Oro, Carlsbad, CA 92008 AGENT: Gary L. Frazier, 6445 Joshua Tree Avenue, Orange, CA, 92867 LOCATfON: 891 South State Collepe Boulevard. Property is approximately 1.45 acres located at the northwest corner of Vermont Avenue and State College Boulevard. Reclassification No. 2001-00055 - Request to reclassify subject property from the CL (Commercial, Limited), RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) and RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zones to the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04427 - Request to construct a 3- story, 60-unit affordable senior citizens apartment complex with a density bonus with waivers of a) minimum number of parking spaces, b) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, c) maximum structural height and d) minimum required setback abutting a single-family residential zone. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-119 SR2087DS.DOC CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-120 Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 11 as a number of requests, the first one being a reclassification from the RM-1200, RS-7200, and CL Zones to the RSA-43000 Zone. Additionally, there is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a three-story, sixty unit, affordable citizens apartment complex, with the density bonus with waivers of a minimum number of parking spaces, minimal building site area per dwelling unit, maximum structure height, and minimum setback abutting one family residential development. The property is located at 891 S. State College Boulevard. ApplicanYs Statement: Jimmy Gaston, president of the Anaheim Supporting Housing for Senior Adults, stated he was speaking on behalf of a community of friends and ASHA housing advisors, who he referred to as his "work-a-bees" in the project. Mr. Gaston, presented a photographic demonstration of the proposal to develop a senior citizen apartment community consisting of sixty apartment homes on approximately an acre and a half at the corner of State College and Vermont Avenue. He presented ASHA's mission, why they wanted to be at that particular site, how the apartment is to be operated, some of the City regulations about the design, why they are pushed into the particular design that they are proposing, and the architectural features of what they are calling "Tyro Plaza": ASHA'S mission is three-fold, first of all they want to build and own independent apartment homes that are especially designed for senior citizens, and especially affordable for the particular area. • Second of all, they do not just want to own the facility, but also to counsel with the residents and their families about the help they might need to live fulfilling lives, and to coordinate getting those services for 08-27-01 Page 33 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • them; which is their board's responsibility. He expresses they are people who are interested and involved in senior services and they believe it is a way to help them help a lot of other people. Thirdly, they want to do everything possible to make the housing and services affordable to each individual by getting financial support through grants to ASHA and services from cumulative agencies. To accomplish that, their board has been put together; they are a group of people that are connected to senior service agencies, they have relative business experience in this type of service, and they are representative of the residents in the area and neighbors of Tyro Plaza. The board knows the need of their iow-income senior citizens first hand through their day to day professional lives. Public statistics supports what they already know; some is known to the public in various reports generated by the City. Currently Anaheim has 1,765 senior apartments, and 711 of those are designated as affordable. They serve a senior citizen population in access of 21,000 people that is growing by 7,000 so that in the year 2010 it will be up to over 28,000 seniors. So he feels clearly a continued growth and supply of senior apartments is warranted. Sixty percent of Anaheim senior apartments are targeted at persons with annual incomes between $41,300 and $61,900. Only 309 of the affordable senior apartments are reserved for persons with annual incomes less than $25,800. Meanwhile, 57% of Anaheim's senior citizens exist with that level of income. So Anaheim's stock of affordable senior apartments is not meeting the needs that exist for many seniors that exist in the lowest tier of incomes statistics. As a result, even though Anaheim is a leader in the development of senior affordable housing, they are still far behind. The City's consolidated plan establishes a high priority for new senior apartments for seniors with annual incomes less than $15,500 for an individual, and $17,700 for a couple. Anaheim's most recently constructed senior apartment continues the historical trend with only 52 of its 259 units targeted at the most significant need. Sixty percent of Tyro Plaza's sixty apartment homes will be targeted at the most significant need. The reason ASHA wants this particular site for this project is because the neighborhood amenities are marvelous; they are right across from Boysen Park; it is a beautiful area; there are lots of retail services in the area; public transit is available right at the street; it is ~ an adequate size; and although there is a small amount of squish problem at that site, it is the best they It is a three unit facility on Sycamore, built in 1987. Six of ASHA's eight board members live and/or own a home in that area where there are practically no apartment homes built and reserved for senior citizens. Tyro Plaza will be what housing-folk call a service-enriched community. As they have designed it, it is not going to just have the typical management to take care of the facility and maintenance, etc. They are going to have a full time resident services coordinator. Somebody whose primary purpose is to counsel with the residents and their families to be sure their particular needs are taken care of. There will be a van to help with transportation and they will help with collaborating with various agencies to meet the needs of the people that live in Tyro Plaza. City regulations demand the kind of facility they are looking at. Senior citizens apartment code is quite detailed in its specifications for these communities. It specifies rent, and resident income restrictions relate them to how large the community can be. have found; and the citizens of the community want the facility in their back yard. He acknowledges the NIMBY problem, "not in my back yard," however, they want the facility in their back yard because they live in east Anaheim and they want it for themselves and their neighbors. They think it is important that there is this type of project in east Anaheim. Code requires an elevator if the building exceeds a certain size, and they are committed to having an elevator so that their residents do not have to move from their homes when they can no longer walk stairs, they want to be able to have their residents call Tyro Plaza home for as long as possible. The code says that no apartment door can be more than a 150 feet from the elevator, and that the facility must be sided at a distance from its neighbors and situated to not intrude on neighbors, it also requires the facility to have active recreation areas, totaling 200 square feet, multiplied by the number of apartment homes. For Tyro Plaza that is about 12,000 square feet of recreation area. The demanding alternatives Tyro Plaza faces regarding restrictions on the incomes of persons they would choose as residents are as follows: The first alternative allows them to build 53 apartment homes, the second alternative allows them to build • 65 apartment homes, and because they are in the business of providing as many homes for as many people as possible, obviously they wanted to go with alternative No. 2. Code refers to this alternative as a density bonus, and Tyro Plaza wanted to take advantage of the bonus. Since ASHA is seeking a 08-27-01 Page 34 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • conditional right to build Tyro Piaza they realize Commission has to be comfortable with the alternative they select, so they readily reveal the thought processes behind their selection. The second alternative is, since they are only proposing 60 apartment homes, they want Commission to understand why they made that decision rather than the full 65. It is because Code says they need to stay 15 feet behind the sidewalks on Vermont Avenue and Tyro, and 20 feet behind the sidewalk on State College, and wherever they adjourn a residence they need to stay 50 feet away from that property line. The maximum walking distance from the elevator is not only a code requirement, it is also advised by gerontologists; and from the location of their elevator, the length of their corridors is about the maximum permitted. The guideline for setbacks and walking distance result in a compact building sited at State College Boulevard and Vermont Avenue. To comply with those guidelines and come anywhere close to the size community required to accomplish their objectives, results in a three-story building. They have had to take a long hard look at that as well as the City and the people in the community, and it also requires Commission's consideration as well. The setbacks serve to eliminate visual intrusion on their neighbors, the residential corridors of Tyro Plaza are situated so that the apartment balco~ies face parallel to the nearest adjoining property line. That means that no balcony has a natural view into any ones yard. That was one of the first questions that came up over a year ago when they started talking to people in the neighborhoods. The balconies facing north are 140 feet from the property line to the north; the property line to the west is over 200 feet from Tyro Plaza's east facing balconies. To them a relationship with their neighbors goes beyond visual intrusion, it means they want to have a nice looking facility and something that enhances the neighborhood. Since everyone is concerned about property values, ASHA does not want to hinder that at all. They are going to accomplish that with Hansa craftsmen style and lots of human scale details. They are creating a neighborhood look rather than an institutional look. They proposed that there not be a fence at the perimeter of the site, ground floor homes will have porches with shed roofs, residents can sit and enjoy the street scene. Gabored roof-lines create a visual effect that is several feet lower than the roof peak, which is recessed out of the line of sight. • And finally, the building eases to a two-story height at each end for a proper architectural relationship with the adjourning residences. It is those considerations of their relationship with their neighbors that caused them to drop the number of units to 60 instead of 65, so that they could get that kind of a look. The facility will have a wide variety of indoor and outdoor social and recreational spaces for residents to enjoy, first floor is the lobby and mail and a fireplace and a porch. The second floor has a computer center; since a lot of older neighbors are really into computers they are consistently E-mailing their children and grandchildren. Also, resident services will be there and there is an outdoor deck, and a game room and outdoor deck on the third floor as well. All social and recreational spaces are located in the elbow of the residential building adjacent to the elevator. In order to maintain a quieter atmosphere in the residential building, they have located the required multi-purpose room in a separate building. It offers a residential kitchen for common use, and plenty of space for a variety of resident activities. The room will afso be used to interact with the neighbors in the area through activities like an after school tutoring program and neighborhood watch, things that some of the neighbors have said they would like to be involved in with the residents. The grounds will be attractively landscaped along the perimeter. They have reduced some perimeter landscaped areas and parking in order to create as much plaza space as is practical in the center of the site. The Plaza area surrounds the multi-purpose building. It is landscaped to encourage walking, socializing and the residents getting out of their rooms. it aiso contains a spa, a common barbecue facility, raised planter areas for resident gardening available to those who want it. The reduction in parking to create that space, requires Commission's approval of a waiver. At the north east corner of the site Tyro Plaza touches the neighborhood at Tyro Place. They see it as a wonderful opportunity, and so do some of the people in the immediate neighborhood, for their residents to take a morning or evening walk. It is a beautiful neighborhood, a nice place to get out and walk and stroll and visit, but at the same time they think it is best not to allow Tyro Plaza to become a shortcut to Boysen Park or the nearby school, south and east of them. So, they propose an iron fence along Tyro Place to provide a visual connection between Tyro Plaza and the neighborhood but there would be a key or card operated gate, which would restrict access to their residents • only. 08-27-01 Page 35 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • They acknowledge staff's concerns about the maintenance of the gate, but frankly they would like to give it a try. If it does not work, they will come back to Commission six months or twelve months, after they are in operation, and if it is not feasible, they will weld it shut. They have found two similar situations, with senior affordable apartment communities in quality neighborhoods in Orange County. There is one which connects Candon Place Senior Apartments with a residential cul-de-sac in La Palma, with a locked pedestrian gate located at the end at Woodbridge in Irvine. It connects in with Irvine's Windrow Community Park. They hope that Commission agrees that Tyro Plaza addresses a real need at a location that will offer a fine quality of life for their residents. When ASHA began they had a rather unique idea, and so they have done their best to inform Anaheim, in particularly their neighbors, of the what, why and how of this proposal. They began a year ago; prefiled the project in September of last year in much the same configuration as it is today. At that time, they reached out to inform their neighbors, and based on what they heard from staff and neighbors, they reduced the proposal from 65 to 60 apartment homes and increased the size of the outdoor common spaces. Atter filing the petition with Planning Department, they began their second round of neighborhood outreach. They started with a letter of 42 addresses that signed petitions related to the prior proposal for the properry, and a few days later distributed flyers to about 100 addresses, and feel they went significantly beyond the required 300 foot radius from the property. The letters and flyers announced the meetings on Thursday evening, July 26, and Saturday morning, July 28, at Anaheim United Methodist Church, which is at the south end of Boysen Park; an easy walk for the immediate neighborhood. They were honored to have four Anaheim senior citizen commissioners attend to show their support towards the effort put forth. Through all of the meetings during the last finro months, they have had only one address from a gentleman two blocks away from the site who expressed any reservations about Tyro Plaza. Recently, they received a telephone call from him to say he has visited with all of the neighbors he wanted to visit with and if they are okay with it, he is okay with it too. However, minutes prior to the present meeting, they did receive an unusual phone call from a lady who said that she thinks she is going to change her mind, she was ~ concerned about the garages attracting an undesirable element; but on the plans there are no garages. So they are not sure from where she received her information and of what she is thinking, but they will try to find out her concerns. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the audience for any oppositions of the proposal. TF~ere were none. However, there were several citizens present in favor of the project. Excluding Eileen Gold (see below), many of the citizens chose not to speak other than to say they were in favor of the project, Chairperson Vanderbilt assured them their names would be entered into the public records as being in favor of the project. The names are as follows: Ronald E. Costello, Lloyd and Kathi Pidgen (submitted a typed statement - see below), Velma I. Smith, Shirley Palmer, Virgil Enoch, Lupe Valencia, Charlene Ortiz, David Ortiz, Bill Wilkinson, Jill Wilkinson, Harold K. Ramey, Pauline Berry, Lela K. McDuff, Jimmy Gaston, Sandra C. Bryant, Mary L. Hibbard, and Don Baldwin, Eileen Gold, Senior Citizen Commissioner, expressed how pleased she was that Gary McCafferty promptly, at 9:00 a.m. attended every meeting held, and updated them on the issues at hand. She reflects back to her mother who passed away two years ago at the age of 94. Ms. Gold states fortunately they were able to afford an apartment for her mother who lived in Emerald court, not far from the proposed site. The monthly cost for that apartment was $1,700. Ms. Gold expresses concern that the people getting apartments at Tyro Plaza will not be able to afford $1,700, but the marvelous finrist is, they will not have to pay $1,700. She feels this is just a start, but realistically there must be a starting point. So this will be a great example and she feels there will have to be a lot more projects like the one proposed. Ms. Gold states she attended the neighborhood meetings and observed very enthusiastic neighbors and can not praise the project too highly. However, she adds that she is jealous of the recreation room. Tyro Plaza is going to have marvelous things going on there. It is going to be fantastic! She states, the only problem will be that there are going to be a lot of disappointed people who can not get in; that is the only thing wrong with it. She advises Commission to be prepared to build a lot more of the centers, because people, when they see it, will want more. Other than that, it is 100% terrific! • Mr. McCafferty read recommended conditions into the record, under the Reclassification. 08-27-01 Page 36 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bosfinrick interrupted and stated Commission has approved other projects in the city; Mercy Housing on Lincoln Avenue, for senior housing, was one of them. So, he asked, what were the waivers requested and what was granted. Mr. McCafferty stated that as a follow-up to this morning's work session staff looked at one recent projecf that did not comply with parking space requirements, and that was Mercy Charities, at 2240 West Lincoln Avenue. Ninety-six spaces were required, and 83 spaces were proposed and approved by the Commission, and that was 86.4% of the code requirement. In this case, Tyro Plaza would be instead of one space per unit like Mercy Charities, it would be .83 space per unit, which is 75.7% of the code requirement, with 66 spaces being required and 50 being proposed. Commissioner Bosfinrick asked if in any of the other senior projects there had been a variance in the actual square footage of the unit. Tyro Plaza is asking for a waiver from the 1,200 square feet down to 1,052. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant, in regards to the timeliness of the action by the Commission, if he could tell them what the reasoning is that he would like the Commission to act as opposed to being supportive of a continuance. Mr. Gaston responded that one of the things that they have come up against at every stage is their board has a big heart and no money. So they are always looking for opportunities to pick up on grants, etc., and the longer it takes to get an actual approvai, the longer it takes to get a!! the applications in. So the sooner that happens, the better for them, as well as Commission. However, he referred to Commissioner Bosfinrick's statement regarding the size restriction. Commissioner Bosfinrick stated that he wondered whether other projects in the city were given a waiver to reduce the size below 1,200, and after researching, it is found that no other project has asked and nor were they granted a reduction. However, his finro concerns are the size of the units, and parking. Obviously, the • proposed size is considerably below previous proposals Commission approved. He states that most of the seniors still drive. So by the time two places are taken for the staff to park and there are only 60 units or even 62, parking would reduce to 50 and that would be 12 short at the least. So he is strongly concerned about the parking even though the site is on a bus route and adjacent businesses are nearby; but most seniors have a car and are still driving. Mr. McCafferty clarified with regard to Commissioner Bostwick's question; minimal square footage of the unit; there has been no waiver tF~af has been granted by the commission. But with regard to the density bonus which relates to a waiver bonus which relates to Waiver B on Page 1, Mercy Charities were granted a density bonus. The project on Gilbert Street, just north of Ball Road, on the west side of Gilbert Street, was granted a density bonus, but not for the square footage of the unit. Commissioner Koos stated that when the church came to Commission last year, he was one of the few people who voted against it, largely because of the opposition of the neighborhood and parking issues that seemed present. But today it appears to be a really good design, and he is supportive of it. He believes it will be a welcomed addition to the neighborhood and is ready to move on it immediately. Commissioner Arnold concurred that it is an excellent project. He is content that the applicant has worked with the neighbors and the surrounding area to minimize impacts. He feels the result of this interaction shows a need to have some increase, given the size and shape of the property, and its orientation towards the surrounding neighborhood, and in the basis of the presentations and testimonies, there is sufficient justification for the waiver on the height. He is pleased with a proposal that takes into account minimizing impacts on neighbors, and yet at the same time accomplishes a very good land use project. Commissioner Amold feels confident in moving on the issue immediately. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he is a very vocal advocate about pedestrian use of properties, and he appreciates the comments earlier about the gate access to the neighborhood. But just looking at the plan, ~ and the dense landscaping on the intersection, it looks as though all the foot traffic is focused towards the back of the property. The idea is that the driveways would provide people access and there is not really anything to encourage folk from walking, which would help to alleviate the parking situation. For instance, it 08-27-01 Page 37 AUGUST 27, 2Q01 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • was mentioned about the benefit of having the park across the street and a church cattycornered to the current one, and yet anybody who wants to walk there would have to go in the northwest direction, around the two wings, and back to the corner. So, he asked if there were any possibility that there might be an exit path through the elbow of the building. Mr. Gaston responded, it is a tradeoff of convenience versus security. The input received from the neighbors and from the board, who are involved in senior services, is that they would prefer to begin by erring on the side of security. It would be pretty easy to add a pedestrian walk-way off the porch, directly out to the sidewalk, if they find residents desiring that. On the other hand, the reason it is the way it is because consistent recommendations have been not to invite passersby. Chairperson Vanderbilt responded that he did not understand the rationale because they are talking about a pedestrian gate to the neighborhood, but on the other hand there is a security issue. He wondered if they were saying it is more likely that they would have security issues on State Coilege than they would in the neighborhood area. Mr. Gaston answered, definitely, adjacent to the public transit stop. That was the concern. The front of the site is not gated. The back is gated because of pedestrian through traffic; and at the neighborhood request, people coming from the neighborhood through Tyro Plaza's parking lot to Boysen Park. The police department expressed concerns about people vandalizing vehicles and riding skate boards through and endangering their residents, etc., so they elected to compromise the frontage and put a fence, but they would like to have a key operated gate there. The other side, they would want to have a friendly face to the neighborhood. They do not want a fence along State College and Vermont Avenue. Commissioner Arnold asked if the neighbors were okay with the idea of Tyro Plaza's residents coming out of a keyed gate, and not about pedestrian traffic. ~ Mr. Gaston answered that all the concern was expressed about people using it as a short cut. Mr. McCafferty clarified the statement regarding the police department, that they were not recommending that this be a gated access. They did not want a gate there at all, for the very same reasons being discussed, security and parking. Mr. Gaston stated that the whole idea of the iron fence with a gate was a compromise befinreen the police discussions and the neighbor's discussions and wanting to consider security but also aesthetics, and the ability of the residents to interact with the people in the neighborhood. But it would be at their discretion, not just anybody that wanted to come through the property. Commissioner Eastman referred to the presentation regarding people being able to sit on their front porches. She wondered if that would not present the same security issues as a controlled accessed door. It would still be something that would be locked, but it would give the residents access to go out and come in, as an entrance-way for the residents. Mr. Gaston stated that what they are looking at is landscaping befinreen the sidewalk and the porch. Just like a normal yard landscaping, between the sidewalk and porch. They can come out and sit on their porch. It is really the same construction as the balconies above, except they have opened it up to give it more of an inviting, homey look. Commissioner Eastman assured she is not criticizing the look at all, but making a point about security. Mr. Gaston agreed that people could trump through shrubs, so that is another thing that has come up as well. But they really believe the way it is presented is going to give the residents a plus and it is not going to hurt Tyro Plaza by way of security. ~ Commissioner Eastman assured that she likes what has been presented, and is not against it at all, but she is concerned with opening it up to the actual sidewalk at the elbow area, because that also gives an 08-27-01 Page 38 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ openness to the neighborhood; not just the neighbor behind them, but people who live across the street, across State College. It gives people more direct access to walk to church, etc. Mr. Gaston replied he would not have too big a problem with it, provided there was a way for the residents to exit the building but not for people outside to get in. However, he was not sure how to make that happen. Commissioner Boydstun responded that it would be the same as the gate in the back; having the same lock system for both of them and using a master key for the tenants. Mr. Gaston clarified it would be better to have access to the street. Commissioner Eastman replied that it would allow residents to go to the bus stop, to the park, etc. Chairperson Vanderbilt explained that the idea is to mitigate the parking situation by encouraging pedestrian access to the street, and encourage residents not to feel they need a car to go across the street or to the malf. The very amenities that were mentioned in the presentation that were making the proposal an idea location conflicts with the issue on security. Commissioner Boydstun explained that it brings residents out to the street because both directions are going across either street, right at a signal, so it makes it a good location. Commissioner 8ostwick asked if they had looked at enclosing the driveway on the northside of the prope~ty exiting and entering off State College Boulevard, and putting it into landscaping and adding additional parking. Mr. Gaston stated they reduced the parking by 10 spaces at the request of the City's consultant architect • and the traffic engineer that was approved by the city in order to increase the amount of landscape Plaza for enjoyment of the residents. The parking study was done by the same company that did the Mercy Charity Study and they believe Tyro is most comparable to a faciliry that maxed out under .55, and they are at .83. They surveyed three facilities in Anaheim. So it is in response to the City's team that Tyro is reducing the space. Mr. Gaston states that they too want to increase the space, and it is what they believe the facility will need to operate, but they first submitted the proposal with more parking and less pedestrian plaza. In response to comments, they enlarged the plaza and took out approximately 10 parking spaces. Mr. McCafferty responded on behalf of Alfred Yalda. He is always wanting more parking and not less, so it would be unimaginable that he would agree to the removal of 10 parking spaces. He thinks Mr. Yalda was responding to if they are going to propose less parking space that it be analyzed by him and concurred by him, he is not necessarily advocating that there be less spaces. Mr. Gaston replied that at the same time, the City's consultant architect would have the opposite opinion, he would want the plaza bigger, which is what Tyro did. Commissioner Boydstun asked if on the north driveway there could be some landscaping befinreen that and the adjoining residents. Mr. Gaston replied that their preference and their discussion with Ms. Valencia, who lives in the first house to the north of them, would like to see the driveway narrower and the landscape wider. They think there is a lot of landscaping that can be had there. The way the building sits on the site along the side of the building, there is quite a bit of landscaping there already. If they could narrow the exit driveway down to 15 feet and increase the landscaping up against Ms. Valencia's fence from 3 feet to 13 feet, they would love to do that. Commissioner Boydstun asked why they needed that driveway when the other one is the main one. • 08-27-01 Page 39 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Gaston responded that he thinks it is a concern of their architect regarding the fire department and the problems that could possibly arise with them not being able to go both directions. He stated that he would be reluctant to design around a hook and ladder truck, so that is the reason it is there. Commissioner Boydstun asked if a 20-foot driveway would work for them so that Tyro could add more landscaping, because even 8 feet would mean small trees could be placed there. Mr. Gaston stated that he agrees because they are happy to propose a 15-foot driveway and 13 feet of landscaping, but he is not exactly sure the City's standards would allow it. Mr. McCafferty offered to call for Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner to return to the meeting to better explain the facts behind the driveway versus landscape issue. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Commissioner Bostwick to reiterate his question regarding the northside driveway. Mr. Yalda responded to Commissioner Bosfinrick's question and answered, they needed trash truck sanitation to be able to come and leave the site. If Tyro closes the driveway, they will be required to provide a huge area for the trash truck to turn around, and it does not look like they have any area to provide for that. Mr. McCafferty stated that the good news is that the driveway off of State College, the aisle does not need to be 25 feet wide, it can be 20 feet. Commissioner Bristol asked if there really was going to be a gazebo on the corner of State College and Vermont Avenue, and if so, did they real(y think people were going to use the porch at that corner and have no problems. He stated that there was a conflict between Tyro's concern of security on the corner of State ~ College Boulevard and Vermont Avenue, and bringing residents to the same area to sit and relax in the gazebo. Mr. Gaston replied that the area would be railed, and someone would have to jump over it to get in. Commissioner Bristol stated that he had never seen a concept like it before. Commissioner Boydstun asked Commissioner Bristol if he had seen the one on La Palma just west of Harbor. She stated it has a front porch right across the front; it is a busy street, there is a car wash next door, and the porch is highly utilized at all times because the people want to see what is going on even if it is only a car going by, it gives them something to see, and it is not enclosed in railing. Commissioner Bostwick concluded that a number of the concerns would have to be worked out in Tyro's operation and time will test them rather than Commission testing them as to whether the public like it or do not like it, whether they want access out to the bus stop, etc. Commissioner Bristol stated that after spending 15 minutes talking about security in the front of the building, and he thinks it odd that now Tyro is offering a porch that is open. Commissioner Bostwick explained that all the porches on the ground floor are going to be accessible. Commissioner Bristol replied that that is also odd; and they would only have the little 3-foot fence there. So, he does not feel it proper. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he just wanted to share an opinion, and the biggest concern with him was the traffic, but after talking to some of the citizens in the audience with regard to the demographic of the type of seniors present, he feels there is reason to believe many may not be driving as Commission may ~ suspect, so he will base his decision on that reasoning. 08-27-01 Page 40 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Gaston replied that part of that has to do with the income level of 65-75% of fhe people that live there. A lot of them do not have the financial means to afford a vehicle. When visiting other residences of senio with low income, such as the one proposed, probably half of them have vehicles. So, 25-30% of people, who live at Tyro, probably will have vehicles, but the majority will not. ~ ~ . . - • ' ~ • • ~ ~ OPPOSITION: None rs FAVOR: A letter in support was received today, before the meeting. One person spoke in favor to the subject request. There were 19 people who were present and filled out speaker cards to represent their approval of the subject request. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 2001-00055 subject to the conditions of approval as indicated in today's meeting, added conditions to read as follows: 1. That prior to introduction of an ordinance rezoning subjec4 property, a preliminary title report shall be furnished to the Zoning Division showing the legal vesting of title, a legal description and containing a map of the property. • 2. That prior to placement of an ordinance rezoning subject property on an agenda for City Council consideration, Condition No. 1, above-mentioned, shaN be completed. The City Council may approve or disapprove a zoning ordinance at its discretion. If the ordinance is disapproved, the procedure set forth in Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.085 shall apply. The provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the Planning Commission unless said conditions are complied with within one (1) year from the date of this resofution, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant. 3. 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. Approved Waiver of Code Requirements Approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04427, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated August 27, 2001 with the following modifications: Amended Condition Nos. 17 and 28 to read as follows: 17. That a lot line adjustment plat shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section (Development Services Division) of the Public Works Department and approved by the City Engineer and then recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder to combine the existing lots. • 28. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 15 and 26, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 08-27-01 Page 41 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNlNG COMMISSION MINUTES • Deleted Condition No. 23. Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That the drive aisle on the northeast side of the subject property adjacent to State College Boulevard be reduced to 20 feet in width and 8 feet of landscaping between the neighboring property. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 57 minutes (2:57-3:50) break (4:00-4:04) A break was taken during this item from 3:50-4:00 p.m. r-~ ~ J • 08-27-01 Page 42 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNtNG COMMISSION MINtJTES • 12a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTfON - CLASS 1 Approved 12b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04479 Granted OWNER: C& C Investments, Attn: Chen-Chang Lee, 23821 Inverness Place, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 AGENT: Akram Abu-Saif, 3725 Strawberry Creek, Ontario, CA 91761 LOCATfON: 518 South Brookhurst Street, Suites 8 and 9. Property is approximately 1.4 acres with a frontage of 215 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street located 180 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue. To establish land use conformity with existing Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing commercial retaii center and to permit a convenience market. CONDITIONAL USE PERMlT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-121 SR1017CW.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 12 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04419, for property located at 518 S. Brookhurst Street. It is a request to establish land use conformity for the existing commercial retail center, as well as to permit a convenience market. Applicant's Statement: • Abda! Omar, the consultant engineer, stated they agree with the staff report, and do not see a problem with it. Dorothy Rose, the owner of Eng(ish Rose Florist, speaking in favor of the project, stated she has been in the plaza for 12 years, in several different locations within the complex of the plaza, and she cannot begin to tell Commission how delighted she is to have Mr. Omar come in with the facilities they are proposing. She reported tolerating a pornography shop on the corner; a house of prostitution that they had great difficulty getting rid of; telemarketers next door to her; and she stated not knowing which was the most difficult to deal with actually. She exclaims that she cannot begin to tell Commission how wondertul it is to have Mr. Omar move in. They will not be selling any liquor, nor cigarettes, and their clientele is family oriented, to the max. She sees the most positive, fabulous results coming from the people that are not only coming in, but some of middle Eastern descent that are already there have proven to be fabulous neighbors. Instead of brawls and fights in the parking lot, there are families coming in. It is just wonderful for the entire area. She hopes Commission will approve the proposal. Judithanne Gollette, speaking as a resident of West Anaheim and not as a representative of WAND, stated that Brookhurst/Ball Road Corridor has become a target for ethnic speciafty stores, and she has nothing against them, except for the ones that are not keeping themseives clean and providing a safe environment. She stated there was a Wolfies Liquor Store, Iocated at 8rookhurst and Ball; the southeast corner, and the piua place could not keep their door open in the back alley because of the stench. There is now a new tenant in there and they are putting daily items on the front pedestrian walkway; there are rugs hanging. It looks like a swap meet every day out there. Ms. Gollette informed them there is King Market at Gilbert Street and Ball, right next to Magnolia High School, and she has been on a personal crusade with Code Enforcement for four years where she goes out and take pictures in the parking lot of the violations that go on there daily. The center was built without a back end alley so that there are deliveries in front, they have all of their crates, dai(y parked on the front, and the trash bins are totally filled daily with over-spill into the ~ parking lot. Code Enforcement has given the owner of that complex a notice to evict them, and instead of evicting them, they expanded their store into another store front, so instead of having two they have three. 08-27-01 Page 43 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • There is the one at the southwest corner of Brookhurst and Ball Road that has a tremendous parking problem, and so does King Market at Gilbert Street and Ball, and now there is another one proposed at Orange and Brookhurst. She stated she has nothing against them going into the complex, but she is asking for certain concerns from the neighborhood to be taken into consideration when Commission gives them their CUP. The neighborhood behind them are very nice two-story homes that have been fighting and working with the city to make that corridor of the eastside of Brookhurst supportive of the neighborhood. But when there are delivery hours from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. that is going to be disturbing their peace. She stated she totally understands Ms. English Rose, wanting somebody positive in that shopping center. There has been the massage parlor that was closed down. There has been some negative stores in there. So the community is looking for positive things, but they are looking at a shopping center, that according to Commission's standards, needs to be improved by the retail owner. If Code is already going after the owner to improve the shopping center because of signs that are broken, graffiti, lack of landscaping and blighted areas, she wonders if the place were to turn into a negative store in the future, how much cooperation from the owner of the shopping center would Code have. So when Commission looks at Item No. 6, where there is mentioned three different stores to be in the convenient store; she clarifies that is not a tiny market, it is going to be a substantial use, and there will be a substantial number of cars turning left off Brookhurst. Item No. 8 talks again about the parking, and knowing what has happened at the King Market at Gilbert Street and Ball Road, where three-quar~ers of the parking lot is used for King Market, she is concerned that the shopping center's parking wil( be used for the convenience store and other tenants will not have appropriate parking for themselves. Item No. 17, on Page 3, refers to general maintenance that needs to be improved; the owner does not have a track record of keeping it up, but if the CUP could be put on possibly a year's time limit, where when they come back and if they have kept the property clean, and if they do not put the signage in the front, and if they keep the front windows clear for 3 feet back, and if they do not use the pedestrian parkway for food stands and cleaning of the fruit like the other stores have done, that they can continue to be a good neighbor. Item No. 1, Page 5, regarding 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. deliveries, Ms. Gollette asks, hopefully, if Commission can make that 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. daily deliveries; and no merchandise should be in the pedestrian walkways. Ms. Gollette concludes that all the • community is asking for is a clean store to go into, and the owner of the retail center to comply with what the city has asked. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Mr. Omar responded that what they are hoping for is a clean store. He understands her complaints about some other areas and some other stores, but they are a completely different store. They are going to be complying with whatever conditions the city requires. He is not proposing any sidewalk sales. Another point noted is delivery time between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.; he feels that is reasonable, although the store hours will remain 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. He believes his store will be a major improvement to the shopping center. It is a family oriented store, it is not the massage parlor or any of the other shopping centers referred to by Ms. Gollette, and the neighborhood will benefit very much. Ms. Rose stated she is familiar with the various locations Ms. Gollette has sited. She points out there is a Middle Eastern meat market that has been there for almost a year, and there have been no difficulties whatsoever; not with deliveries, parking problems, nor anything in pedestrian walkway areas. She contends that Mr. Omar washes the area down every single morning. She informed that he worked with the people who have the trash pick up to deliver brand new trash containers so that he could wash the trash containers. She points out that previously, the trash containers had the bottoms rusted out, and debris collected in them and he was unable to clean them. She contends that this is not a brand new thing. He has been there almost a year, and she could not ask for a better neighbor; and she is picky. Ms. Rose states she too is against people parking all over the place where they should not park. However, there is parking in the back and there is proper access to the back. She concludes that the store will be an absolute, tremendous boost for the area. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ Commissioner Bristol referred his statement to Mr. Yalda. He stated he was there on Saturday, and he is looking at the site plan and he sees where they have 8-1/2 foot typical width of parking space, and yet he 08-27-01 Page 44 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ has size 12 shoe, and he walked a lot of the width of the parking space and determines it is somewhere under 7 feet, so that would mean that the plan is wrong. Mr. Yalda said that the plan is correct, the parking would be slurried, seafed, and restriped as per the plan. The existing parking is old striping and some of it is done as compact parking which is not done now. So, this plan is done on actual measurements, because some of the parking there, even though some of them are 7 feet, at the end a few of them are 12 feet wide, or 11 feet wide, so the space is not spread evenly. He contends the pian is accurate and offers his seal on it as a certified engineer. Commissioner Arnold asked if Mr. Yalda was saying that the plan is accurate for what will happen and not what is currently there. Mr. Yalda responded yes, the entire parking lot has to be restriped, and just to put Commissioner Bristol at ease there is also conditions for them to comply with City's standards for handicap and afso regular parking spots. Commissioner Boydstun stated that they should add to the condition, so people are comfortable, that there will be no merchandise on the walkways and all business and accessory work wiA be done inside the unit, and change the delivery time from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 7LLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMM155)UN AG ~IC OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke with concerns relating to the subject request. FAVC?R: 1 person spoke in favor of the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with • staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1 (Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmentaf Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 20Q1-04419, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated August 27, 2001 with the foAowing modifications to the conditions of approval: Modified Condition No. 1 to read as follows: That, as stipulated by the petitioner at the public hearing, the hours of operation for the convenience market shall be limited to 9 a.m. fo 9 p.m. daily. Deliveries shall occur using only the east facing doorways between the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Added the following conditions of approval to read as follows: 32. That no merchandise shall be allowed on the walkways. 33. That all activities relating to the proposed business shall take place within the building. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 4:05-4:24 (19 minutes) u 08-27-01 Page 45 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMM1SSlON MINUTES ~ 13a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 13b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT September 24, 2001 13c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04420 OWNER: Gary D. and Linda ~. Schnaible, 11331 Sarclay Drive, Garden Grove, CA 92841 AGENT: Farano and Kieviet, 2300 East Katelia Avenue, Suite 235, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1333 South Euclid Street. Property is approximately 0.27 acre located at the southwest corner of Euclid Street and Chalet Avenue (Serenity Hall). Requests to retain an unpermitted meeting hall for self-help groups with waivers of a) minimum number of parking spaces and b) required site screening. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8043CF.