The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 2001/09/10~ CITY 4F ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California • • CHAIRPERSON: `.JAMES VANDERBILT COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: TONY.ARNOLD;, PAUL BOST1NiCK, PHYLLIS BOYDSTUN, STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann, Assistant City A.,ttc Greg Hastings, Zoning Division . Greg McCafferty, Principal Plan.~ AGENDA POSTING: A compie Friday, September 7, 2001, insic the outside display kiosk. ~ PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bullet CALL TO ORDER ~~~~~ PLANNING COMMISSIO • PRESENTATION ON • STAFF UPDATE TO'~~~i DEVELOPMENTS AT PLANNING COMMIS • PRELIMINARY PLAN RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION 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 submif if to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Bostwick PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT H:\DOCS\CLERICAL\MINUTES~AC091001.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net 09-10-01 Page 1 SEPTEMBER 10, 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-C 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 Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol abstained from Item 1-A), for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-A, 1-B and 1-C) as recommended by staff. CONSENT CALENDAR WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • ~ A. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved b) RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00047 Approved, in part (TRACKING NO. RCL 2001-00058) c) VARIANCE NO. 2001-04432 (Vote: 6-0, (TRACKING NO. VAR. 2001-04459) Commissioner Bristol d) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2000-211 abstained) (TRACKING NO. SUBTPM 2001-00012) Donald Skjerven, 1020 North Batavia Street, Suite Q, Orange, CA 92867 requests review of revised plans and conditions of approval for recommendation to the City Council for a previously-denied reclassification and variance request. Property is located at 1628 West Orangewood Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol abstained), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the CEQA Negative Declaration. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED(Commissioner Bristol abstained), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby: Approve Reclassification No. 2001-00047 to reclassify this property from the RS-A-43,000 Zone to the RS-7200 Zone. Approve, in part, Variance No. 2001-04432 approving waivers of (a) pertaining to minimum lot depth adjacent to an arterial highway, (d) pertaining to orientation of residential structures, and with a new waiver (e) required lot frontage adjacent to a public or private street, and to deny waivers (b) and (c) as they have been deleted. Approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 2000-211 to establish a 2-lot single- family residential subdivision based on the following stipulations: That the size and shape of the property is adequate to accommodate the subdivision as proposed, and that the subdivision, as modified, would be compatible with the density, scale, and character of the surrounding single- family neighborhood; and subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the SR2089DS.DOC staff report dated September 10, 2001. 09-10-01 Page 2 . _ .f SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES B. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL LETTER OF SUPPORT TO THE Approved ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REGARDING GUIDELINES FOR CERTIFYING ADULT ALCOHOL AND DRUG (Vote: 7-0) RESIDENTIAL RECOVERY FACILITIES - MIS2001-00021: City of Anaheim, Planning Commission, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests that the City Council prepare a letter of support for a County certification program and guidelines for alcohol and drug recovery facilities. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council to prepare a Letter of Support for the Orange County Board of Supervisors encouraging continuance of their efforts to approve and adopt the Orange County Adult Alcohol and Drug Residential Recovery Facilities Certification Program Guidelines upon finalization of the draft document. SR8086CF.DOC ~ ~ \~ J 09-10-01 Page 3 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • C. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Continued to Meeting of August 13, 2001(Continued from August 27, 2001 Planning September 24, 2001. Commission meeting). (Motion) (This item was not discussed) Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 27, 2001. (Motion) • • Continued to September 24, 2001. (This item was not discussed) 09-10-01 Page 4 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1) Approved 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04407 (READVERTISED) Approved OWNER: Clausen Enterprises, 2795 West Lincoln Avenue #F, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Jong Chung, 1448 Post Road, Fullerton, 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 commerciai retail center and to permit a coin- operated laundry. Continued from theAugust 27, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-127 SR1014CW.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 2 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04407, located at 2663 West Lincoln Avenue. It was continued from the August 27`h meeting in order for the property owner to carefully review the conditions of approval. Commissioner Arnold stated that from this mornin,g's meeting there was an indication of a slight modification to Condition No. 25. Mr. McCafferty confirmed that initially there was some concern about being able to put trees along the north property line. However, at the discretion of the Commission, Mr. McCafferty offered to modify Condition No. 25 which requires trees to be placed along the property line, but to indicate that the City Staff will be witling to work with the applicant to place the trees as feasible given the existing trees on the other side of the boundary walL ApplicanYs Statement: Charles Albano stated he was at the August 27`h meeting and due to occurring issues he asked for the continuance for two reasons; (1) He was not prepared for the condition which was added at the meeting that the building be painted; and (2) to discuss with Mr. McCafferty and Ms. Wagner about the landscaping requirements. During the process of the meeting clarification was requested on a couple of existing conditions and an agreement was made to paint the building. Mr. Albano stated the parking lot will be repaired once the coin operated laundry is built. Precautionary measures are taken because electrical and water services will be brought to the property which will be damaging to the parking lot. Mr. Albano expressed disappointment to the landscaping issues because staff basically told him it is their job to put in the recommendations and his job to go before Commission and ask to refax them. So in that respect he felt a little chewed up 6y the system. They have lost a couple of weeks and he is not sure that it was for any good. He stated two weeks ago it was Commissioner Bristol who had driven the property and saw that there were trees along the other side of the north wall; so he feels it redundant to place additional frees on the north wall. In regards to the vine as it exists today, there are no planters in the back of that parking lot. Mr. Albano feels to create them they would have to cut up parking spaces and lose a large quantity of parking. To get water to the planters would be quite expensive. It is his understanding vines inhibit graffiti; however, the wall on the back of the shopping center is only visible for a small portion from Lincoln. The refurbishing estimated cost is $8,000 to create planters, put in a water 09-10-01 Page 5 ~ ~ ~ SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES line, a meter that Pubiic Works is going to want for irrigation; back flow valves, piant vines, etc. He feels • to plant vines on a wall that really cannot be seen and which has been there for 30 years and is not covered by graffiti today, does not seem to be a problem they would want to go through the effort to solve. The front landscaping is another issue. Although it is not their desire to plant trees, they are willing to appease Planning Commission's wishes if the request is indelible. However, if flexibility is possible they ask that they be permitted to trim the existing plants that are there to look nicer and add ground cover that will cover the bare spots and the planters. But given the worst case scenario, he asks that they be allowed to plant smaller trees at further intervals. Mr. Albano feels since the planter along the front of Lincoln is only 3 feet wide it is really not practical to put 24-inch box trees in a 3-foot wide planter; they cannot be properly planted that way. Condition No. 5 refers to no window signage. However, he fee(s the tenant deserves to put something in the windows and Code allows 20% coverage; twenty-percent coverage is making virtually nothing and could be interpreted as not being able to have an open sign. So he would like that wording changed if possible. Regarding the issue stating vending machines shall not be visible from the public right of way, he is asking it be clarified to indicate vending machines on the outside of the building, of which there are none; but they will have vending machines for soap and laundry inside that will be visible from the outside window. So he asks the statement specifically states "outside". THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick asked stafF if there was a reason for the no window signage. He states he is aware Commission has done that on some of the convenience markets, pursuant to police requests. Mr. McCafferty stated that this is exactly the same reason for that. It is an activity that will be there for long periods of time into the evening and is primarily intended for protection of police officers and making sure they can see through the windows and see the occupants inside the building; if they have to respond to a problem at that location. ~ • Commissioner Vanderbilt referred to staff, stating it sort of puts the applicant in an awkward situation where on one hand staff verifies that as a coin operated laundromat it makes perfect sense that the applicant should have vending machines that dispense soap and other products but, on the other hand the report asks that they not be visible. He feels that would require the applicant to create some sort of blind or something that would prevent visibility from the outside, but then that would go against the desire to have full visibility of the facility for police purposes. Mr. McCafferty stated staff is actually referring to outside vending machines. Commissioner Bostwick stated the wording could be changed on Condition No. 5. He said the City has a requirement that they have at least one attendant onsite at all hours to prevent the problem of something happening. But as far as an unattended laundromat where police would get a call for somebody breaking in, machines they would want to have clear windows so they could see in and see who is in there before charging in. He feels it may be a situation of apples and oranges. Commissioner Boydstun suggested maybe 10% so the applicant could put signs up for specials or something but would not block so much of the window. Mr. McCafferty responded that if staff had a choice they would want to make sure there was someone there observing the operation at all times. However, staff understands they are going to have to have the name of the business, hours of operation; open and close, etc., however what they are trying to get away from is the window being inundated with signs. Commissioner Bostwick illustrated a scenario of the entire window filled with signs of "soaps on sale today", etc. • Commissioner Arnold affirmed that it is seen sometimes with liquor stores where the entire window is covered and no one can see in to see what is going on. He stated he is curious if Commission has ever 09-10-01 Page 6 t SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES tried to fashion a condition that actually indicates where window signage should be posted because ~ certain window signs would not interfere with general visibility in the store or into the taundromat. Mr. McCafferty responded that staff has never really crafted a condition as such but, he imagines, if they had to craft such a condition they would want the window signage as high as possible so that if someone is crouching on the store front or just walking around within, one could see what is going on. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he thinks in this instance it would be appropriate because the doorways do not reach to the top of the`face glass. To have a sign that says they are opened o.r some soct of neon sign would be fine at that level or higher and providing it were the proper fit. He feels that with all things appropriate and proper some of the other businesses might even be willing to follow suit. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Mr. Albano what signage besides the opening/closing and hours of operation did he desire. Mr: Abano answered they may want the ability to advertise specials but they are willing to go along with the 20°!o recommended by Code since that is probably where it is the most visible. Commissioner Bostwick asked in regards to the landscaping, if Commission could craft the condition that the final landscape plan should be submitted to zoning division for review and approval. Mr. McCafferty stated if staff had their choice, obviously, they would have it as recommended but if Commission is leaning towards modifying the condition for aesthetic purposes staff would want to have the trees along Lincoln Avenue and vines on the walls on the north property line; just to take care of any graffiti that might crop up on the walls at minimum. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that when he visited the property in early morning and tried to drive in the back to take a look, he noticed that some of the trees on the neighbor's lot were pretty much sheared at . ~ the property line. There was a lose of aesthetics but he is sure it was for maintenance purposes. However, while there are mature trees in that location, there are gaps that exist there and still some visibility that neighbors can have at the back of the property. So he would hope there would be some sort of solution that can be arrived at, although he understands what the applicant is saying with regard to there not being planters, and no opportunities there. Another thing he wanted to add is in driving by the property he noticed that there is another strip mall to the east, and it has Eucalyptus type trees between 8 to 10 feet tall; there was no blockage whatsoever of that shopping area; taking in account the desire to not have any blockage of the street signage, but still have trees and full visibility from the street. Commissioner Bristal asked if there were any planters in the north. Chairperson Vanderbilt answered, no. Commissioner Bristol stated that the reason the applicant brought his comments up from the last time is the fact that, not only did he have an argument with the north property and the trees he saw today, but also the fact that when one drives in there it gets a little tight, and if there is going to be movement in there then any type of restriction might occur. He concurs with Mr. Albano that the wall is mostly shielded from Lincoln; although when driving down Loreno Street it can be easily seen, but he does not recall seeing any graffiti. He thinks the applicant's hardships or comments might make some sense on the issue of the north part. Commissioner Koos commented that the applicant stated he was not sure the 24-inch box tree would fit in its space 3 feet wide. He felt just by doing the math it would work. He ask Mr. McCafferty to clarify the issue. Mr. McCafferty responded that it depends on the type of 24-inch box tree that is obtained. Some have O larger root balls than others but it can be done. 09-10-01 Page 7 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Koos asked whether it depended on the specie of the tree. Mr. McCafferty stated that the issue is an area that he is not an expert in but he believes that it depends on the root ball; some of the roots are surfaced root trees, some trees go straight down and have a smaller root ball, and probably a 24-inch box for that type of a root characteristic could go on that size planter. Commissioner Koos stated that based on Mr. McGafferty's experience it sounds like a specie could be picked that would fit into the planter area that is existing. He concurred with Commissioner Bristol; although it sounded like Commissioner Bristol was sympathetic to the applicanYs issues on the north property line he feels the city would be getting a great benefit if they follow staff's recommendation and the applicant follows through on the front yard landscaping. If so, he would want to stick with the front yard landscaping and the 24-inch box and leave it up to the applicant to work with staff to pick the right specie that makes the most sense. In which case he could be supportive of the decision. Commissioner Arnold stated that gathering from what staff says and from his own observations the more the applicant invest in improving the landscaping along the street, the more advantageous to the surrou~ding land uses generally. He agrees with fellow Commissioners. • • ~ ~- • ~ ~ • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos 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 Structures), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act • (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04407 subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated September 10, 2001, with the following modifications: Modi~ed Condition Nos. 5, 14, and 25 to read as follows: 5. That window signage shall be limited to the top 20% of the windows. 14. No vending machines shall be permitted on the outside of the property which are visible from the public right-of-way. 25. That a final landscape plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval showing 24-inch box sized trees planted on maximum 2Q foot centers in the landscaped setbacks adjacent to both streets. Said plan shall also show refurbishment of the planter areas. Any decision by the Zoning Division regarding said plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission/City Council. Said landscaping shall be installed and maintained according to said plan. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant Gity Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 20 minutes (1:35-1:55) ~ 09-10-01 Page 8 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04409 OWNER: Madison Squares Anaheim Hills, 2795 West Lincoln Avenue, Suite F, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: The Consulting Group, Attn: Duan Dao, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 870, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 7777 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is approximately 3.06 acres ,located at the terminus of Camino Tampico, with a frontage of 783 feet on the northwest side of Santa Ana Canyon Road located 390 feet northeast of the ce~-tecline of Eucalyptus Drive (Madison Squares Self Storage). 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 ~ October 8, 2001 SR8047VN.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 3 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04409, for ~ property located at 7777 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. It is a request to permit a telecommunication's antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment. It was continued from the August 13, 2001 meeting in order for them to explore three flagpoles in lieu of one flagpole. They have come back with that request to Commission. Staff s recommendation remains the same. Commissioner Koos abstained from Item 3. He read the following statement into the record: "Mr. Chairman, I shall be abstaining from this item, due to my close relationship with the wireless telecommunications industry. While I have previously conferred with the City Attorney and determined that I do not have any financial conflict of interest, 1 am abstaining to avoid any potential perceived conflicY'. Mr. McCafferty reported staff received a letter, included in the Commission's packet, from the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition opposing the proposal. Applicant's Statement: Mr. Paul Kim, of The Consultant Group, representing Cingular Wireless, stated he had questions on a coupl~ of the items and desired clarification. Starting with the Conditions of Approval, Condition No. 2, that a maximum height is 50 feet. They have come back with a design per Planning Commission's request to examine 3 poles as opposed to 1. They have designed it as such to where they have made the center pole 10 feet higher, only because the architect feels aesthetically the center flag should be designed at a height difference in order tQ be able to offset a series of flags of the same height. They would like some clarification on whether or not they should go with 50 feet or 55 feet for the center pole; ' the two panel type antennas would be located within each flagpole. He informs that in the future there may be a possibility of upgrading for capacity, bu,t it would be only putting an additional panel antenna inside the pole. However, since the pole itself would be acting as a complete stealth antenna, they wonder if that particular condition could be changed to reflect the possibility of adding some more antennas within the pole; granted they would be completely screened. In regards to Cable, Condition No. 09-10-01 Page 9 O SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4, the property owner feels the location is outside. Regarding the request that the ground-mounted equipment shaii be painted to match, the equipment cabinets are located well within the back of the property and are hidden from view of the freeway with a high block wall for the facility. The property owner would like to avoid screening the equipment only because it is not seen from any particular view from the public; the only people who can see it are his customers who go back there to access the facility from the cell storage. They ask if they could just let the cabinet stand as such, as well as the equipment cables that will run along the wall within the inside of the property because they are outside of the view of the public. Susan Siegmann summarized a very brief letter from the Board of Directors of the Anaheim Hilis Citizens Coalition as follows: We basicaliy agree with the evaluation done by the Planning Department, and the telecommunication poles are in an inappropriate location; inside the storage facility. They go along with the recommendation for denial of the CUP. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Mr. Kim stated that he just received the letter today, and would like to address a couple of the items. He stated, just as a reminder, this is in response to the Planning Commissions recommendation that they split the flagpole into three, and they feel it was a good recommendation. He informed that he measured the diameter and width of the flagpole for the City Hall and determined both to be approximately 12 inches. So by splitting their antenna into three, they were able to achieve each pole to have a diameter of about 12 inches. They think they have addressed considerably the issue of staff's belief of the poles that do not look quite like flagpoles, and have come up with a really nice design that addresses the concern over their stealth issues and that reflects actual flagpoles. Mr. Kim addresses the one point which mentions the flags add a definite commercial institutional touch to the project, and cordially reminds Commission that that particular issue was brought up by the Planning Commission saying that the project site has a certain ~ institutional feeling. He feels it would be suitable for this type of location; it makes the area look a little nicer because the building lends itself to it. Although the front was a more suitable choice, there is very little space in which to locate equipment cabinets, etc. Overall, they feel the three flagpoles address the concerns of staff as to whether or not the ftagpoles look like flagpoles because the diameter has been reduced considerably. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun referred to the wall of the facility on the 91 freeway where there is already an existing antenna; she asked if Cingular could not put another one there. Mr. Kim answered that on the wall itself there is not enough space to achieve a certain height, and in this particular area they need to achieve the height of about 55 feet for the antennas to cover the area of their objective. Commissioner Boydstun stated she did not understand how the other one is workable and Cingular's is not workable. Mr. Kim answered that the one on the roof is not a Cingular antenna; all of the roof mounted ones are different carriers. Cingular actually explored the option of roof mounted antennas and, as talked about in the prior hearing, they concluded basically that the optimal locations were already occupied by different carriers. Mr. Kim admits that when they first site walked, they actually wanted to do a roof mount because that is the most simple route for the City of Anaheim. He stafes Cingular has had a multitude of applications approved administratively when they did stealth designs for roofs, and that would have been ideal for the proposed item but their orientation and the direction in which the antennas project themselves were already taken up for the ideal locations; as they persisted they would run into a situation where they ~ would hit interference with or be blocked by a particular portion of the roof itself. Commissioner Boydstun asked if the pole would be lighted. 09-10-01 Page 10 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Kim answered that traditionally they have been told to light poles for the City of Anaheim so they ~ would do that-one as well; but the option is up to the Pianning Commission as to whether they feel it is a suitable place for lighting. He feels because the flagpoles look authentic and because there are three poles, a certain aesthetic element is added. He concurs that it would be a good idea to light them. Mr. McCafferty responded that Condition No. 8 requires that it not be lighted. Commissioner Boydstun asked if it were not lighted would the flags be lowered everyday. Mr. Kim stated that they could make options to do that, but he ask clarification on whether the condition states only the center flag be lowered; the United States flag. Mr. McCafferty stated that the way it is positioned now, it is just the U. S. flag to be taken down each night, and that it not be lighted. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if one flag was taken down, would it be an issue to take all of them down. Mr. Kim answered it sounds as though it falls under the flag ordinance, so it may be that type of requirement out of reverence to the United States flag but it would not be an issue to Cingular to take the flags down each night. Commissioner Bostwick clarified the existing tower at the entrance to the storage facility is about 35 feet in height. He referred to Mr. McCafferty and asked if they were iooking for something that was 55 feet in height. He wondered if Cingular extended the tower up and made a clock tower representation would they need a variance for the height in the canyon area. Mr. McCafferty answered that the height out in the scenic eorridor is established by Conditional Use ~ Permit above 35 feet; it would be a Conditional Use Permit similar to this application. He just wanted to remind Commission that the previous proposal for one flagpole was at a height of 45 feet and not 55 feet and the revised proposal has two flagpoles at 45 feet and one at 55 feet. He informs Commission that if they are leaning towards going for an architectural feature, it probably does not have to be 55 feet. Mr. Kim responded that at first they thought it would be a concern of technical issues to split one antenna into three because there is a certain amount of clearance necessary, but he thinks they are pointing in different d'+rections where they could actually lower it by 5 feet, in order to have the United States flag at a height that is higher than the other twa Commissioner Bostwick stated he feels it is out of place to put it out to the side, and he can appreciate the property owner not wanting it out front, but he thinks the flagpoles need to be out front where they belong. However, he would prefer that it be created to look like a clock tower and hide the antennas totally rather than a flagpole. Mr. Kim responded that they were actually explo~ing that option but they felt in order to achieve the height that is required for the antennas to function at a maximum range; they would have to raise a portion of the building, and raising any particular portion of the building by that much would be actually more of a detriment visually than the poles. Also since it is considered the scenic corridor, they felt they would run into more public oppositions. However, he personally feels the poles are less of a visual impact than raising the height of the building by a signi~cant height. Commissioner Bristol stated those were his sentiments exactly; the area is a scenic corridor and a 20-foot pole is a de~nite visual impact. He informs Mr. Kim that at the morning session there was a lot of discussion about the stealth aspects of the flagpoles versus the building of which Mr. Bostwick refers. ~ Because a lot of different issues came up, he drove the area again; eastbound on the 91 looking at Anaheim Hills, and tried to see everything that could be high and that could impact the neighbors in anyway and as one approaches Weir Canyon, on the right hand side, it does elevate, he looked at the 20- 09-10-01 Page 11 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • foot pole above the other buildings, and it is fall. He asserts that it is a visual impact, and he could not think of anything at all in the surrounding area that has that height variance. Mr. Kim responded that structure-wise there is not anything in that area with that amount of height but he reminds Commission to keep things within context; they have three poles at 12 inches in diameter. They feel that would be very minimal visual impact and it would be justified to view it as three flagpoles since they were able to redesign it to look like authentic flagpoles. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he can understand the aesthetics desire to have the central flag tailer than the other two and he asked Mr. Kim that since he looked at the City flags out front which are also tiered, did he see the U.S. flag at a height 10 feet or so taller than the others. Mr. Kim answered no, but he has seen several flags with different options; some are all made parallel, some uniformed in height, some have actually made the center flag higher, however he admonishes it is actually up to how Commission would feel aesthetically. He informs they were open to all of them being the same, but felt that at least a 5-foot discrepancy would be aesthetically pleasing to the eye. However, he offered to reduce the center one down to 50. Commissioner Eastman stated that she concurs with Commissioner Bostwick; it seems more appropriate to be near the entrance, and maybe that would be more centered in the entire architectural. She feels if something were in front of the building, the owner of that business might be 6etter at taking care of it; assuming he is expected to lower and raise the flag daily. However, she observes that the ones City has approved so far, are not properly taken care of. She admonishes if Commission were to approve the proposal at hand it would be of absolute vital importance they be taken care of. ~ Mr. Kim responded to address the issue at the front. He concurs with Commissioner Eastman that they would like nothing better than to place the poles in the front but after going to the site several times with the architect and the engineers they concluded there was not sufficient room for the cabinets and the poles. He expfains technically the cable runs would have to be longer, and if the cabinets were placed in the rear and the poles in the front they would have to run the cable all the way back. The longer the cable run is the wider the cables have to be, therefore making the pole actually wider. The pole has a certain width because of the cable runs and the position of the antennas. Other than that, they would like to have gone in the front. Commissioner Eastman clarified that what Mr. Kim is saying is that it really cannot be technically done in the place that Commissioners indicated as their preference. Mr. Kim concurred that it is for that reason and also the fact that the area is very constrained in terms of being able to locate an attractive option on which to place the poles. He affirms they have explored those options several times, and assures that would have been their first choice. In terms of the flags being taken down, in other sites they have been lit so they have not had the need to take them down. However, in this case they would make it an absolute certainty to create a situation where the flags can be taken down. He states it would actually befall upon Cingular to make sure the flags were taken down as well and they would make sure the owner realizes it also. Commissioner Bristol verified height of the panels that are already on the building. Mr. Kim responded their panel antennas are a little under 5-feet in height. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Kim if he did not make a comment earlier that they could not do what the other carriers did because it would be disruptive. • Mr. Kim responded exactly, because when they locate next to another carrier they have to go through what they call inner-modulation study. That study basically makes certain that they do not interfere with other antennas. Because of that they have to maintain a 9 to 10 feet separation from each antenna, 09-10-01 Page 12 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES which actually makes it tough, because they have a totai of abou# 6 antennas to try and replace; to strategically place them so that they meet the separation requirements from all of the existing carrier antennas actually poses a significant channel to them that cannot be met. He reiterates that again it was their first option, and they would have been more than happy to come before the city with that option as demonstrated in the past Commissioner Bristol asked if it were safe to assume that the antennas that are currently on the self- storage facility do not exceed 35 feet in height. Mr. Kim answered that the carriers responsible for the self-storage facility actually have different objectives as well. The way they met their particular objective was to obtain a height of about 45 to 50 feet. Commissioner Bristol asked what objective did they have that was different than the other carriers. - Mr. Kim responded it could be several things, it could be the fact that the carriers have a different purpose for the site or it could be not expanding coverage wide, just picking up certain gaps from different other particular antennas; it appears theirs is a coverage objective and not a capacity one. A capacity objective enables a carrier to use smaller antennas, maybe perhaps at alower height. Height is established by its coverage objectives, and in this case they have the objective of trying to meet a certain area which requires them to be at a certain height. Once they lower it anymore than it is, the coverage is reduced significantly. Commissioner Bristol asked if it were lowered would it require another antenna or ray of antennas somewhere maybe closer than preferred. Mr. Kim answered that is always a pos.sibility. Commissioner Bristof stated that so the reality is, if you could have 35 feet right now, you would take it like that. Mr. Kim stated that at this point he guessed they would take anything. Commissioner stated ok, so that invalidates your argument of 55 feet or 45 feet. Mr. Kim responded 35 feet does not necessarily meet their optimum objective. He expressed their need by illustrating that an antenna would act as a spray bottle; where one sprays at a particular area that is being beamed into, and where the width of that spray lands includes the coverage of it, but the height of the spray actually determines how much of the area would be covered, and how much of the holes to be filled. So, in this particular case, Cingular's concern is as such #hat they require their heights to be at 50 feet. ' - Commissioner Bristol responded that it is probably safe to assume that the carriers responsible for the self-storage probably wanted to go higher too, but they did not. Mr. Kim responded it could be several things. It could be the City wanted them to stay at that height or they had different objectives that allowed them to do it. However, in order for a similar situation to work for Cingular they would probably have to raise the building a little bit. He points out that the ideal situation either way has been somewhat eliminated in this case. Cingular's preference would have been to start with a clean slate where the roof was not occupied; this would have offe~ed more options. Instead, having other carriers there and having to maintain a separation between each antenna really posed some challenging limitations on the proposed flag. Commiss+oner Arnold stated he has two comments. The first is in respect to the proposed project, it _ seems the height is excessive; especially given the elevation of this particular parcel. There is a visual 09-10-01 Page 13 u ~J O SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • impact in the scenic corridor, and the City has some policies about protection of the scenic corridor that would be compromised by approving the project. He feels three tall flagpoles, as you drive down Santa Ana Canyon Road, is out of character with the large residential area that has a quasi-rural character. Commissioner Arnold stated he could not support the project proposed by the applicant because the project does not meet the requirements that Commission has to find in their work to approve a Conditional Use Permit. The second point, he feels Commission might be well senred by waiting to make a decision on this project and perhaps some of the others that appear on the agenda until staff brings some particular pieces of information promised both to the City Council and to the Planning Commission having to do with the number, location, type of telecommunications towers throughout the city, and also the city's legal options, authority and limits regarding telecommunications towers. The Planning Commission's decision should be made on the basis of the maximum feasibly available information. Commissioner Arnold stated the information could be useful in understanding cumulative impacts of the types of antenna; the types that have been approved in the past, what is possible, the nature of the impacts, the nature of heights that are out there and also what sort of factors Commission can consider and what sort of factors they may not be able to consider in approving antennas. He suggests continuing not only this one but many of the others as well. However, he feels there may be some that Commission feels certain there is enough information to go ahead and make the decision. Chairperson Vanderbilt pointed out thaf when he first saw this project two weeks ago, he was the one to propose expanding it from one flag to three because he believes the building has an institutional look and he wanted to see what the applicant could put together in terms of reducing the width of the flag poles. He commends Cingular on being able to come up with flagpoles with a diameter of 12 inches which appears to be equivalent to flags that are in front of City Hall. However, he admits at that time he was hopeful that would be enough in his mind to feel comfortable with but as he listened to further rationale with regards to location of the flags, he began to feel as though it is more appropriate that they be in front ~ of the building; even though that does not sound like it is possible in terms of the applicant's ability to install. Also, given the decision of the morning's meeting with staff's intent to provide more information about telecommunication facilities as a whole, he feels it appropriate to wait. He notes that he does not feel in favor of opposing it at this point but instead would be in favor of a continuance. Commissioner Bristol stated together with staff they have been having some interesting discussions concerning stealth and monopalms, and if flagpoles are really stealth, etc. He assures Mr. Kim that he knows he has gone through similar issues before, but it is a really tough issue for Commission. He agrees with Chairperson Vanderbilt and Commissioner Arnold on a continuance to see if there is some other information that might be helpful once they review the information from staff. However, he feels there will still be an issue in the scenic corridor; where the flagpoles might be fine in this facility but in the proposed area they are staggering. He states as he sat and listened, Mr. Kim was more helpful today than previous times when he illustrated the spray effect because it helped him to understand clearly the rationale of the height, the location, the amount, and the fact that another carrier proceeded him in acquiring the ideal situation. Mr. Kim informed that different carriers operate on different wavelengths. Cingular and Sprint are the only exceptions where they operate on wavelengths which require height; the other carriers can vary that a little bit. Commissioner Bristol wished to verify whether he had other options because a lot of times Commission hears issues where there is absolutely no option, and it is an absolute. Mr. Kim stated hopefully he demonstrated that there were no other options. He asked Commission if there is a particular height they would be comfortable with seeing the flagpoles reduced to; whether the flagpoles are considered stealth; and, if the Planning Commission objectively feels that this is a good • design since the diameter of the poles have been reduced significantly. Commissioner Bristol asked if the maximum in the Scenic Corridor is 35-feet. 09-10-01 Page 14 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. McCafferty responded that it is 35-feet in height without a Conditional Use Permit; he clarified al1 ~ telecommunication facilities require a CUP. He advised Commission to turn the question around and ask the opposite; what height do they feasibly need to make it operate. He feels that is what should be looked at, not what kind of height would you approve. He states it has to make sense for the carrier, and based on the height that makes sense for the carrier, Commission could evaluate whether it makes sense for the area. Mr. Kim stated the optimum height would be what this design is. But if it is an issue of trying to get the site on line as quickly as possible, the art of engineering would have to take a significant cut in their coverage; they would like a site in #hat area bette~than having no site at all, and also the time frame is of essence as well. Therefore, if there is a reasonable height that both Cingular and the Planning Commission agree upon, they will take the hit in terms of losing the optimum amount of coverage and settle for something that will give them less coverage but will give them coverage none the less; bearing in mind 4hat this p.articular area will be difficult to try and do an additional site, it is an issue of taking not the best, but the second alternative. However, if allowed by Commission they would prefer all poles at 45 feet. He clarifies the choice is made because it is only 10 feet above the required height limit for that zone, and considering they are flagpoles. Mr. McCafferty reminded Commission 45 feet is where they were in the first place with one flagpole Mr. Kim informed it would be a situation where instead of having a single pole with a diameter of 19 inches, they would have three at 12 inches, and 45 feet; a considerable reduction. Commissioner Bostwick stated that again, he reiterates, on the freeway side there are three towers, and ifi the middle one were raised 10 feet and that area utitized it would have a stealth appearance; it would not have the iook of flagpoles, and it would not look or~t of character to the rest of the building. He asked Mr. ~ Kim if he wanted to continue for 30 days, or if he wanted Commission to vote on the facts currently at hand, Mr. Kim responded, definitely a continuance, if it means the Planning Commission does not look favorably on this project. Referring to the stealth design, if it were raised to 45 feet he feels strongly they would have significant visual impact in the corridor to where the residents would feel more reluctant to having a structure raised than having three 12-inch diameter poles at 45 #eet. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr: Kim if he had talked to the residents Mr. Kim responded not at this point, but from his past experience he felt safe to surmise. He stated if Commission grants a continuance he would need them to give more direction as to what Cingular's options are, given the fact that raising the building would be more of a detrimental impact to the surrounding area. Chairperson Vanderbilt referenced the Commission if a continuance would be their desire and if so, what should the applicant bring back at the end of the continuance. Commissioner Bostwick stated that he prefers raising the building rather than flagpoles. Commissioner Bristol stated that he prefers the building, but maybe not 45 feet as the applicant prefers; it could be.a lot lower than 45 feet because the elevation from the 91 would be really high. Commissioner Arnold responded that flagpoles are not appropriate for this particular site given the impact on the surrounding area. He agrees it should be part of the building and if not the building, he agrees with Commissioner Bristol, not necessarily 45 feet. O Commissioner Boydstun stated that she thinks it should be on the building. 09-10-01 Page 15 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, advised if the choice is to continue, the Public Hearing must be reopened prior to continuing. Mr. Kim asked if he could ciarify Procedurai. Chairperson Vanderbilt responded only if the Commissions did not object to hearing the request. Hearing no objections, he permitted Mr. Kim to make his statement. Mr. Kim stated that as a procedural matter, if they were to do a roof mount and raise the roof, what would be the case; granted that all stealth designs have been traditionally taken to administrative approval. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated that there would be one issue to face, that any height above 35-feet requires a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Kim asked if Commission granted a continuance could it be as swift as possible since Cingular has been in this application process for sometime and there are business goals that must be met within a year. Commissioner Bosfwick recalled that Commissioner Arnold was looking for the information from staff, which would not be availabte for 30 days. Mr. Hastings responded that staff would have the information to Council on September 25`h if everything goes smoothly, and the first meeting date after that is October 8. Commissioner Bostwick stated that is still 4 weeks. • THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion for a continuance to October 8, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun, vote taken and motion carried. . _ - • ~ • • ~ • • • OPPOSITION: A letter in opposition was received from the Anaheim Hills Citizens' Coalition. A person who represented the Anaheim Hills Citizens' Coalition spoke in opposition to the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the October 8, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the applicant additional time to meet with Planning Department staff regard.ing the redesign of the proposal. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained) DISCUSSION TIME: 42 minutes (1:56-2:38) • 09-10-01 Page 16 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to ~ 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04404 September 24, 2001. OWNER: Synod of Southern California, 1501 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, Ca 90017-2205 AGENT: The Consulting Group, Attn: Dayna Aguirre, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 870, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 2580 West Orange Avenue. Property is approximately 2.6 acres located at the southeast corner of Orange and Magnolia Avenues (St. PauPs Presbyterian Church). To permit a tefecommunications antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment. Continued from the August 13, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8075VN:DOC ~ ~ . .- • ~ • • ~ ~ OPPOSITION: None dstun and ~ ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boy MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the September 24, 2001 Pianning Commission meeting in order to allow the petitioner additional time to flnalize revised plans. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. O 09-10-01 Page 17 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. 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 and August 27, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-128 Approved Granted for 5 years (to expire on September 90, 2006) SR8081 KB.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 5 as Conditional Use Permit 2001-04411. It is for • property located at 2720 West Yale Avenue. It is a request to permit telecommunication antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment. It was continued from the August 27, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting in order to have the applicant explore co-location with another telecommunication antenna on one of the existing lattice towers at that location. Chairperson Vanderbilt announced that he did not receive any opposition or proponent correspondence for Item No. 5. Commissioner Koos abstained from Item 5. He read the following statement into the record: "Mr. Chairman, I shall be abstaining from this item, due to my close relationship with the wireless telecommunications industry. While I have previously conferred with the City Attorney and determined that I do not have any financial conflict of interest, I am abstaining to avoid any potential perceived conflicY'. Applicant's Statement: Mr. Kim passed out photo simulations for the project. He stated that their actions were in response to the Planning Commission's direction to investigate whether or not they could co-locate on the existing tower presently occupied by Nextel. Because Nextel altered their plans and changed locations, Cingular was able to have room for their antennas. He draws attention to the photo simulations and points out the top three little single cross pole antennas represent Cingular; the equipment shelter is actually not Cingular's, but Nextel's; Cingular's equipment shelter is outside the view of the pub(ic right-of-way, it is within the black tint, nursery type gardens, completely out of view; the cross pole antenna's are flush-mounted onto the legs of the last tower where it is already a busy and cluttered element, and really does not add to the visual impact. Therefore, he fee-s they have met Planning Commission's requirement to try and co-locate. • He feefs, per the Planning Commission's direction, the Southern California Edison towers are probably a more suitable location for the antenna facilities than anything else would be. 09-10-01 Page 18 ( SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Pubic Testimon : ~ Y Judithanne Gollette, a WAND representative, stated at the last Planning Commission meeting arrangements were made.for Mr. Kim to come to the WAND Land Use meeting to educate WAND and to falk about the different designs and opportunities available to both his company and to the community. The meeting was held Wednesday, September 5, 2001, and Mr. Kim called Thursday, September 6, 2001, and tried to set up something for the following week stating he did not know anything about the meeting. Whether there was a lack of communication or what, they still have not had any communication with the community, Mr. Kim and the church in the area. Ms. Gollette contends that even in Mr. Kim's own words that the towers are cluttered, and still they are trying to add some more things to it. Therefore, WAND offers until the City Staff provides the Planning Commission and the City Council with the total study of what is going on in the technology world, to put a stop to this and just hold on so that no going forward is made at this time. She states WAND is looking out for the best interest of the community and for the city's total effect and for technology. She feels if one company is allowed then soon there will be more with the idea that, "you can't see it, it is going to be way up in the air." She recalls as a child going to the Brookhurst movies to watch the Jetson's and seeing mega antennas and etc. She expresses what is being seen today in comparison is how technology is taken down to microchips and feels within a few years this technology may be even lower than that. Therefore, until the full study is in front of the City Council and Planning Commission, WAND favors continuing the items and being fully knowledgeable before more areas are cluttered. Applicant's Rebuttal: Mr. Kim stated that he did not have a particular rebuttal at this point, since again, they have performed as the Planning Commission directed. He states everyone is referencing the study that the City Council is looking into and he is actually assisting the staff in providing some information for that study, However, he ~ is not too certain how exhaustive it will be; it shows the number of antennas and number of facilities currently in Anaheim. His concern is that he does not know how much information the study could shed light on the issues at this point; he would like to talk to staff on that but other than that, no other comment. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick attested that Cingular has done what Commission asked of them and put the antennas on lattice towers and it is much more visually obtrusive: He states the Edison towers are not going to go away, so this is not going to create any more cfutter than what currently exists. Commissioner Bostwick states there is a time limit of 5 years on all antennas approved due to the #act that technology will change, and when it does there may be someway in which to change them at that point and time. He feels eomfortable with the antennas on the lattice towers. Commissioner Amoid stated he is more comfortable with them on the lattice towers but the impact is enough that he would rather wait because he thinks, as Ms. Gollette is pointing out, they can leam something about the concentrations of these and the extent to which they accumulate. He feels if they see more and more of these on the towers it is going to add a whole lot more to the visual clutter. Even though Commission puts a 5-year time limit it is very difficult to force them to change when it actually comes down to it; it is a practical matter. Given the staff s concern and the actual impact at hand, he would like to learn a little bit more about how many there are on towers, where they are, and what is possible with locating them on towers. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he felt a sense of victory in so far as being able to co-locate on an existing facility. He is glad to know that instead of having another object that is erected here in the city, technology is such'that they are able to use an existing one, so he applauds the industry in being able to do that. He adds that in this particular case he is pleased with the ability to prepare the panels in such a way that they O are so closely aligned to the legs that they look like they are a part of it. He feels comfortable with moving forward on it: 09-10-01 Page 19 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bristol stated he concurs with the Commissioners' comments; the fact that Anaheim is very aggressive with technology changes and the fact that they put a restraint on the CUP and the length of time when the technology does change. He also concurs with Ms. Gollette, "from the Jetson's to today" things have changed; antennas will get smaller and when they do everyone wiil benefit. He stated that no one reatiy likes the antennas but everyone is affected by it from the hills to the westside. So given Cingular has done exactly what Commission asked of them, he is okay with this one. Commissioner Boydstun stated she comfortable with this because it fits in and does not stand out, and Cingular did just what Commission asked. Commissioner Arnold clarified the reason for his abstention was because he did not want to vote either for or against it, not because of a conflict of interest. • • ~ • - • • • ~ • OPPOSITION: A person who represented the West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council (WAND) spoke with concerns to the subject request. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Conditionat Use Permit No. 2001-04411 (for 5 years to expire on September 10, 2006) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated September 10, 2001. ~ VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Arnold abstained and Commissioner Koos declared a conflict of interest) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (2:39-2:49) • 09-10-01 Page 20 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 6b. CONDITIQNAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04410 October 8, 2001 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. To permit a telecommunications antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment. Continued from the August 13 and August 27, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8080KB.DOC ~ Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 6 as Conditionai Use Permit No. 2001-04410. ft is for property located at 1075 North Patt Street~ It is a request to permit telecommunications monopole O antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment. It was continued from the August 13`" and August 27`" Planning Commission meetings at the request of the applicant to relocate the monopole elsewhere on the property. Staff recommends denial of this r~quest. Chairperson Vanderbilt announced that he did not receive any opposition or proponent correspondence for Item No. 6. And, in regard to the staff report there were some changes made. He asked Mr. McCafferty to summarize the changes for the public record. Mr. McCafferty stated Page 6 of the staff report, Condition No. 11, reflecting that the applicant did submit revised plans and so instead of exhibit Nos. 1-6, it is Revision 1 of Exhibit Nos. 1-6. Commissioner Koos abstained from Item 6. He-.read the following statement into the record: "Mr. Chairman, I shall be abstaining from this item, due to my close relationship with the wireless telecommunications industry. While { have prev~ously conferred with the City Attorney and determined that I do not have any financial conflict of interest, I am abstaining to avoid any potential perceived conflicY'. ~ ApplicanYs Statement: Mr. Kim, a representative of The Consulting Group, stated he did not have anything unique to add to this agenda. He stated he could honestly say that he has a very good understanding on how the Planning Commission feels about flagpoles. The only argument he~could make about this one is that they originally moved it because they ran into some deeper issues when they did their environmental study. He feels they found a suitable location in a heavy industrialized area. Mr. Kim stated they explored other options in terms of the search ring, viable landowners, and a couple of buildings within that area that has some height, but when their acquisition person approached them with letters of interest they showed no interest. O However, he likes the site because if driving northeast from Patt, approaching the site, one can see that the flagpole stands as a monument to that industrial area. It is a nice cfean white shiny flagpole, and 09-10-01 Page 21 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • because of the technical requirements they needetl to rrteet they were able to get the diameter down to 18 inches. He feels that this demonstrates how these different technical requirements effect the size of the pole. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Eastman asked for clarification on the size. She stated that there were a couple nearby; the one on Manchester, near the Doll Hut, and another over on Center Street and one more on Lincoln and State Coilege. Mr. Kim stated that his company could take the blame for the one on Lincoln and State College. At the time of its approval the City Council and the mayor appeared to like the idea, but when it was finally built they did not. Commissioner Eastman asserted it was unsightly and very big. Mr. Kim acknowledged that it is unsightly, and the diameter is approximately 20 inches. So from that technology they have come to the point of reducing them considerably; especially since he now knows the Planning Commission likes the slim poles. He states the one on Center street is actually a pole with a shroud that comes oufi on top, and they no longer do those either. Commissioner Eastman asked what the chances were to get it replaced. Mr. Kim responded he could look into it. Commissioner Eastman reiterated that the pole is pretty ugly and when she went by it this morning she • observed the flag hanging from the pole had holes in it. She feels that is violating patriotic principles. Therefore, she would hesitate to approve another flagpole antenna because it would give the industry an opportunity to repeat their actions. Mr. Kim stated he could not agree more and explained that particular pole is one where the contractor decided to go with the pole due to a cost issue. But recognizing the sensitivity of the City of Anaheim, they are more than willing to spend the extra money to get a good pole. Commissioner Eastman stated that to come before Commission and ask them as a group to approve another flagpole when the one his company already has out there is in such obvious bad condition, makes it very hard to be in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Arnold stated that what he understands Commissioner Eastman is saying is that Commission's experience with flagpoles in the city genera!!y has not been particularly favorable, and that gives concern on whether the proposed flagpole on this particular location is going to cause adverse impacts on the surrounding land uses. So he too share those concerns and thinks not even looking at those flagpoles, but just looking at the concept of using flagpoles in general, that because they may work in some areas does not mean they work everywhere. So given the number of these type applications, and given the fact that there are studies that are being put together, he would prefer to wait and see. Unlike Item No. 5, which held enough merit that he did not want to vote against it, this one requires further analysis and discussion as to where the City is going as a whole with respect to antennas. Commissioner Bostwick stated that this is a tough one; being that it is in an industrial area, and it is not visible. But he has to agree that he is overwhelmed with the amount of flagpoles and thinks the applicant needs to look at surrounding buildings to see if there is not a better way to accomplish his goals. He ~ suggests since new buildings on Anaheim Boulevard are being erected, maybe there is an opportunity within that site. So he agrees to offering the applicant a 30 day continuance. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Mr. Kim if a 30-day continuance was workable. 09-10-01 Page 22 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Kim responded as to the new construction of the buiiding he did not know how to comment, other than ~ the fact that he did not know how the Planning Commission directs them to deal with landlords who, particularly, would not be interested in their sites. He hopes that the Ptanning Commission takes their word; if not, then procedurally they would have to come up with something to address the issue. Otherwise, it ends up as a situation as their word against Commission's word. Mr. Kim offered to provide Commission with some letters from the landlords stating they have been approached and were not - interested. He states he does not know if that would be sufficient to please the Planning Commission, and that is one issue he would like the Planning Commission to address. The other one is, he could in all good faith say they have explored all other options for roof mounts. The final issue would be that they need some direction because if they are asked to<come before Commission again, he feels they will come back with the same option, only because other options are limited. So he.desired to have a litt{e more direction as to exactly how to proceed, and also if the height is an issue at 55 feet, how would . Commission feel at reducing it to 45 feet or 50 feet. Mr. McCaff.erty stated from staff's standpoint they are always ready and willing to host a meeting between the applicant and potential site sharer to try to work something out with the property owner. He admonishes if the applicant wants to do that he would have to organize with the property owner, but staff would be gtad to work with both of them at the Planning Department. Commissioner Arnold clarified that it is not that he disbelieved any of the applicant's statements about the obstacles that they encounter with property owners, but he is not sure that is Commission's concern. He illustrates it is sort of like saying, "well there are not any available industrial spaces on the market so therefore you need to approve a rezoning of this residential property in the middle of the residential neighborhood for industrial use, because there is no cooperation of the market." He feels ifan applicant cannot make it attractive enough to aproperty owner to be allowed to construct something with their facility, he is not sure that means the burden falls on the Planning Commission to approve towers that ~ have ad~erse impacts on the surrounding communities. He states understanding the practicaF economic concerns, and points out Commission's goal is not to make it more difficult for the telecommunication's industry, but he does not think that their practical.economic concerns necessarily remove the land use issues. Commissioner Bostwick stated he takes credit in making the comment about seeking other properties, at which time Mr. Kim suggested bringing letters of proof. However, he.feels Commissioner Arnold's comments were on the point. The fact that the other property owners were not wiliing to give access to their site might be an economical issue rather than their just saying "no, we do not want anything to do , with it", in which case, Commission would not know their reasoning. So bringing letters in does not help them. He admitted to being a little perplexed in how to solve Mr. Kim's dilemma other than suggesting he take the 30-day continuance and come back to Commission with the same program, at which time they would make their decision. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated it is probably true that more information would be available from the staff report being prepared for City Couneil and that rxiay provide Mr. Kim some guidance, and also taking into account staff offered to host a meeting between the applicant and property owners. Mr. Kim stated he appreciates the comments on the willingness of landlords to accept deals, but asks the question what level would the Planning Commission accept as being acceptable for them having made a good faith offer; based upon the market, should they offer the landlord $1,500 as opposed to $3,000 a month and at what point should they cut off. Commissioner Arnold stated that is not Planning Commission's consideration. Mr. Kim stated that he thinks, based upon Commission's argument, that is how it can logically be O perceived. 09-10-01 Page 23 SEPTEMBER 10, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Arnold asserted what Planning Corrimissit5n looks°at is the land use impacts of what the ~ applicant is proposing. Commission has a whole set of criteria required by law that they have to find. Among them, factors that will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, that the size and shape are adequate, and that it is not going to be detrimental with peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. If Commission cannot find that, they cannot granf a permit regardless of how hard one has tried to find other options. So he suggests Mr. Kim come up with proposais that will allow them to make those findings. Commissioner Bostwick added Mr. Kim should bring them the best proposal possible; if it is 40 feet, then it is 40 feet, if it is 45 feet then it is 45 feet, but not proposing 55 feet because he could do so. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED. Commissioner Bostwick offered a continuance to October 8, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, vote taken and motion carried. • • . . - ~ . • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick"offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the October 8, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to ailow additional fime for the applicant to meet with Planning Department staff regarding a redesign of the proposal. ~ VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained) DISCUSSION TIME: 18 minutes (2:50-3:08) ~ 09-10-01 Page 24 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 7a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 7c. 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 Way. Property is approximately 40.4 acres located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street, and at the northem 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, July 16 and August 27, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to September 24, 2001. SR1110TW.DOC ~ • • .- • . ~ ~ . ~ ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the September 24, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to ailow additional time for staff to review the submitted studies and make available for public review the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 0 09-10-01 Page 25 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 8b. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04452 OWNER: The Coca Cola Company, Attn: Donald R. Knauss, 1 Coca Cola Plaza, Atlanta, GA 30313 AGENT: Joselito Figueroa, 1226 North Olive Street, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 1226 North Olive Street. Property is approximately 12.94 acres located at the southeast corner of Olive Street and Commercial Street (Norcal Beverage Warehouse). Waivers of a) minimum number of required parking spaces, b) required site screening and c) required structural setback abutting local streets to construct an 89,230 square foot industrial buiiding.* ' Waivers (b) and (c) have been deleted. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-129 Approved Granted, in part SR8077AN2.