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 13 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04420. It is for property located at 1333 S. Euclid Street, and is a request to retain an unpermitted meeting hall for self-health groups with waivers of minimal number of parking spaces and required site screening. • Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff since the staff report was prepared and presented to the Planning Commission if there were any other items or issues being raised that would be added. Mr. McCafferty responded that at the morning work session a letter from Robert Evans was presented, dated August 24, 2001, indicating opposition to the proposal, otherwise, there are no proposed changes to the conditions of approval. Mr. Hastings responded that one item was brought up in the morning session regarding assembly halls or meeting halls; and just to make Commission aware, in 1994, there was a code amendment which required conditional use permits for meeting halls. Prior to that point it was actually listed finrice in the codes, once under conditional use and once under permitted use and it was straightened out in 1994. So, since 1994 there has been a requirement in this particular zone that meeting halls have Conditional Use Permits. Applicant's Statement: Tom Kieviet, of Farano and Kieviet Attorneys, stated he is speaking on behalf of the applicants, Gary and Linda Schnaible, who are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow an Alcoholic Anonymous meeting to be conducted at Serenity Hall, located at 1333 S. Euclid Street, in Anaheim. The Schnaible's have operated Serenity Hall at another location at Ball Road and Brookhurst shopping center for 12 years prior to moving to the Euclid location in February. At the prior location they were able to operate it without problems and did not have a CUP for any of the time period. When they looked into purchasing the Euclid property they checked with the Planning Department and Business License Department, and was told that they would be able to move their business to the Euclid property since the zoning was the same. However, there was no mention of a need for a CUP. They purchased the property and obtained the business license as an Alcoholic Anonymous Club-house. It was not until there were neighbor complaints about parking on the residential streets that they were informed by City Code Enforcement that they would need a CUP for their use. Only the north half of the building is being used for AA meetings. It is not a drug-hab, or ~ detox center, and there is no hospital type in-patient service provided. The hours are currently 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily, and there are four meeting times. Contrary to what they may have erroneously presented 08-27-01 Page 46 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • previously in the parking study or that may be contained in the staff report, the first meeting occurs at 6:00 . users when it is actually caused by other property owners. He states while Commission does not want to disregard neighbor concerns, they must note that the Schnaible's have and are willing to take action to keep Serenity Hall from having an adverse impact on the residential neighborhood. However, it must also be pointed out that Serenity Hall is not the current cause of residential street parking, and it should be permitted to have commercial use on property that is zoned as such. Serenity Hall is providing a valuable public service by offering a facility for sober and recovering alcoholics to meet at a convenient time to self- help themselves maintain their sobriety. It would be unfair to deny them to use the property for AA meetings after they have made efforts ahead of time to check with the City to confirm that they could move from one location to another. a.m. and not at 7:00 a.m., the other meeting times are at 12:00 noon, 5:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. The other half of the buifding is currently used as a temporary fire station with up to eight fire personnel occupying that portion until the permanent fire station across the street is completed. When the fire station vacates, in approximately 6 months, that portion of the building will revert to general offices and there will not be a creation of a larger meeting hall. (As far as letters of support and opposition, Mr. Kieviet submitted a letter to Commission when he initially submitted the CUP application, and ask that it be part of the record.) He stated when Serenity Hall commenced operation in February 2001, people attending the AA meeting may have parked on the residential area along Chalet and it raised concerns among the neighbors in the area. Since that time the Schnaible's have addressed the parking concern by having a parking monitor at the building and instructing all attendees not to park in the residential areas. They retained the services of Larry Grier, a traffic engineer, to conduct a parking study on the property in June 2001. !t was ultimately concluded that the peak operating demand time were primarily on Friday and Saturday afternoon and evening meetings. With a parking monitor in place, it was determined residential street parking by Serenity Hall users was none existent, even during peak parking demand times. Apparently the neighbors have also expressed concern about the people at Serenity Hall congregating in the parking lot and continuing meetings in the parking lot after the formal meeting of the building was over. Schnaibfe's have and will continue to discourage people from continuing meetings outside the building. They initially put up a temporary barrier and when they were informed by Code Enforcement that it was inappropriate and were not allowed to use it, they took it down. They restrict peopfe from bringing chairs outside, other than the parking monitor, so that when they leave the premises, it is in a similar church situation, where they may visit a little bit, and then leave. They will agree to a condition in the CUP, if necessary, prohibiting outdoor meetings or formal activities outdoors. Most of the parking on the residential streets was not by Serenity Hall users but by the property owner to the west who was using his property for car repair and sales shop. This was witnessed during the parking study that was conducted and it is Serenity's understanding that the adjacent property owner is subject to Code Enforcement action and is currently being prosecuted by the City. Mr. Kieviet states it would not be fair nor correct to blame the residential parking on Serenity Hall While it is technically possible to handle Serenity Hall parking on site, they are still making an effort to obtain access to additional parking. The following are the various options in that regard: Currently there is a public library across Euclid Street that has available parking that can be used after regular business hours of the library, since the peak parking demand times occur when the library closes, there is no conflict with library parking uses. The temporary fire station, next to Serenity Hall, has a large pad on the high school that the fire department uses for its vehicles, this pad area could be used for additional parking once the fire station vacates the premises. Serenity contacted the school district to determine if they would have a problem with them using the pad area for future parking, and the school district's response at that time was that they consider the fire department use indefinite but that they would favorably iook upon Serenity's potentia! to use it for additional parking. The school district also mentioned that the water department of the city may be considering to use the same pad area to put a well on. Serenity checked with the water department and they said they were looking into the possibility, however, they realized they could not do anything until the fire department vacates and it may be a year or more away before they want to install a well, but when they did they would look upon it favorably of it being a shared use because only a small portion of the area they would need would be occupied by a well and the rest could be used for shared parking. The third option is that Linda Schnaible, who is a licensed psychotherapy counselor, is contemplating leasing space across Chalet to the north for her counseling business. If she does in fact • lease, there would be additional spaces that she could make available across that street to allow to be used for overflow purposes by Serenity Hall users. In view of the fact that Serenity Hall is not causing residential street parking in the neighborhood, they ask that the CUP for a meeting hall with parking waiver be granted. 0$-27-01 Page 47 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • The parking study has shown that it is possible to accommodate the parking needs of Serenity Hall on site during peak parking demand times if tandem parking is used, or it is also possible to use the street frontage along the commercial property on Chalet without impeding on the residentiaf area to handle this additional parking. Tandem parking would work in this situation because AA members would come and leave at the same time for an AA meeting. It is similar to restaurant valet parking, where they stack up cars for restaurant purposes and be able to have them leave in a coordinated fashion with either a valet or monitor service. If tandem is not used, additional off street parking is still available during peak demand times after normal business hours at the public library parking lot and they Serer~ity is working with the fire department and the school district to acquire additiona! parking where the fire truck currently sits at Loara High School, immediately adjacent to Serenity Hall and there may be access to additional parking if Linda Schnaible is able to lease. Mr. Grear explained pad area can be used for parking when fire station vacates area and school district would look favorably on that. Water district is also looking at that pad for a well, but they could share use for parking. Linda Schnaible, a licensed psychotherapist is looking for space on Euclid and said she wou(d be able to provide parking for overflow purposes. Parking study shows they can accommodate parking during peak times if tandem parking is used. If tandem parking is not used, off street parking is available at the library after normal business hours, plus they are working with the School District. Asked that parking waiver be granted as well that wall waiver be granted because there is already a 6 foot wall across the alleyway that blocks the neighborhood. They feel adding another wal( would attract criminal activity in the alley. They would like to modify Condition No. 2 that states hours of operation are 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Saturday, but this is a 7 day a week facility with people who attend meetings daily before they go to work. They ask that the opening start at 6:00 a.m. and close at 9:30 p.m, seven days a week. These hours will not restrict the AA users. They would also like to modify Condition No. 14 calling for the 8 foot high decorative wall. They would like to keep it at it's current height and remove this condition. They also have concern about condition 18 calling for egress to occur through the door on Euclid Street, but that would require users to walk all the way around the building to get in. ~ Public Testimony: Gary Schnaible, 11331 Barkley Avenue, Garden Grove, owns property in the area. He elaborated on how he chose that particular location and what they want to do with the facility. Rodney Berg, 842 South Cornwall, Anaheim. He has attended Serenity Hall for 11 years, he is program director for DUI program provider and operates largest DUI programs for Orange County. He elaborated on how the program works and gave state statistics on DUI and how the programs really help the offenders. Hopes that this isn't denied just because of a parking issue. Paul Dylan 8158 Canterbury Way, Buena Park 90620 and has attended Serenity Hall since 1981 and really needs the support of the program. Steve Romero is a product of Serenity Hall, explained how it helps people and asked for parking waiver to be granted. Henry Garcia, 1306 Kings Court Drive, feels it is a parking and congregation issue. U-turns to get into the parking lot are unsafe and parking gets bad in the summer months when the school parks are loaned out for different sports activities. Opposes project. Gary Huniu, 1326 South Falcon Street, is opposed to the CUP. They only had one week to prepare the opposition because they only received the card a week ago. They circulated a petition signed by various local street residents, presented it to Commission. He is opposed because of parking, and feels the location of the facility is a negative influence to the students who go to the various schools in the vicinity. Also brought up the code violations which have occurred such as no business license, parking overfiow into residential areas, outdoor barbecues and outdoor patio. Feels these facilities are needed but not in this ~ particular area. 08-27-01 Page 48 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Grear said maximum number of people at any one meeting is 50. When facility opened in February there was a higher attendance, but meetings have leveled out and parking has been reduced. With respect to children going by this site, they go by liquor stores and a lot of other bad facilities. Everyone agrees this is a good service, sp he doesn't know why children being around this building is wrong. Clarified they only had 1 barbecue for the facility's grand opening. Gary Schnaible stated they do not allow drunk, drinking people or drug users in the building. Doesn't feel the buifding is a detriment to the neighborhood. Beverly Dylan, $158 Canterbury Way, Buena Park. Does not feel people make u-turns and it isn't fair that they are blamed for driving problems in the area because she drives the speed limit and residents who live in the area are the ones who drive around her. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Arnold clarified that the staff report indicates that the amount of on-site parking is not adequate to meet demands. Alfred Yalda stated they went to the site several times and they were overparked sideways on the side. That told them they didn't have adequate parking. A facility like this should have 115% of the code. They checked it several times, mostly during lunch time when people were parking sideways and if someone wanted to leave, others cars had to move out first. That tells them they don't have adequate parking. Commissioner Arno(d wanted the clarification that in the past they have dealt with situations like this where the applicant has a recorded parking agreement that allowed them to treat 2 parcels as one entity for purposes of parking analysis. • Selma Mann stated that the code contemplates that parking on adjacent property that is burdened by an agreement that has been approved by the Traffic and Transportation Manager and City Attorney's Office may serve as a portion of the parking that wiN serve a particular facility. Commissioner Arnold said they usually made the parking evaluation based on existing agreement. Selma Mann stated in order to evaluate if that parking was going to be adequate, it would have to be submitted in conjunction with the application. Alfred Yalda said he is not aware of any library that is in agreement with leasing of the parking. He didn't think libraries and schools had those agreements. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Grear asked why library parking lot was used in the traffic study. Mr. Grear said they were trying to keep parking off of the street so during the survey period they used some of the library parking. Their peak is Friday, Saturday and Sunday evening. The survey taken during peak showed 33 cars including the fire department employee cars. Afl the cars could fit on the property if they would be allowed to stack them, which will woric because everyone goes to the meeting and leaves at the same time. He explained how parking will be less complicated once the fire departments leaves that site. During their survey they found 27 cars parked on the street by the auto broker next door and 0 cars from Serenity Hall. Much of the perceived parking problem is coming from another source and not Serenity Hall. Mr. McCafferty stated Code does not recognize tandem spaces and they are not permitted by code. You have to have a 90 degree stall with a 24 foot back up. By parking in the aisle way, they are not complying with the engineering standard. Commissioner Arnold asked if they were justifying a waiver from the code requirement on the basis of . • waiver from what the code requires on top of that. Mr. McCafferty stated yes and Selma can clarify the parking lot issue. 08-27-01 Page 49 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Grear stated applicant is hoping to achieve a one year CUP to be able to work out parking problem. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, read the Section that explained parking. Commissioner Arnold asked applicant if he would prefer to get parking agreements then come back for evaluation. Mr. Grear said they have made efforts to secure such agreements with the school district for that area, but they cannot get an agreement with them. Once the fire station moves, it will be better. Suggested granting the CUP so they can come to terms with the adjacent property. They only need 5-10 additional spaces. Chairman Vanderbilt stated the letter of operation mentions a snack bar and ping pong and activities that suggest people will leave at different times so stacked parking won't work. Mr. Grear said peak times are the evening and people go home when they are done with the meetings. They may be more focused on socializing during the day but not at night. Applicant stated the snack bar is something that they usually use to buy something to eat or drink during the meeting, not sit around afterwards. Commissioner Boydstun did not understand why they cannot park on that side street when it is a commercial business. It is not their fault that the City picked a bad contractor and until they get the mess straightened out they can't get someone else finish it, but the fire department will eventually get finished and it will be available. This supplies a service, they were in business before, they were told wrong but they are trying to undo it and do it right and she feels they should be given a one year chance. ~ Chairman Vanderbilt asked when was licensed issued and when did business commence. Mr. Grear said they had the license for the last 11 or 12 years at the one locat+on, then the other location in February. Mr. Steenbergen, Code Enforcement Officer, called him and to get his license Changed for that location. It was only a week, but he went right to the City t changed. At that time he was told that he didn't needed a CUP because he said his avera was 16 people per meeting. Chairman Vanderbilt asked if he realized he was limited to 16. y moved to the Id him he had to o get everything ge attendance Mr. Grear said no because he said it was an average and that some meetings had 26 - 30 people. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Mr. McCafferty if when an applicant for a business license comes to the Planning counter and makes a statement of an average number of persons, would it be likely they would be advised that it would be alright if they maintained a 16 person average, and it would not require a CUP. Mr. McCafferty stated that the issuance of license would not have been based on the number of people that the applicant proposed for the business. However, he understands that the business license was issued on March 1, 2001. So, not knowing what actually transpired, he feels the people at the counter may have been confused as to how Mr. Schnaible's relayed his request. He is not sure if the request for the license was explained as an office for the Alana Club, or what the specifics were. Chairperson Vanderbilt requested to know the type of business for which the license was issued. Mr. McCafferty read the title as "Alcoholics Anonymous Club House." He explained the purpose of the business was to sell coffee, soft drinks, in addition to renting space for AA meetings. ~ Commissioner Eastman referred back to the on street parking. She asked if the entire street out front, down along the school grounds, from Ball Road to Cerritos Street, was used for cars parking on the street, or if it had been changed to not allow parking. 08-27-01 Page 50 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr, Yalda responded that he did not recall any changes, if so, there should be signs, but they generally do not allow parking along the schools. Commissioner Eastman explained that it is an athletic field, and she remembers seeing parents parking along that street when there are events going on. Mr. Yalda responded that he is not aware of any elimination of parking in that area; it is probably free parking. Mr. McCafferty stated that he observed people parking on weekends for softball events up and down Euclid Street, but the Code does require for businesses that they provide all parking on site, they cannot rely on outside parking. Commissioner Bristol related to several issues. Saturday, he parked in the north lot, and he watched someone pull up in the same lot, and four people exited the car and walked to the hall for the meeting. He then wandered over to the fire department and talked to a couple of firemen there to find out how their neighbors were, and they were quite impressed by the attendees of the Alcoholics Anonymous. Then they discussed the traffic on Chalet, (he grew up on King's Court, and is extremely familiar with the area) and he noticed nine vehicles parked on Chalet, but he could not tell if they belonged to the neighbors, or to whom they belonged. However, the firemen told him they were pretty much cleaning up the neighbor directly to the west, and at one time they had all the problems with parking as the issue at hand. Later, he met with Mr. Kieviet, and explained objectively and very honestly what was going to happen at today's meeting. He pointed out three issues: (1) The citizens in Anawood have been impacted, and continue to be impacted (he feels a lot of the commits today are not objective, they are underline comments and he thinks it is unfair}. ~ (2) The issue is whether or not this business can operate there so long as they can park on site. Ne disagrees with the parking study. Ne does not think that Serenity Hall can play with the library parking lot or anywhere else. So that brings the number of parking stalls back to 12, minus the 8 that they eventually will have, which brings the tota! back to 20. In this case, they could do a couple of things; one, get another parking reciprocal agreement like Commissioner Bostwick and Commissioner Arnold were talking about, but there are not any options right now; two, make sure users come in from a different location, for a time specific, until onsite parking spaces can be provided. But he feels to cross the street to the library is not a reasonable access. It is pretty hairy to do that, especially at night. The library does not have that many parking spots; approximately 26. So Serenity Hall is impacting them by 50%, whether they are peak hours or whether the library is operating business at the time or not. He agrees with Commissioner Boydstun that they should have an opportunity, because maybe they did not get the fufl benefit of thinking they could come to the new site. And he agrees with the neighbors that there should not be 50 cars parked all over the place because of a lot of different issues; however, he does not think the cars are coming from Serenity HaA. Therefore, he is willing to work something out for a year to see what happens. Chairperson Vanderbilt agrees with Commissioner Bristol in that he thinks it is a very good use, and it does a lot of good for the larger community. The key is to insure that there is adequate parking. However, he informs that he cannot justify a parking waiver on what has been presented thus far. The City does not permit considering offsite street parking, parking on the school or library's site, and cannot consider stacking or tandem types of parking. The three issues are not within Commission's authority. They have to justify a waiver on the basis of what is on the site, whatever parking agreements have been reached, and the manner of operation, as with the senior citizen center. He advises that there is something about the way fhis particular facility is going to operate that is going to reduce the number of cars on average that would be at the site. So, as Commissioner Bristol suggests, there must be some other site where people could park, where there is adequate parking and transportation over to this particular site. Chairperson • Vanderbilt states if there were some basis for that, it would satisfy him, but he cannot support a parking waiver on what has been proposed. 08-27-01 Page 51 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bostwick asked if Serenity Hail came in with a lease agreement with the commercial property across the street to utilize for their parking, would it qualify. Mr. McCafferty responded that the property would have to have surplus spaces to give, depending upon what use ultimately occupies the site, because it is not a contiguous site the Planning Director would have to determine that there are special circumstances of such that that site would work for the subject property. Mr. Yalda reemphasized Mr. McCafferty's statement, and added that he has not seen any shopping center or any property build extra parking to give them away. So it would be very unlikely that they would have access parking on the other site. Commissioner Arnold verified that the site on the other side was the 24-hour daycare site situation and that it is up in the air as far as what exactly is happening on that property, he feels that it is quite possible. Commissioner Bristol stated that there is a for sale sign on the day care property, so he assumes it will be tough to get a reciproca! with the property right now. He feels there are other ways if Serenity Hall wants to get innovative. For instance, Commission just witnessed a variance of 63% on a property in Brea, and that is because it made common sense to have the passengers dropped off. He feels the proposed property is a logical one to have passengers dropped off, since they are not driving. That is just one of the things that could be done. Commissioner Koos asked if the applicant felt there needed to be a continuance to allow them to explore other parking options. Mr. Kieviet stated they have explored the opportunities in their immediate vicinity, and there are possibilities but they are not immediate. He thinks they would need more time should they have to explore beyond their immediate vicinity to see if there are other areas that may have excess parking. However, he does • not know if they are going to have something concrete within a month. He feels what they may end up doing is come back in a month to tell Commission they have or do not have a good lead. Commissioner Boydstun asked Mr. McCafferty for what length of time should the continuance be approved. Mr. McCafferty replied that obviously the use is currently operating, so they would like the Commission to decide as quickly as possible. He feels the only thing that restricts Commission is the permit-streamlining act, but the application is not anywhere near the 6-month limitation. Commissioner Koos stated he would be concerned about the "as long as you can take" approach because he feels basically, they are getting a free ride on the code. Commissioner Boydstun stated her intentions were not "as long as you could take," but feels if the applicant had finro months, Commission would know if they are starting on the fire department and when it actually is going to finish or if it is still going to be sitting there. In the mean time the applicant could check other places in the area, and see other lots they could use, and possibly shuttle clients in or something until other parking is available. Commissioner Koos stated that looking at offsite parking is a totally radical departure from what Commission does. Commissioner Soydstun reminded him that they did it for a pre-school. Commissioner Koos responded not unless there is an agreement. Commissioner Boydstun answered that that is what the applicant needs time to get. ~ Commissioner Koos stated he could not support the waiver and he could not support more than a month continuance. 08-27-01 Page 52 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bristol offered a motion of continuance until September 24, 2001. Commissioner Arnold stated what he would fike to see is within a month something very close, if not ready to go, or otherwise it is just being strung along and there is no basis for it. Mr. Hastings interjected that if, in fact, another piece of property is found, and most likely Alfred is correct another piece of property will not be found, with excess parking, that particular property can be advertised for a parking variance. At which time, Planning would look at that piece of property to see whether the uses depend on the variance. But Planning needs more time since they have to look at advertising of the other properties. So he suggests about 6 weeks or that Commission continue the proposal for two meetings and determine at that time the need to advertise another piece of property. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated that although there is a discussion about the fire department, the applicant has indicated whether or not the fire department is there, there is going to be some parking that needs to be reserved for the use of the balance of the building. With regards to the business license, as it is something that was discussed in the morning meeting, she wanted to be sure that the applicant was aware Commission had been informed as well. The business license is actually a business tax certificate, and it is in no way an entitlement. In fact, the business tax certificate that was obtained indicates, "This certificate evidences that the persons, firm, or cooperation named herein, has paid the applicable tax required by Title 3 of the Anaheim Municipal Code for the period indicated above, and is not a regulatory permit or entitlement to do business. There may be additional requirements before the business may be legally conducted. This certificate does not authorize the conduct or continuance of any illegal or uniawful operation in violation of any law or ordinance." Commissioner Bristol offered a motion for a continuance to September 24, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Eastman, vote taken and the motion carried. ~ • • ~ ~- ~ ~ • ~ OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition to the subject request. A petition was submitted with 53 signatures in opposition. A letter was submitted at today's morning session in opposition. FAVOR: 5 people spoke in favor to the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to September 24, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to explore other options in providing additional parking for subject request. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 30 minutes (4:25-5:55) A 5-minute break was taken from 5:55-6:00 p.m, • 08-27-01 Page 53 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 14a. CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 14b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3400 (TRACKING N0. CUP 2001-04421} OWNER: Lederer Anaheim, Ltd., Attn: L Les Lederer, 1990 Westwood Boulevard, 3~tl Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025 AGENT: Farano and Kieviet LLP, Attn: Thomas G. Kieviet, 2300 East Kate(la Avenue, #235, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately 14.74 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard (Anaheim Indoor Marketplace). Requests modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to removal of a non-operable legal nonconforming, freestanding electronic readerboard pole sign in conjunction with an existing indoor swapmeet. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-122 Approved Denied modification to conditions of approval SR2088DS.