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 8 as Variance No. 2001-04452. For property located at 1226 North Olive Street; Norcal Beverage Warehouse. It is a request for a number of waivers ~ to construct a new industrial warehouse. Mr. McCafferty clarified, for the Commission's information, the only waiver that remains is Waiver A. Waivers B and C were deleted and staff recommends approval of the variance as conditioned in the staff report. Chairperson Vanderbilt announced that there was no other correspondence pertaining to Item No. 8, in opposition or support. Mr. McCafferty concurred, however he did offer a change to the conditions of approval that had not been submitted. Outlined as follows: Condition No. 28, strike red wood cedar so it only states that PVC slats. Applicant's Statement: Tom DeKleer stated he wished to ask a number of questions regarding the staff report, however he wholly accepted the conditions with a couple of clarifications. First of all, Norcal Beverage would be essentially taking an existing 1940's wood frame building and demolishing it and replacing it with a new 80,000 square foot pre-engineered metal building. It would be used solely for the warehousing of a juice product. Just going through the various conditions, the one condition they had questions about is Condition No. 11, on Page 7, the trash storage areas. Mr. DeKleer informs Norcal Beverage presently has a large trash compactor on site and they would like to continue to maintain that operation the way they have it rather than use one remote trash enclosure, which probably will not get used regularly anyway. So that would be one item they woufd like to resolve with public works during the permitting process. The other question that comes to mind is Condition No. 19, the second to the last sentence addresses landscaping adjacent to the east elevation of the new building which is actually the building along the railroad right of way, but in their last conversations with Planning they understood landscaping in that area was waived with the intent of putting a chain-linked fence with PVC slats and with redwood color the entire length of the frontage Commercial Street to the railroad spur. So he feels it is just a matter of clarification, because in that area ~ along the railroad right of way their setback varies from 11 inches to about 26 inches and then back to 11 inches. Lastly, Condition No. 29, where it states the existing chainlink gates will remain unlocked and opened during business hours. He explains the operation at Norcal Beverage is a secured site, and all 09-10-01 Page 26 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES employees' entrances are monitored via a card key. There is visitor parking in front of the building that ~ the public can go to. So again, that is just a clarification on Na 29: He states staff has been a pleasure to work with, they have made them do their homework, and that has been great; they hope the Building Department foliows suit. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to respond to the questions Mr. DeKleer proposed Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer, responded with regard to Condition No. 11, where the applicant had a concern about the trash enclosures and stated that he is currently using a trash compactor: So to clarify, she asks if all of the refuse are put into the compactor. Mr. DeKleer responded he believes the refuse is sorted. Some of the product goes into the trash compactors and others are bailed, and the corrugated cardboards ace recyclable. Joselito Figueroa, Plant Engineer, responded that they do separate their recyclable products; the plastic and the cardboard. All other refuse goes into the trash compactor. Ms Adams stated in that case, Engineering coul~ modify it as such that they would meet with their sanitation manager to review their operations, and if there were bins that would remain outside then those bins would need to have covers on them. However, if they were taking care of their entire operation inside, that would be acceptable. Mr: McCafferty, stated in regards to Condition No. 19 requiring the landscaping plan, staff's recommendation is to have landscaping regardless whether or not a chain-Iinked fence is placed at that propertyJine or it is the building wall itself. Staff's concem is the graffiti along the railroad right-of-way. ~ With regard to Condition No. 29, staff's only coricern is to make sure that because it is a parking waiver being requested, customer parking be open and: accessible. However, he feels Conditions 25 and 26 will accomplish that so staff would not have a problem deleting Condition No. 29. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked for a response from the Commissioners. Commissioner Boydstun stated, there is a trailer on the property which looks like someone is living in it. She asks if that was a part of the applicant's property. Mr. Figueroa responded no. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he had a couple of questions. He first directed his question to staff with regards to landscaping and asked what was the proposed number of trees. He noted there were 172 parking spaces available and staff said they require one tree for every ten parking spaces, but the report calls for 14. Mr. McCafferty responded that there are two requirements there in that one paragraph; one is for the trees along Commercial Street. That requirement would apply to the new parking areas that they would propose, so a total of 14 trees for that parking area. The second requirement is thaYthe remainder of the trees would be along the 5-foot setback on Commercial Street. Chairperson Vanderbilt then asked about the hours of operation and the sound produced by this type of operation. He stated he understands it is an industrial area but it is adjacent to two mobile home parks and a single family neighborhood to the east, so he wondered if the applicant could comment as to what hours the business would operate and whether or not the sound would be limited by his operation and ~ affect the neighborhood. 09-10-01 Page 27 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Figueroa stated that basicaliy the buiiding utilizes 100°/a warehouse; meaning they are basically storing finished products into racks, and the only noise that would probably be heard wouid be a couple of forklift trucks handling the finished product onto the rack. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked that in order for the product to get to the site and be removed from the site, would not there be a need to go to the exterior of the building. Mr. Figueroa responded that all of the products moving in and out of the buiiding would be handied through their main gate on Olive Street al4 the way in. Commissioner Bostwick wished to clarify that the building on the eastside is a solid buiiding and that there would not be any sound transmitted towards the mobile home park. Mr. McCafferty verified that aii activity is indoors. He advised that there is Chapter 6.70 which the applicant would have to comply with, and the assumption is they cannot comply. And just for the record, all the traffic enters the facility from Olive street and not Commercial Street. ~ FOLLOWING 15 A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING GOMM15510N AGl 1C7N. I OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted, in part, Variance No. 2001-04452 to approve waiver (a) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces based on the findings as stated in the staff report dated ~ September 10, 2001, and to deny waiver (b) pertaining to required site screening abutting a residential zone and waiver (c) pertaining to required structural setback abutting local streets since they are no longer necessary and have been deleted; and subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated September 10, 2001 with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 11 and 28 to read as follows: 11. That the applicant is to meet with Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division for review of the operation to determine the sanitation requirements for the project. 28. That PVC slats shall be interwoven into chain-link fencing and shall be maintained in good condition at all times. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. Deleted Condition No. 29 VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 35 minutes (3:09-3:26) A break was taken following this item from 3:26-3:38 ~ L_J 09-10-01 Page 28 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 11 Withdrawn 9b. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04451 ` OWNER: State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, Attn: Karen Finke, 8020 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, : Anaheim, CA 92808 AGENT: Coast Sign, Inc., Attn: Donald Poole, 1345 South Allec Street, Anaheim, CA 92808 LOCATION: 8182 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is approximately 85 acres located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Roosevelt Road (Chipolte Restaurant-Anaheim Hills Festival Shopping Center). To permit a second wall sign for an existing restaurant within a : `commercial shopping center with waiver of maximum number of waU signs. ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. SR8073VN.DOC • r • •- • • • • • • OPPOSITION: None ~ ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept petitioner's request for withdrawal of Variance No. 2001-04451 in order to process an amendment to the Festival Specific Plan that will comprehensively address second wall signs for specified tenants in this commercial center. V07E: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 09-10-01 Page 29 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 10a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 11 Approved 10b. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04453 Granted, in part OWNER: Heinz - Crawiey Co., 303 Poppy Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92806 AGENT: Joe Gerard Signs and Graphics, Attn: Joe Gerard, 2000 Placentia Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 LOCATION: 1271 Auto Center Drive. Property is approximately 6.91 acres located at the northwest corner of Auto Center Drive and Phaenix Club Drive (Anaheim Mazda Hyundai). Waivers of a) maximum number of monument signs, b) permitted location of monument signs, c) minimum distance between monument signs and d) maximum sign width (Anaheim Mazda Hyundai) to permit and construct a second monument sign for an existing auto dealership on a property with less than 600 feet of frontage.* • Waivers (a) and (b) have been deleted. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUT{ON NO. PC2001-130 SR8074VN.DOC ~ Greg McCafferty stated item 10 is Variance 2001-04453 for property located af 1271 Auto Center Drive, Anaheim Mazda Hyundai to construct second monument sign. Waivers (a) and (b) have been deleted and Waivers (c) and (d) remain. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated no letters were received in support or objection from the public. Robert Fletcher submitted handout with sign dimensions. Joe Gerard stated Anaheim Mazda is trying to put a Mazda monument into the sign program. Monuments that are available are built by one company and they only make 2 size monuments. The Mazda logo is a cast that can't be duplicated and the 13' is limiting. THE PUBLIC HEARING. WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Gerard if the temporary Mazda wall sign is permitted. Mr. Gerard said there are 2 banners and 2 old monument signs which are being removed. Commissioner Bristol asked where he wanted to put the monument signs. Mr. Gerard stated the Mazda monument will be on the corner of Phoenix Drive and Auto Center Drive. Commissioner Arnold pointed out that item 14 indicates that the size that the signs come in is a self- imposed/voluntary hardship. It doesn't relate to the physical condition of the property and wonders if there • is an alternate argument about how the property shape or iYs topography would require a sign of that size as opposed to a smaller sign. Mr. Gerard said it was his impression that staff wasn't aware of the limitations of the sign size. 09-10-01 Page 30 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Arnold stated it is a hardship that does not relate to the parcel of land and that is what they have to find for the variance. Mr. Gerard said Mazda has agreed to the smaller sign but because they only offer a 13-foot sign they don't have another suggestion. The actual monument itself is 13 feet including posts and he can't offer any other solution. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos asked what kind of hardship he is identifying on the other variance request, is it based on the frontage. " Mr. Gerard stated yes on the available frontage. There is no place to put the sign around the corner. Commissioner Koos said he could see more of a hardship on that one than on the sign. He explained many applicants can point to the sarne hardship and he isn't comfortable going down that road. He is sympathetic on the frontage issue because 300 feet would put it around the corner and make it less visible, so he is in support of that variance, but not signage. Chairperson Vanderbilt said he was in agreement. Feels sign industry should to respond to those who have to conform to strict signage requirements by changing size of signs for them. Concurs with Commissioner Koos because it seems like the'City of Anaheim took a deliberate effort to direct automobile businesses to move to this location so that they could be centralized, and feels rules should accommodate their signage needs. Greg McCafferty stated it is identified as an auto center. Commissioner Bristol asked if it was always 2 dealerships and signage is reflective of one dealership at one time; now there are 2 and asked if it would be his preference if Mazda made an 8 foot high monument sign versus less than 5 feet. Mr. Gerard said no, when it was first built it was a Mazda dealership, then Mitsubishi, then a used car superstore. As far as height, there is na preference because you are right on top of the sign when you see it, they are more concemed with brand identification as you come into the auto center on Phoenix Drive, you don't see the Mazda sign until you turn the corner. They are limited to what Mazda makes. Commissioner Bristol stated his monument sign is only 5 feet different from the sign restrictions. Commission has given variances in the Weir Canyon Area for unusual circumstances and configurations of their lots, and he sees nothing wrong with what they are asking for. Commissioner Koos says he didn't think they would be losing anything other than a little night's sleep on how to figure out how to build a sign that is not standard across America. If everybody came in and said one size fits all, they might as well throw out the zoning code for signage. Regarding Commissioner . Bristol's comments on the ones on Weir Canyon, he can't remember why they approved them that way. Commissioner Bristol clarified it was because it was hard to see around the corners because it was off the beaten path like this property and there was more signage allowed because of the smaller configuration. This is off:the beaten path. tf it were in a different part of Anaheim they could go by code, but this isn't there. Commissioner Bristol further explained what he is saying is he understands the restraint he is under, and Mazda does not make the sign that the City restricts him ta' Either he complies with us or give him a variance to exceed the total square footage by 5 feet in an area that is hard to see anyway. 