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 14 as conditional Use Permit No. 3400. It is a request to modify or delete a condition of approval that pertains to a legal non-conforming sign that they have on the existing property. The property is located at 1440 S. Anaheim Boulevard, and is the Anaheim ~ In-door Market Place. Commissioner Bostwick abstained due to properry he owns located 1000 feet from the site. Mr. McCafferty requested a couple of changes: Condition No. 1 should read the permit shall expire on August 29, 2010, so that it would be consistent with the City Council Resolution that approved the reinstatement of the swap meet last year. Suggested adding a Condition of approval that requires any future signs on the property be brought back to Commission as a reports and recommendations item. Tom Kieviet, of Farano and Kieviet, stated he has been representing this particular property for a number of years. He states they were present a year ago, requesting an extension of the underlined CUP, as an Anaheim In-Door Marketplace, and when they obtained the extension for 10 years one of the conditions they recognized at that time was the pole sign adjacent to the building was to be removed within a year. They are now asking Commission to reconsider the condition, because they fee( there are circumstances warranted that would justify a reconsideration to hopefuily cause that condition to coincide with the Marketplace use itself. With regard to the justification for the modification, all of the conditions pertaining to improvements on the properry have been complied with; the parking lot has been resurfaced and restriped, 60 Juniper trees have been installed on the north fence line, 10 additional parking lot trees have been insta(led along Anaheim Boulevard, and new ground cover has been planted along Anaheim Boulevard. They have even added things that were not required by the CUP; namely, the entire building being repainted, new air conditioning units, and enclosures placed on top of the roof, and the new ground cover along Cerritos Avenue has also been installed. The new improved look of the Marketplace still causes it to be better than most of the uses in the neighborhood. Granted, they realize that the area is undergoing renovation and ultimately redevelopment, • and is the subject of an overlay zone. However, a year ago when they made an application they were told fhat their use was consistent with the overlay zone, and they feel that they are still consistent with the 08-27-01 Page 54 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • surrounding area. The existing pole sign that is next to the building, is not in a dilapidated state, it is not an eye sore to the neighborhood. It is relatively unique in that it stands 470 feet off the street frontage. All the other signs are almost immediately adjacent to the street. It provides the most visible means of identifying the market place from the street because the city required landscaping along Anaheim Boulevard hides the building and the other sign that is closer to Anaheim Boulevard from public view. !t is consistent with, no worse than, and in fact, less visible than many of the other pole signs up and down Anaheim Boulevard. He presented photos of sample signs that currently exist on Anaheim Boulevard. Mr. Kieviet stated, granted the Ciry wants to improve the area and, perhaps, remove the signs, but their position is that the area has not changed to the extent that would necessitate their sign coming down at this point in time. They feel the Marketplace and its vendors need visible signage that will attract business. It is a big building and needs a big sign. There is really no benefit they can see to the City or the community by requiring that the sign be taken down, immediateiy. Taking down the sign would only serve to demoralize the 170 business owners in the Marketplace. Its visibility attracts tourist and freeway users. The Marketplace has suffered in the past few years over the freeway widening and street widening that has occurred, and they need time to recuperate and believe the sign is a part of that recuperation effort. And, contrary to the statements that are made in the staff report, while they call it a changeable e(ectronic reader board sign, it is not. It has not been a changeable electronic sign for 30 years. The existing lettering is painted on. It is not changeable, and not electronic and will not be a distraction to the area and it will not have burned out light bulbs that will become a problem in the future. He feels they have shown good faith by complying with CUP conditions on a timely basis, and taking additional steps to keep the property attractive. Therefore, they request Condition No. 16, that was in the original CUP, be modified to allow the pole sign to remain until the indoor swap meet use seizes or until circumstances in the area change to warrant its removal. ~ Pamela Marcum, General Manager of the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace, concurs with Mr. Kieviet, strongly agreeing that the sign-board is visibly seen on Anaheim Boulevard and also the 5 freeway. She currently has 188 vendors, and they agree that it is their only advertisement. There is a smaller marquee closer to Anaheim Boulevard, which is covered by ficus trees, and other shrubbery, which makes it less visible than the sign-board sign. She presented a petition from all vendors requesting to keep the sign. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that the issue is understandable and does not contain nuances, it is to keep the sign or not to keep the sign. He informed that he received 5 cards in favor of the sign plus the petition and no opposition cards, so since there was not any new information to be stated, he suggested closing the public hearing. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner 8oydstun stated she could see why they wanted the sign. It gives them location and identification; and it sits so far back from the street that it does not clutter the streetscape in anyway. A condition is placed that when the Marketplace ceases, it automatically is removed. Therefore, she feels Commission is covered. Commissioner Koos recalled when Commission voted on the proposal, the vast majority of them were pleased and included the condition of approval specifically to enhance the look of the center, inline with freeway orientation, as well as general sign policies that they were putting forth in the City. He does not see anything that has changed since their last vote. Therefore, he is still factoring the one year, and he was in favor of the 10 year CUP because of the tradeoff of the sign. Initially, staff recommended 2 to 3 years, and thought it was hard to create a nexus between removing such an expensive sign, and the time limitation. But 10 years he can live with, he probably would have changed his vote had he known Commission would reconsider within a year, without any new information that is really substantial. So he could not support it. He understands what the Marketplace wants to do, but it is not in line with what • Commission has been doing across the city with respect to signage. 08-27-01 Page 55 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that he finds it interesting that there is no photograph of the existing sign. When Commission was presented with this issue a year ago, the applicant provided them with photos from certain intersections and documented the trees blocking the sign from certain angles. But, after the vote, he has been thinking he should have taken a more careful look at the sign and its relationship to the street because he does not see a great deal of blockage. He finds that it is a prominent sign, probably as large as many of the signs that were provided in the photographs presented so he does not know if a hardship would necessarily be created by removing the sign. He agrees that it is set back. The applicant has gone great distances to improve the property, and he thinks the removal of the sign would increase the appearance of the property even farther. He is in agreement with Commissioner Koos in regards to justifying a 10-year CUP with the understanding that the applicant was going to take down the sign in a year's time, as well as make the other improvements. So, he remains consistent with the philosophy and cannot be supportive of it at this point. Commissioner Bristol stated he is torn on this one because he is the one that pushed a year ago to get the extension on the CUP in lieu of the sign. He looks at the sign a lot. He agrees with the applicant that the freestanding sign on the front has been camouflaged very well. But, on the other hand, he asks himself if the identification can be seen from Anaheim Boulevard, and he feels it can because it is on the wall. Mr. Kieviet's letter from last year states how important the sign is, but he feels this use seems to be going from temporary to accessory, and instead of land banking it is a long term use; until the next 10 years or until it changes. So, he explains, that is the reason Commission said they would allow it to go for 10 years in exchange for taking down the sign. If the sign were to become really important to the existence of the business, he would think differently. The letter last year stated the Marketplace had become regionally renown as a unique shopping experience, and he agrees. It has become popular but he asks, does the sign being there make it popular, he is not sure if it does or not, because when he drove the freeway looking for the sign northbound he could barely read it in that direction. Therefore, he chose to stay with his original decision and say no, for the very reason stated last year. ~ Commissioner Eastman goes along with Commissioner Boydstun. She feels if they are allowed to be there, signage is important. She affirms the one thing she has noticed, not being in the condition, is the tremendous improvement the Marketplace has made. Ms. Eastman states it now looks really great, whereas it looked really bad before. So, she feels they have rea!!y shown good faith in that, and she does not find the sign anymore offensive than any of the other signs. So, she supports it. Commissioner Koos stated that he did not really think the comparison to any other sign is really the point. The idea is to incrementally improve the corridors, and he feels the only way to do it is when the projects come forward for entitlements, and they have nonconforming signs, they are made to take them down; if that is what the City's goals are. Commissioner Koos states, obviously, the City Council has set forth standards which establishes these signs are nonconforming, and he feels to compare them with other 30 year old signs is irrelevant. Commissioner Bristol stated that the Marketplace made a deal that they would take the nonconforming sign down in exchange for 10 years, and last year he was not going to go with the CUP because of the use. However, he feels it will ultimately be decided by Council, and they previously voted 5 to 0 to accept the deal for the entire benefit of the corridor. Commissioner Eastman referred her question to staff regarding the photos that showed West Storage and Fiesta Market, she wanted to know if their signs were conforming signs. Mr. McCafferty responded that the Storage West sign is similar to the Marketplace sign, and it too would not be permitted today. He explains, they were permitted in the past when the sign code was a lot more liberal than it is now. But, today, what is permitted on a piece of property as large as Anaheim Marketplace, is classified as a Shopping Center I.D. sign. So, for every 300 feet of frontage, the property can have a sign, if they start off with an increment of 600 feet or more. For this site, there could be one sign at Anaheim Boulevard, because it has 485 feet of frontage and finro signs on Cerritos Street, where • they have 725 feet of frontage. The signs that would be permitted today would be limited to 25 feet in height, 20 feet in width, and 250 feet in area. 08-27-01 Page 56 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Boydstun asked how old the Storage West sign is, because she did not think it had been there very long. Mr. McCafferty stated it had been there for at least 10 years. Commissioner Koos asked Mr. Kieviet if there were anything he would like to say just before the vote. Mr. Kieviet explained that Mr. Lederer, the property owner, had to be across country for another project that he is working on, so he asks if it may assist Commission in hearing what Mr. Lederer would say, he requests a continuance to allow him to give his input as well. Commissioner Arnold stated that he feels if Mr. Lederer felt like he really needed to be present, he would have asked for a continuance before the meeting so that it could have been taken care of early on. OPPOSITION: A petition was submitted in favor with 176 signatures from tenants of the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace requesting the su6ject poie sign to remain. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1 (Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Denied modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 3400 (7racking No. CUP 2001-04421) . for removal of a non-operable legal nonconforming, freestanding electronic readerboard pole sign in conjunction with an existing indoor swapmeet based on the following findings: That the original intention of this condition of approval was to encourage aesthetic enhancements on the subject property to be consistent with the City Council and Planning Commission's expectation for high quality, attractive retail developments citywide. (ii) That the removal of the 63-foot high freestanding pole sign would eliminate an existing nonconforming structure and use on the property, and would bring the property more into conformance with the development standards in the Zoning Code. (iii) That the Community Development Department recommends denial of this request due to its inconsistency with ongoing beautification and revitalization efforts occurring in the Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Project Area and South Anaheim Boulevard Overlay Zone. (iv) That a long-term, 10-year reinstatement request to retain the indoor swapmeet operation was originally approved by the City Council on August 29, 2000 based in part, on the premise that various site improvements, such as the removal of the nonconforming sign, would be completed in a timely manner. VOTE: 4-2 (Commissioner Boydstun and Eastman voted no; Commissioner Bostwick abstained) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 25 minutes (6:00-6:25) 08-27-01 Page 57 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 15a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 15b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04423 OWNER: Enrichment Resources, Inc., 6312 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, #348, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Nextel Communications, Attn: Chris Glass, 310 Commerce Dr., irvine, CA 92602 LOCATION: 6254 East Santa Ana Canvon Road. Property is approximately 0.94 acre with a frontage of 200 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and located 515 feet west of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard. To permit a telecommunications antenna and accessory roof-mounted equipment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-123 Approved Denied SR8061VN.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 15 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04423. For property located at 6254 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. It is a request to permit a telecommunication antenna and accessory roof mounted equipment. Commissioner Koos abstained from the item due to his close relationship with the wireless • telecommunications industry. Commissioner Koos stated while he previously conferred with the City Attorney and determined he does not have any financial conflict of interest, he is abstaining to avoid any potentially perceived conflict. Chairperson Vanderbilt announced that he received correspondence regarding the item from Stephanie Perry and the concern citizens of the canyon in support of the project, and also received a letter from Antonio Martino who is against the project. Mr. McCafferty announced an additional one that was faxed from Fred Lowry, Attorney at Law, in opposition to the request, and attached to it is a petition with 26 signatures on one page and 11 signatures on another, totaling 37. Also a fax from Julie Kramer-McNatt, in opposition to the request, dated August 27, 2001, and also one from Kiel and Florence Kieswieth. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Mr. McCafferty to present changes to the report. Mr. McCafferty offered the following changes to the staff report: On Condition No. 3, the second sentence, . they woufd add to the end so that the sentence would read; Should the screen wall not match the building; modification shall be made. Such that the materials match the building prior to final building inspection approval, and that any roof mounted equipment be painted to match the roof, and that any cable runs necessary for the antennas not be visible on the exterior of the building. Chris Glass, representing the applicant for Nexte! Telecommunications, stated he understands that there is a lot of history associated with this particular building, but the developer and former owner, Doug Brown, no longer owns the building, it was sold to a nonprofit, religious cooperation in 1999. So, he feels whatever took place with the surrounding residents at that time should have no bearing on the proposed project. He asserts the current owner and Nextel absolutely have no relationship with Doug Brown. Therefore, the past circumstances leading to the construction of the building should have no relevance in the ongoing meeting. • He reported meeting with one neighborhood group, The Concerned Citizens of the Canyon, and sharing a proposal with them. He received several calls on August 21 from some of the homeowners, and they 08-27-01 Page 58 AUGUS7 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • expressed their anger with the former owner and their opposition to the current project without actually seeing the architectural finishes of the facility. Mr. Glass states he offered to meet with them and show them photo simufations, but they were not interested in seeing any plans nor learning more about the project. They expressed a blanket opposition to anything going on in the building. He feels Nextel is aware and sensitive to the surrounding residential properties to the west. The project was carefully designed by Nextel's architect to not have a negative visual impact on the community. All of the antennas will be completely screened from view. The screening will match existing architectural of the building in style, texture, and color, including Spanish roof-tile caps and trim. In addition, all of the radio equipment will be located inside the second floor of the building, completely hidden from public view. The parapet screening proposed will only be 8 feet in height, and actually will extend 5 feet above the existing parapet. He expresses knowledge of the City of Anaheim and the Commission having previously approved roof-top facilities with 10 foot screens. The additional height is mostly visible along the side of the building, which faces toward Santa Ana Canyon Road. So the proposed screening does not detract from any homeowners view, and does little to change the existing appearance of the building. Mr. Glass disagrees with staff's report that they are not extending the screening around the entire perimeter of the building, because he believes such a design wil! have a far greater visual impact on the community; increasing the height of the entire building. Whereas the current design maintains the existing height of the building, except in the front facade. In comparison, the City has approved very similar Nextel projects in recent months. They feel that their facility is consistent with the standards and guidelines set forth by Anaheim for wireless facilities because they have an existing structure, which eliminates the need for a 40- foot ground mounted tower. The antennas are fully screened in a manner that is architecturally compatible with the existing building and surrounding area. In closing, he states Nextel has a responsibility to provide adequate coverage to its customers, even in residential areas. He states utilization by many emergency services such as • ambulances, fire departments and police, deems the importance of adequate phone service. Therefore, Mr. Glass appeals to the Commission to consider the project and approve the facility. Public Testimony: Sonja Grewal opposes the project on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Anaheim Hills Citizen's Coalition and pointed out that this is not about Doug Browne, it is about the height and project itself. She read a letter on their behalf saying they feel increase in height exceeds Canyon Area zoning standard and is causing design and appearance of an already out of proportion building to be even more intrusive. Asked for Commission to deny proposal. Fred Lowry, 6273 East Calle Jamie and practicing attorney in Anaheim, stated he faxed a letter along with a 2-page petition that morning. Every resident on 3 streets that circle the project signed the petition for denial. This building was only supposed to be 2-story and is 3-story, also it was only supposed to be 35 feet high and is 38 feet high and now they wanf to add more height onto it. One hundred percent of the people in the area are against it. Antonio Martino, 6275 East Rio Grande, is directly south of property and will loose the reason why he bought the home, which is for the view. He opposes additional height, it will have negative impacts all the way around. Bart Allen, 6278 East Calle Jamie. He lives right next door and looks at the building every day. Building is already illegal and now they want to add even more. Playground on this property is only 20 feet away from his property as it is. An easement from the wall to his property was waived for the builder and a height requirement of the wall was taken away, which has invaded his privacy. He elaborated on the problems that this large building causes and asked for denial. . Commissioner Bristol asked if the playground noise affects him and if juniper trees help block noise. 08-27-01 Page 59 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Allen stated he has monitored noise with his own decibel reader and it is over the point stated in the City Code Ordinance. Church has violated rules of hours of operation and hours as to when children can be dropped off. Junipers do not block off noise and many have died, as well as much of the landscaping against the wall. Chairman Vanderbilt asked if anyone else wanted to speak on the item, none came forward so applicant came back. Mr. Glass stated screen is extending 5 feet from the parapet on the roof and is just in the front, not around the entire building. All buildings there are in the scenic corridor with residential all around, so no matter where they go, it will be the same. He offered to show drawings and photo simulations to anyone who called and not one resident came to see them. This leads him to believe that a lot has to do with the former developer and their anger in how the building was constructed, and feels if they saw the simulations they would see that the impact is minimal. Also, facility is unmanned so there would be no invasion of privacy by workers. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick stated he has the same feeling that the residents do, it is just extenuating the problem. He can't go along with this, suggested co-locating on one of the Edison towers, closer to the Festival. Commissioner Bristol stated it may not be a significant increase, but everyone wants this decreased and he can't vote for any additional height on this. Commissioner Boydstun asked if they checked sharing the Yorba Park tower. • Mr. Glass stated he is not aware of any wireless facility there, they looked north of the freeway and didn't find any wireless facilities. They can't get too close to existing sights or it causes interFerence. Commissioner Bostwick stated there are 3 in Yorba Regional Park, 1 across the freeway on Weir and La Palma. Commissioner 8oydstun said idea was to share so that there aren't so many of these and they should have checked out the ones in the area. Commissioner Arnold asked if it is possible to upgrade what they have so that there is a further reach. Mr. Glass said that is not how the technology works, sites are driven by traffic and each site can only handle so much traffic. Customers generate the need for a site. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if it was feasible to have a lower antenna at more locations. Mr. McCafferty clarified search ring submitted to staff includes Yorba Regional Park. Eric Vanderplast, electrical engineer for Nextel said they design heights within one given height level and if they go lower, they reduce coverage patterns which means they need more sites. Chairman Vanderbilt clarified that it is possible to accommodate coverage by having 2 locations in a 2-story faciiity. Mr. Vanderplast stated yes but if depends on terrain. If it is hilly terrain with a lot of trees and buildings, it doesn't work as well. ~ Commissioner Boydstun asked if Ms. Grewal or Mr. Lowry saw the pictures. 08-27-01 Page 60 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Lowry said he did not care if it was one inch higher, he doesn't need to see it, residents just don't want it no matter how they camouflage it. Commissioner Arnold excused himself from remainder of ineeting due to General Plan update meeting. • • ~ ~- • - ~ • ~ ~ • OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke in opposition to the subject request. 1 person who represented the Anaheim Citizens' Coalition spoke in opposition to the subject request. 6 letters were submitted in opposition. A petition was submitted with 35 signatures in opposition. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04423 based on the following: (i) That the proposed use would adversely affect the adjoining residential land uses in that the size and scale of the parapet screen wall is out of context with the existing single-family neighborhood and would adversely affect single family residential land uses by creating a negative visual impact in the vicinity; (ii) That the proposed telecommunications facility is contrary to City goals regarding the concealment of such facilities in that the design does not complement the site because the screen wall does not extend around the entire perimeter of the building and therefore, is not an adequate stealth design. t VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSStON TIME: 34 minutes (6:26-7:00) Tony Arnold left the Planning Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m., in order to attend the General Plan Advisory Commission meeting. \ J 08-27-01 Page 61 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISStON MINUTES • 16a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 16b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 16c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4049 (READVERTISED) ~Trackinp No. CUP 2001-04424) OWNER: Young U. Kim, 1165 Knollwood Circle, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Dennis McCollough, 2821 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 LOCATION: 1163 and 1165 North Knollwood Circle. Property is approximately 1.69 acres with a frontage of 47 feet on the west side of Knollwood Circle located 450 feet northwest of the centerline of Woodland Drive. To permit the expansion of a previously-approved towing and impound services facility to include automotive repair (auto body) with indoor and outdoor storage of vehicles with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC2001-124 Approved Approved Approved expansion SR8071 KB.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated Item 16 is Conditional Use Permit No. 4049 for property located at 1163 and 1165 N. Knollwood Circle to expand a previously approved towing and impound yard to include ~ auto repair, indoor and outdoor storage of vehicles with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Commissioner Koos abstained from this item. There are recommended changes to the conditions of approval of the staff report. In Condition 28, timing should be prior to commencement of activity or prior to issuance a building permit, whichever occurs first as opposed to 90 days. Staff wants to add a condition stating that should the tow yard cease to operate at this location, that the permit be readvertised to insure that both properties would have ability to operate independently in terms of parking and access. There were no letters from the pubic in opposition or in favor of. ApplicanYs Statement: Dennis McCullough, architect, read staff report and agrees with all conditions except for condition 6. They would like to delete requirement of having an 8 foot concrete block wall on south side of property because you can't see the south property line unless you go into the neighbors yard behind it. They would like to retain chain link fence with slats on easterly side on south side of the wall. Judith Ann Gollette represents WAND stated car and tow places have not had much success with staying in compliance with their CUP's in West Anaheim. Asked that Commission take into consideration all landscaping, setbacks and additional beautification that can be done at this time. Dennis McCullough stated Knollwood Circle is a private street and applicant has upgraded the property. Chairman Vanderbilt closed public hearing after asking if anyone wanted to speak on this item. Commissioner Bristol agrees with applicant, it looks better than it used to, but could not figure out where they want to put a block wall. ~~ Commissioner Boydstun said it looked good. 08-27-01 Page 62 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairman Vanderbilt asked staff if they are requesting a block wall due to nature of the use of the property. Greg Hastings stated if it is an outdoor storage yard it must comply with code requirements They need to verify if it is adjacent to the CL zone which is the Don Jose Restaurant. They would be comfortable with the proposal as it is if is adjacent to the ML Zone property. If it is next to the CL Zone, they have to protect the integrity of that commercial zone. Commissioner Boydstun clarified that the side of Don Jose's has the block wall. Greg Hastings said if that is the case, staff is ok with that. Mr. McCafferty said if it backs up to CL Zone, code requires that it be a minimum of 6 foot high block wall but, if it abuts industrial, it can be chain link with slats to screen outdoor use. Chairman Vanderbilt asked if slatting is enough screening so that you can't see what is in there. Greg Hastings presented photo that shows you can see what is behind it. Code even requires that landscaping be planted in front to hide the fence. He suggested eliminating the condition then they would have to comply with code. Chairman Vanderbilt stated that was acceptable. OPPOSITION: 1 person was present who represented WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council) and spoke with concerns/suggestions pertaining to the parking and . beautification of the subject facility. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Approved modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 4049 (Tracking No. CUP 2001- 04424) to permit the expansion of a previously-approved towing and impound service facility to include automotive repair (auto body) with indoor and outdoor storage of vehicles, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated August 27, 2001 and with the following modifications: Modified Condition No. 28 to read as follows: 28. That prior to commencement of activity or prior to issuance of a buifding permit, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 9, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 15 and 21, above mentioned, shall be complied with. Deleted Condition No. 6. Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That should the tow yard cease to operate at the subject location, the conditional use permit shall be readvertised to ensure that both properties would have the ability to operate independently in terms of parking and access. ~ VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Arnold was absent following Item No. 15; and Commissioner Koos abstained) 08-27-Q1 Page 63 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 14 minutes (7:01-7:15) ~ ~ 08-27-01 Page 64 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINU7ES ~ 17a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARA710N 17b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04425 OWNER: NMC Anaheim, LLC, Attn: Sandy Sigal, 18801 Ventura Boulevard, Tarzana, CA 91356 AGENT: Howard Spunt, 6409 independence Avenue, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 LOCATION: 200-248 South State Colleqe Boulevard and 2008-2370 East Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 27.8 acres located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and State College Boulevard (Anaheim Town Center). To permit the expansion of an existing commercial center and approval of a final site program. • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-125 Approved Granted and Approved Final Sign Plans SR1169JD.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04425 for property located at southeast corner of State College and Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim Town Square. Staff would like to change staff report and delete conditions 23 and 24 and add a condition that existing street trees located along State College and Lincoln Avenue shall be protected in place and temporary ground cover such as sod or other materiai as approved by the Public Works Department shall be provided between the existing right-of-way and the ultimate right-of-way until the street is widened. No letters were received in support or opposition. ApplicanYs Statement: Sandy Sigal, Chief Executive of Newmark Merrill Companies and owner of Town Square, 18801 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300 Tarzana, California 91356. On Item 8 which relates to tab(es and chairs, it should be clarified that tables that are fixed as opposed to tables that are free floating will remain outside and will not be brought in. Moveable items will be brought in. In number 10, the requirement for the number of tenant spaces for building A and B should be limited to 8, has been changed to 9. On 22, driveways that will be constructed with a 10-foot radius curb returns does not apply to existing driveways, it only applies to new ones that are installed. They have remodeled entire center and will now upgrade the corner piece of the property too. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Eastman stated she spoke to area residents and they were concerned about the number of signs and would like to remove some of the clutter. Also asked if there was a reason that the big signs had to be on the corner, shielding the view of whatever was put there. L_J Mr. Sigal said that signage was controlled by the tenants. He wanted to reduce signage by about 40% so they made agreements to put in smaller signs for trading a sign on the corner. As part of the package they agreed to work on the remodel. Same is for Ralph's, they agreed to improve interior of their premises and cooperate with the exterior re-model and one concession was to give them additional identity on the corner. They felt if they could reduce the overall sign area by half and end up with consistency, it would be a dramatic enough improvement and they could overlook some of the other issues. ~,: Commissioner Bosfinrick asked if there was any way to remove the D1 and move A2 closer to the street in the parkway that is shown by driveway. 08-27-01 Page 65 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Sigal said there are 2 vacant panels that are not lease required. Also he can't move that particular sign closer to the street because the ultimate right-of-way is within 7 feet. Commissioner Bostwick stated the D1 Sign is closer to the street than A2 Sign and if he moved it up to the parkway it would be back further than the D1 Sign so the excuse doesn't work with him. Mr. Sigal said some are right on the setback and some are off, but they have worked with staff on the placement of all these signs to avoid encroachment because of the right-of-way issues. The real issue for the signs was the lease requirements. Their goal is to get consistency and reach City goal of reducing overall square footage. There are no signs that are at the 25-foot maximum, they have all been reduced. Chairman Vanderbilt stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Eastman's comments about the location of the corner sign because he wants to encourage pedestrian use. Asked if he was going to put in more trees than what was required of him on the corner. Mr. Sigal said they worked with the staff to come up with a number for palm trees. There will be more trees on the exterior and interior of the site than shown on plans. Goal in the critical intersection is palms but shade trees will also be planted elsewhere. Mr. McCafferty the proposed sign on the corner was approved by Commission through a sign variance. Commissioner Bosfinrick asked if the 10-foot setback on State College is after the ultimate right-of-way. Mr. Sigal said it was. Commissioner Bosfinrick clarified that it will be more than that now and the change in requirements is to • plant it with ground cover until the ultimate right-of-way is taken. Greg Hastings pointed out that all freestanding signs have been approved, Commission is only looking at wall signs today, as well as new buildings on the corner. Commissioner Bristol asked if they taiked about all the driveways or just the new ones. Melanie Adams stated they were just driveways affected by this corner development. Commissioner Bristol offered motion for CEQA Negative Declaration, seconded by Commissioner Koos, vote taken, motion carried. Offered resolution approving cup 2001-04425 u 08-27-01 Page 66 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • • ~ ~~ ~ ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Dec(aration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04425 subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated August 27, 2001 with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 8, 10 and 22 to read as follows: 8. That the tables and chairs used for the outdoor seating area shall be in a style and color to match and/or complement their surroundings and that movable tables and chairs shall be stored inside the building prior to closing. 10. That the number of tenant spaces for the new Building A and Building B shall be limited to nine (9). 22. That any new driveways created by the project on Lincoln Avenue and State College Boulevard shall be constructed with ten (10) foot radius curb returns as required by the City Engineer in conformance with Engineering Standard No. 137. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building ~ permits. Deleted Condition Nos. 23 and 24. Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That the existing street trees located along State College 8oulevard and Lincoln Avenue shall be protected in place, and temporary groundcover such as sod or other material as approved by the Public Works Department shall be provided between the existing right-of-way and the ultimate right-of-way until the street is widened. MOTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Sign Program plans as identified in Final Plan Exhibit Nos. 1 through 20 because it provides for signage that complies with Code and creates consistent signage for the commercial center. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold was absent following Item No. 15) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 20 minutes {7:16-7:36) ~ 08-27-01 Page 67 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 18a. CEQA NEGAT(VE DECLARATiON (PREV. - APPROVED) 18b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2090 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04413) OWNER: Harvey S. Owen, P. O. Box 308, Buena Park, CA 90621 AGENT: Robert Gibson, 1160 North Kraemer Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1160 North Kraemer Boulevard. Properly is approximately 0.9 acre with a frontage of 175 feet on the east side of Kraemer Boulevard located 242 feet south of the centerline of Coronado Street (The Shack). Requests reinstatement of this permit and an amendment to a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on March 12, 2009 to expire on August 2, 2001), to permit public entertainment accessory to an existing restaurant with safes of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-126 Approved Approved reinstatement for one year (to expire on August 27, 2002). SR8066KB.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated it is a request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2090. Property is located 1160 North Kraemer known as The Shack. There was a gentleman in the . audience that had to leave by the name of Dr. Howard Garber but he did provide staff some information to give to Commission. Chairperson Vanderbilt responded, yes, the information has been received. Dr Garber had a conflict but he provided a flyer to be passed around in opposition. He asked Staff if there is any modification they would like to make to the staff report at this time. Mr. McCafferty responded, No, Mr. Chairman. Applicant's Statement: Robert Gibson, 1160 North Kraemer Co-owner of The Shack Restaurant, stated he was present at the Planning Commission Meeting 6 months ago, and one of the big issues was the police report that was submitted that day. But since it is too late to present a prepared speech, he offered to answer any questions Commission might have. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Mr. Gibson if he read the report and if he was in agreement with the findings and recommendations. Mr. Gibson responded, "yes, the conditions are the same ones that we have always had". Randy Vearmeyer, stated he has been a patron of The Shack for approximatefy 3 years, and during that time he has never had any trouble at the club. He reported that over the past several months he has coordinated bands to play there. He acknowledged earnestly, "Ladies and gentleman, there is no agenda other than to run a profitable business al! the while catering to a very diverse population base." "It is my wish to see this trend continue in the future." "Thank you." • Joe Shultz, 8850 Knott Avenue, Buena Park, stated he has promoted shows at The Shack for about 3 years and there is no way that they are prejudice towards anybody. He stated he does Hispanic acts, Black 08-27-01 Page 6$ AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ acts, Orientals acts, etc., and he wanted Commission to know that there is no prejudice in any way. He feels The Shack has the best owners he has worked with in the last year. He reported he was with the previous owners that were there and the current owners are just great. They run a really nice club, a nice tight ship and they welcome anybody with open arms. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff based on any of the testimony if there is any change in their position. He asked Commission if they had any questions. Commissioner Boydstun asked Mr. Owen if Commission received any record of food against liquor percentage. Mr. Owens stated as Commission knows The Shack has had a very bad reputation in the past, but in the last 2'/2 years they have brought the restaurant up the best they could, and at this point they are not done. He stated they just hired a new cook from Spoons who they think will help the restaurant, and as of the second quarter the food to liquor ratio was 56%. He acknowledged knowing that Commission requires 60%, and reports that they are not there yet but are headed in the right direction. Commissioner Boydstun stated they couldn't get much closer. She thanked them for giving Commission the true facts instead of doctoring them. Mr. Owens stated it is not easy for to be a successful restaurant and it is their goal to get the percentage up higher. Chairperson Vanderbilt announced the motion passed. • • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: A flyer was submitted relaying oppasition to the subject request. FAVOR: 2 people spoke in favor of the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previousiy-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2090 (Tracking No. CUP 2001-04413) for one year (to expire on August 27, 2002), to permit public entertainment accessory to an existing restaurant with sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption. The following revision was made to the staff report at the meeting: Modified subparagraph (b) of Paragraph (20) to read as follows: {b) By resolution, a rove this request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2090 (Tracking No. CUP 2001-04413) for one (1) year to expire August 27, 2002, to permit public entertainment and dancing accessory to an existing restaurant with sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption based on the foliowing: Amended Resolution No. PC2001-30 in its entirety and replaced with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: ~ 1. That the accessory public entertainment shall expire on August 27, 2002. 08-27-01 Page 69 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2. That the outdoor patio area may be used by patrons for seating and smoking • purposes only. That no other outdoor activities, including but not limited to dining, drinking, entertainment, dancing etc. shall be permitted on this property. 3. That the number of persons attending any event at this property shall not exceed the maximum occupancy load as determined by the Anaheim Fire Department. Signs indicating the maximum occupancy shall be prominently displayed within the premises. 4. That the property owner shall provide any new business operator/owner with the conditions of approval contained in this resolution. 5. That the sales of any type of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises shall be prohibited. 6. That there shall be no live entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted on the premises at any time without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. 7. That the activities occurring in conjunction with the operation of this establishment shalf not cause noise disturbance to surrounding properties and shall conform to the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance. 8. That all doors serving subject esfablishment shall comply with the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and shall be kept closed and unlocked at all times during hours of operation except for ingress/egress, deliveries and in cases of emergency. 9. That at all times when entertainment or dancing is permitted, uniformed security • guards shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department to deter unlawful conduct on the part of employees or patrons, and promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, and prevent disturbance to the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises. 10. That the parking lot serving the premises sha!! 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 be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the windows of nearby businesses. 11. That there shall be no pool tables, amusement devices or games maintained within subject establishment without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. 12. That the business operator shall comply with Section 24200.5 of the Business and Professions Code so as not to employ or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. 13. That there shall be no public telephones on the premises located outside the building. 14. That this establishment shaH be operated as a"Bona Fide Public Eating Place" as defined by Section 23038 of the California Business and Professions Code. 15. That there shall be no bar or lounge maintained on the property unless licensed by ~ Alcoholic Beverage Control and approved by the City of Anaheim. 08-27-01 Page 70 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 16. That food service with a full meal shall be available from opening time until either 10:00 p.m. or closing time, whichever occurs first, on each day of operation. 17. That subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a public premises (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premise as defined in Section 23039 of the California Business and Professions Code. 18. That the sales of any type of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 40% of the gross sales of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of any type of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be made available, subject to audit and, when requested, inspection by any City of Anaheim official during reasonable business hours. 19. That there shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. 20. That the operator of subject facility sha!! pay for the cost of any Code Enforcement inspections which may be required to address Code violations or violations of these conditions of approval. 21. That there shall be no direct pedestrian access to the outdoor patio area from outside the building. All access to this area shall be solely through the restaurant. Further, that a sign shall be posted at the entrance to the patio stating that this area shall be used for seating and smoking purposes only and that no dining, drinking or dancing shall be permitted in the patio. • 22. That the property shafl 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. 23. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the SP94-1, DA-3 Zone unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the Planning Commission or City Council. 24. That a valid business license shall be maintained for this business from the City of Anaheim Business License Division of the Finance Department. 25. That this resolution shall be permanently posted in an obvious location within the employee work area to serve as a reminder of the conditions of approval contained herein. 26. That three-foot high address numbers shall be maintained and displayed on the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the view of the street or adjacent properties. 27. That the on-site landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained in compliance with Ciiy standards. 28. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 29. That all existing mature landscaping shall be maintained and immediately replaced in ~ the event that it becomes diseased or dies. 08-27-01 Page 71 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 30. That trash storage areas shaA 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-gallon size clinging vines ptanfed on maximum three-foot centers or tall shrubbery. 31. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1, and as conditioned herein. 32. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold was absent following Item No. 15) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (7:37-7:46) ~ ~~~,~~~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~~~~~,~,.~,~~~%~,~,~,~,~,~,~~~,~,~~~~~~.~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~~~,~,~,~~,~~~,~,~,~,~,~,~~~,~,~,~,~,~,~~~~~,~,~,~,~,~~~ Commissioner Boydstun stated that a letter was received from the County Voluntary Certification Program pertaining to the Sober Living issue. She expressed her support and encouraged the Planning Commission to show their support to the County of Orange. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, suggested that the issue be agendized to the September 10, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. For consideration, in authorizing Chairman James Vanderbilt to prepare a letter expressing Planning Commission's support. ~,~,~~~,~~~~ ~~,~~~,~,~,~~~~.~~~,~~~,~~~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~~~~~~~,~,~~~,~,~~~,~~~,~~~,~,~,~,~~~,~~~,~,~,~,~~~~~,~,~,~,~,~~~,,~,~,~,~~~,~~~,~,,~,p~~~~,~~. -__ I 08-27-01 Page 72 AUGUST 27, 2001 PLANNING COMMlSSlON MINUTES `._J MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:00 P.M. TO MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 AT 10:30 A.M. FOR AN UPDATE ON THE SOUTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD OVERLAY ZONE; A PRESENTATION ON THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, AND PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. ~ ~ Respectfully submitted: ~ ~ ~~ ~ Pat Chandler Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on D d , 2001. 08-27-01 Page 73