09-10-01 Page 31 ~ ~ C~ SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Koos said he does not have a problem supporting the variance on the location, said he could care less, but these types of self-imposed hardships are hard to justify based on what they need to make findings for in a variance. Commissioner Arnoid asked Commissioner Boydstun to repeat her earlier comment. Commissioner Boydstun said because of the access to the property and where the sign is, she feels it is a hardship on the property because there is no place else. That size sign will fit that place and be big enough for people to see as they go around the corner and she would go for the variance. Greg McCafferty asked Commission whether the waivers could be acted on by resolution. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Koos 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 11 (Accessory Structures), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Commissioner Koos offered a resolution to Grant, in part, Variance No. 2001-04453 by denying waivers (a) pertaining to maximum number of monument signs and (b) pertaining to • permitted location of monument signs on the basis that they were defeted; and denying waiver (d) pertaining to maximum sign width based on the findings as stated in the staff report dated September 10, 2001; and approving waiver (c) pertaining to minimum distance between monument signs based on the findings and conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated September 10, 2001 and THE RESOLUTION FAILED TO CARRY with the following vote: AYES: KOOS, VANDERBILT NOES: ARNOLD, BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, EASTMAN ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Boydstun offered an alternate resolution to Grant, in part, Variance No. 2001-04453 by denying waivers (a) pertaining to maximum number of monument signs and (b) pertaining to permitted location of monument signs on the basis that they were deleted; and approving waiver (c) pertaining to minimum distance between monument signs based on the findings and conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated September 10, 2001; and approving waiver (d) pertaining to maximum sign width based on the hardship of the land and THE RESOLUTION PASSED with the following vote: AYES: ARNOLD, BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, EASTMAN NOES: KOOS, VANDERBILT ABSENT: NONE VOTE: 5-2 (Commissioners Koos and Vanderbilt voted no) • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 22 minutes (3:38-4:00) 09-10-01 Page 32 SEPTEMBER 10,2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04415 OWNER: Sowthern California Edison, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, #290, Rosemead, CA 91770 AGENT: Tetra Tech Wireless, Attn: Lorena Martinez, 357 Van Ness Way, Suite 150, Torrance, CA 90501 LOCATION: 1621 South Euclid Street. Property is approximately 4:98 acres with a frontage of 170 feet on the west side of Euclid Street located.355 feet south of the centerline of Cris Avenue. To permit a telecommunications antenna on an existing electrical transmission tower and accessory ground-mounted equipment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-931 Approved ~ Granted for 5 years (to expire on September 10, 2006 SR8064VN.DOC , Commissioner Koos is abstaining from this itembecause he has a financial conflict of interest because he is employed by the agent. Greg;McCafferty stated item 11 is Conditional Use Permit 2001-04415 for property located at 1621 South Euclid Street to permit telecommunications antenna on existing electrical transmission tower and ~ accessory ground-mounted equipment. Lorena Martinez with Tetra Tech Wireless, 357 Van Ness Way, Torrance, 90501. This will provide high speed internet services and multiple phone lines. Antennas are mounted on lattice towers. Esther Wallace, Chairman of WAND, 604 South Scott Lane stated applicant sent pictures to WAND and the group decided they want the mountings to be stealth and asked that Commission go along with the Planning Department. Suggests that it be put aside until the Planning Department can decide how they can be stealth. Has a problem with Commission turning down an antenna in an industrial area, but approving these antennas in residential areas where they can be seen. Lorena Martinez said they are painting antennas to match so you really won't see them. They have noted guidance that Commission has offered going to lattice towers and have opted for that. Shelter will be set beneath the tower legs and won't be seen from Euclid Street. Chairperson Vanderbilt closed the pubic hearing after seeing no one wanted to speak for or against the item. He stated simulation shows that the structure protrudes outside of the four legs, but plans don't seem to show that. Lorena Martinez said shelter is completely enclosed within the tower legs and does not protrude, plans are more accurate. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if there needs to be a structure for the facilities or is it an option. Lorena Martinez said there needs to be a structure for their particular antennas and technology that they ~ are providing. Commissioner Bristol asked if the depth of the panel was 1%Z inches. 09-10-01 , Page 33 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES , Lorena Martinez said specifications provided to planning staff indicate 6 inches. Jana Lukie, Construction Manager, said the antenna is 4%2 inches wide and 54 inches long. Greg McCafferty asked for clarifiication because photo simulation shows a pitched roof and elevations shows a flat roof. Lorena Martinez said they are mounted straight onto the tower with no severe angling; they are straight onto the legs. Chairperson Vanderbiit asked if they were verticai relative to the earth or parallel to the legs. Lorena Martinez said they were parallel to the legs. Greg McCafferty said it is better if they are closer to the lattice tower and it is good that they maintain the same angle as the framework of the tower. Chairperson Vanderbilt said any project that doesn't require an additional structure is positive. He feels that industry is taking note and technology is getting closer to the stealth look. Asked if this is what the City wants to define as stealth or what is that definition. Commissioner Arnold said he is comfortable with this one. This is on a utility tower that is already there and relatively blends in. s • ~ ~ - • ~ • • ~ ~ ~ I ION: A erson who re resented the West Anaheim Nei hborhood Develo ment Council OPPOS T p p 9 P (WAND) spoke with suggestions and concerns to the subject request. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04415 for 5 years (to expire on September 10, 2006) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated September 10, 2001. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 14 minutes (4:01-4:15) ~~ 09-10-01 Page 34 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04416 OWNER: Southern California Edison, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, #290, Rosemead, CA 91770 AGENT: Tetra Tech Wireless, Attn: Lorena Martinez, 357 Van Ness Way, Suite150, Torrance, CA 90501 LOCATION: 2719 West Bail Road. Property is approximately 8.3 , acres with frontages of 265 feet on the north side of Bail Road and 265 feet on the south side of Stonybrook Drive located 159 feet west of the centerline of Sherdll Street. , To permit a telecommunications antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-132 Approved Granted for 5 years (to expire on September 10, 2006) SR8082KB.DOC , Commissioner Koos abstained from item due to financial conflict of interest because he is employed by the agent. Greg McCafferty stated it is a Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04416 for property at 2719 West Ball Road ta permit a telecommunications antenna.and accessory ground-mounted equipment. Staff . recommends denial of proposaL Lorena Martinez, 357 Van Ness Way, Torrance, 90501, Tetra Tech Wireless representing AT& T Wireless. Antennas will be on tower legs to minimize visual impact. Chairperson Vanderbilt closed pubic hearing after seeing no one wanted to speak for or against the item. Commissioner Arnold asked if they plan to make the antennas gray because simulation looks white. Lorena Martinez said they will be painted to match lattice tower. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that unlike the previous item that was nicely landscaped, this one is only 20 feet from Ball Road and there is no landscaping in front of the tower. Asked if there was any possibility that some of the other antennas that are further into the property could have been chosen. Lorena Martinez said this tower is closest to the center of the ring. They could construct a fence with green slats so that it blends into the greenery. Chairperson Vanderbilt said he is critical of the simulations in that they appear as though they are in the middle of the field, but they are on Ball Road. Commissioner Bostwick stated he took it from the simulation that was provided in "View looking how the antenna instaflation will look at the site upon completion". He suggested using green PVC slats, and then planting vines around it to have a landscape effect. Commissioner Brisfol feels this is about as stealth as they have seen, asked if they will be flush as well. ~ ~ ~J 09-10-01 Page 35 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Lorena Martinez said they wilf be mounted as close as possible to the tower legs and be painted gray color. Commissioner Arnold wanted to reiterate the point that he made on item 11 also applies to this one. • ~ ~ ~ ` • • • • . ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04416 for 5 years (to expire on September 10, 2006) subject to the conditions of approval as stated 'm the staff report dated September 10, 2001, with the following added to the conditions of approval: Added the fofiowing condition of approval: That the equipment enclosure shall be fully screened by a 6-foot high chain-link fencing interwoven with PVC Slats and landscaping plans reflecting these improvements shall be submitted to the Planning Department and reviewed as a Reports and Recommendations item. VOTE: 5-1 (Commissioner Vanderbilt voted no and Commissioner Koos abstained) ~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeai rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (4:16-4:26) ~ 09-10-01 Page 36 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINU7ES 13a. CEQA CATEGORlCAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 ~ 13b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04433 OWNER: Richter Farms Trust, 5505 Garden Grove Boulevard, : #150, Westminster, CA 92683 AGENT: Interpacific Asset Management, 5505 Garden Grove Boulevard, #150, Westminster, CA 92683 LOCATION: 1052-1098 North State Coliege Boulevard* and 2021 - East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 6:9 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of State College Boulevard and La Palma Avenue - (Granada Square). * Advertised as 1052-1098 South State College Boulevard. To esta6lish land use conformity wi#h existing Zoning Code land use , requirements for an existing commercial retail center, laundromat and liquor store and to permit a convenience market. Continued to September 24, 2009 CONDITIONAL USE PERMtt RESOLl1TlON NO. I SR1020CW.DOC Greg McCafferty stated item 13 is for Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04433 for property located at ' north/east corner of State College and La Palma'Avenue to establish land use conformity for the existing commerciai retail center and to permit a convenience market. In response to the morning session, planner called the property manager and propertymanager indicated they were in agreement with the conditions of approval, but they could not send a representative to the public hearing today. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated no letters were received in support or opposition to the project from the public. ~ ~ Applicant's Statement: Mr. Garcia, agent for applicant stated he talked with the lessor and finds no inconveniences with the recommendations. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol stated this is serious, feels more comfortable waiting two weeks to give owner more time. ` Greg McCafferty stated the owner is notified like everyone else. They are notified with the public notice because they are the property owner and case planner has advised that she has had several discussions with Richter Farms. They are well aware, it has been at least 10 days. Commissioner Bristol asked if they knew of the conditions. Greg McCafferty said they didn't know the specific conditions, but they are aware of the hearing. Staff report wasn't made available until Friday. ~ 09-10-01 Page 37 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Bristol said he has a lot of questions for the owner of the site because it is in very poor condition and he would like to wait a couple of weeks. Back area is in terrible shape, would like to get a letter to them so that they would be here. Chairperson Vanderbilt reopened the public hearing and advised there was a motion by Commissioner Bristol, seconded by Chairperson Vanderbilt, to continue this item to September 24, 2001, vote taken, and motion carried. Commissioner Bostwick asked Mr. Garcia if he understood and to make sure the management company was at the next meeting. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the September 24, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order for the property owner to be present at the meeting as requested by the Planning Commission. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (4:27-4:31) ~ r 09-10-01 Page 38 SEPTEMBER 1U, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 14a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 14b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04434 OWNER: 2550 Miraloma Company, Attn: Ronald S. Lushing, 9399 Wilshire Boulevard, #109, Bevecly Hilis, GA 90210 AGENT: Jeff Jonsson, 20331 Irvine Avenue, #7, Santa Ana Heights, CA 92702 - LOCATION: 2550 East Miraloma Way. Property is approximately 0.87 acre and is accessed via a 20 foot'wide access easement from Miraloma Way and is located 190 feet west of the centerline of Lawrence Avenue. To permit an outdoor contractor's storage yard. '. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-133 Approved Granted for 4 years (to expire on September 10, 2005) SR8083KB.DOC ~ Greg McCafferty stated Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04434 for property located at 2550 East Miraloma Way to permit a outdoor contractors storage yard. Appiicant and Commission were provided with recommended changes to the staff report and staff is recommending denial for reasons described in the report. Chairperson Vanderbilt explained there were 2 revised pages to the staff report. ~ ApplicanYs Statement: Jeff,Jonsson, licensed architect, 22365 EI Toro,Road, No. 150, in Lake Forest. He explained they turned in newpictures that gave a better representation of what the site looks like from the public street. They are in agreement with the visibility issue but feel the primary screening issue is from the 91 Freeway. Also, the site isn't visible from Mira Loma except for one small triangle in which they would be willing to plant trees. Rick Gill, "commercial real estate broker with Collins Commercial, 2391 Morris Street in Irvine, represents land owner and buyer, Mesa Roofing. Explained they chose Mesa Roof because they were willing to renovate the property. Explained how it doesn't lend itself to office use due to iYs uniqueness. Explained water easement limits potential to redevelop property into a more ML type use. Applicant is willing to put plants there or build a block wall and remove it if. they have to get to the water line. He hopes new bridges that have been rebuilt and which create limited visibility won't put this owner in a situation where he has a p'rece of property that will go vacant. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED: Commissioner Arnold asked staff what could go there that might not be screened, but yet would be permitted by right. Greg McCafferty stated it is zoned ML so there could be manufacturing and warehousing uses, but because of the way the code is structured, that activity has to occur indoors. Any outdoor aspect would have to be clearly accessible to what is going on indoors. Anything that is of an outdoor permanent nature as part of the use, always requires a conditional use permit in the industrial zone. This is basically o a contractor's storage yard with all the tar pots etc, and requires that you carefully review that for . 09-10-01 Page 39 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMlSSlON MINUTES ~ screening and compatibility. Regardless of what is stored outside, either conditionally permitted or as a primary permitted use, it is required to be screened from pubic rights-of-way. Commissioner Bostwick asked if mobile tankers move in and out? Staff report says they stay there permanently and they fill mobile tanks. How are they repienished? Wayne Wells, President of Mesa Roofing. Two tankers are storage tanks that stay on the site, in an area where there is already an existing wall that is 14 - 17 feet high. A tanker comes in and filis them once or twice a week, smafVer tanks go out on a daily basis. Wall is a Caltrans wall and they can't do anything with that wall, it is near the,easement area. Commissioner Bostwick clarified the area near the 91 freeway in front of the building will be where the employees and trucks park. Mr. Wells said the trucks that go out every day will be parked in that area. Plot plans shows where everything is parked. Commissioner Koos asked if applicant read conditions of approval. Rick Gill stated yes and they are fine. Commissioner Bristol asked if there was an area to plant on the other side of the Caltrans area. Mr. Wells said there is a large slope and it would be nice if Caltrans would landscape that. Commissioner Bostwick said it was Caltrans place to plant on it. ~,r Commissioner Bristol stated you cannot see anything from the 91 Fwy. or Mira Loma and doesn't see a problem with this use. Commissioner Bostwick agreed, it is an industrial area. Commissioner Arnold said the applicant's willingness to meet the City's concerns offers a great benefit to improve the quality of the property. Commissioner Koos feels they should give him more than a year. • • ~ ' ' ~ ~ • ~ ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol ofFered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman 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 additiona! environmental documentation. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04434 for 4 years (to expire on September 10, 2005) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated September 10, 2001 with the following modificatio~: ~ Modified Condition No. 1 to read as follows: 09-10-01 Page 40 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION'MINUTES 1: That subject use permit shall expire in four (4).years from the date of this resotution, on . ~ September 10, 2005 Modified andRenumbered Condition Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 19 to read as follows: 16. That the outdoor storage of materials and equipment shall not exceed the height of the perimeter fencing and shall not be visible to any adjacent public right-of-way. 17. That subject property shali be developed substantialiy in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to #he City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on ~ file with the Planning Depa~tment marked Exhibit No. 1, and as conditioned herein. 18. 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 resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10;'11, 12, 13, 14 and ' 15, 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. 19. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Conditinn No. 17, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. VOTE: 7-0 - Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 15 minutes (4:32-4:47) ~ ~ ' r=.:.., ~ - ~ .~ . ~ ~ ~ . . - ~ 09-10-01 Page 41 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 15a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 15b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04435 OWNER: Palmall Properties, Attn: Arthur Shipkey, 1428 Bay Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92661 AGENT: Pacific Design Group, Attn: Alex Burrola, 1747 South Douglass Road, #B, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 900 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately -0.58 acre located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Ohio Street (Anaheim Carwash). To retain and expand an existing~car wash to include accessory take-out fast food service with waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO Continued to September 24, 2001 SR1021 CW.DOC Greg McCafferty stated item 15 is Conditionai Use Permit No. 2001-04435 for property at 900 West Lincoln Avenue, an existing Anaheim Car Wash, to retain and modify the car wash to include food service. One waiver that was advertised has been deleted. Title of staff report should have a 15b that indicates waiver of code requirements, since this is a Conditional Use Permit so Commission will be acting on the ~ waiver by motion before deciding on resolution on conditional use permit. ApplicanYs Statement: Louis Garrett, Jr. representing car wash. Gandition No. 8 states no tables or seating area for consumption of food will make it irnpossible to sit wait for their cars. Condition No. 11 indicates that the air compressor hoses cannot be on the premises, but they need them for dry off. Steve White, 856 North Clementine, property manager for apartment complex at 115 South Ohio. They are concerned about the patrons who wait for cars, lean on their building, and also a problem of containment of patrons on-site. People who wait for their cars migrate onto his property. Mr. Garrett said customers like to watch their cars be washed. He will talk to Mr. White and figure out a way to co-exist. Chairperson Vanderbilt closed pubic hearing after seeing no one wanted to speak for or against the item. Commissioner Koos asked where food will be consumed. Mr. Garrett said it is where the tables are in the photos in the waiting area in the back of car wash and inside. Commissioner Koos said whether they approve this or not, this is where people are currently waiting, selling of food won't impact it, it is a mixed use waiting area. People who live in the complex have to realize that they moved there, next to a commercial use that has been there a while. He wants to hear a level of assurance that he will manage customers to not wander away from the property. • Commissioner Arnold asked if it could have signs posting a clear waiting area. 09-10-01 Page 42 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Bostwick asked how long the tabies and chairs have been there, people tend to walk around when there is no place to sit. Mr. Garrett said tables have been there since April of 2000. Individuals seem to have a sense of comfort to watch their cars being dried. He'll have signs made and instruct manager to make sure they don't wander to other property. Police Officers even go there and put their foot up against the waiL Commissioner Bristol asked what they were building on the south part of the lot. Mr. Garrett said it is a detaif canopy that was moved to the back of the lot. GomrXtissioner Bristol said staff report says no canopies. Asked if he ever went to the apartment complex and listened to the noise that comes from the car wash. Mr. Garrett said he has, noise doesn't come €~o[~ the detaiiing, it comes from vacuuming in the back of the car wash and they are getting that enclosed to cut down on the noise. Commissioner Bristol said he was there with Mr. White on Sunday and it was very busy. There are three points of noise; there are 2 air compressors, and tunnel noises: Also Lincoln Avenue was blocked off due ` to circulation, asked why they can't bring the cacs back out to circulate. Mr: Garrett said the more they drive the customers cars, the more the insurance is for them. That would require them going around the front of the build'rng and facing 2-way traffic, going back into public street and back into the driveway, back into more traffic of incoming cars. It is not feasible to do sa Commissioner Bristol asked what they are caoking in kitchen. Mr. Garrett said it is Fat Daddy's Original Chi~ago Dogs. Commissioner Bristol said he sees this as a take out and he is concerned with parking. Mr. Garrett said his object is to wash cars, not sell hot dogs. Feels food will attract people to the car wash. Commissioner Bristol clarified it will be people who come in and get car washed, get food then leave. Asked Mr. Garrett if he wanted Commission to believe that he didn't care about not just selling the hot dogs. . Mr. Garrett said they don't make money on $3.00 hot dogs, they make money on detail and car wash. Ten years ago the Anaheim Car Wash was doing 400 - 500 cars a day, now they do about 180 cars a day, they feel food will get them that growth. They are not interested in Chicago Dogs, they are interested in car wash and detail. Commissioner Koos asked how people know hot dogs are there if they are not advertising them. Mr. Garrett said the best advertising is word of mouth. Commissioner Koos clarified that there will be no signage or coupons for hot dogs. Mr. Garrett said they may do something in conjunction with a car wash, a lunch time special like $1.00 off the hot dog with a car wash. Commissioner Bristol asked staff if they knew about the canopy in the back. ~ ~ ~ 09-10-01 Page 43 SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Greg McCafferty stated their understanding of the proposal was for the food. For years they have had canopy along the west property line and one attached to car wash tunnel on south elevation. The only seating that was previous{y permitted was inside the tunnel and a planter and benches. The proposal before Commission today does not have any outdoor seating other than what was previously permitted under the old car wash. Commissioner Boydstun said he has put the tables and chairs where you used to sit outside on the fence. Umbrellas would make peopie have more of a tendency to stay there in the shade. Chairperson Vanderbilt said he has gone there and sought shade in the apartment building. His concern is no#~the food service, but the noise issue caused by the drying. In looking at the letter, it looks like complaints have been filed for some time and hasn't motivated him enough to act. Asked how he will pursue efforts to accommodate the neighbors. Mr. Garett said the car wash has been there since 1947 and this is the first time anyone has complained about noise. Mr. White's complaint has been about people Ioitering against the building, not the noise. Loudest part is the vacuum area and they will enclose that, also, they will put up signs that instruct people to not go near the building. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if they could do something about the horn use. Mr. Garrett said they would figure something out with the horn use. Commissioner Eastman said her concern is the trash that will be generated with food. She wants to see stronger wording regarding the trash containers that will be provided. ~ Alex Morafes said there will be a lot of trash containers for patrons. Comrxiissioner Bristol asked if staff was concerned about the canopy that they didn't know about. Commissioner Bostwick said condition 3 states no portable canopies, but there are, so they need to either be on the plans or have something that shows what they are going to do. Commissioner Koos suggested 2 week continuance so that staff can modify the recommendation and applicant can redraw their plans and properly depict their full operation. Commissioner Bostwick stated thaYs what he was getting to. Conditions and plans need to be redone to indicate how this is going to function. Mr. Garrett said they noted before that there was a detail establishment there before and they put the tent exactly where the detail compartment was before. ~ Commissioner Bristol offered motion for a continuance to September 24, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Eastman, vote taken, and motion carried. Chairperson Vanderbilt advised Mr. Garrett to talk with some of the neighbors to address concerns. ~ 09-10-01 Page 44 SEPTEMSER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • . .- ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ OPPOSITION: The apartment manager of the adjacent apartment complex spoke with concerns regarding the subject facility; and a letter of opposition was received at the morning work session. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the September 24, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to submit updated plans pertaining to the subject facility; and to have an o~portunity to address any concerns raised by the property owner and a resident #o the south of this property. VOTE: 7-0 _ DISCUSSION TIME: 27 minutes (4:48-5:15) - - MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:17 P.M. TO MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2001 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: ~~~~z~~C~.~ Pat Ghandler Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2001. ~ ~ 09-10-01 Page 45