The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 2002/01/28~ • • CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES COMMiSSIONERS PRESENT: PAU,~.$~~~K,~PF~YLLIS°~~~DSTUN, STEPHEN BRISTOL, GAIL°EA~T1tl~I~J(~ ~ ~O(~~ `~ ~~~ COMMISSIONERS ABSENT, ; JAl1~ilE5 `~VAFI~I~I~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~ ~ ' ~~ ' ~ ~~ ~ .~~~ `~~ ~ ~~ STAFF PRESENT: ~~~~ 9 ~ ~' ~ ~~ ~' ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Selma Mann, Assistant C°r~y A~~rr~~ ~~m~.~s~ / Melanie A~darns As~o~ a~~Er~g~~eer ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ : ~: ~ Greg Hastings, Zoning.~t~ri~ I~nag~r Elly Fernandes,~Se~io~r ~~`etarj~~~ Greg McCafferty, Prin~"ipal P a~i~er ~.~ „ Pat Chandler, Seniar~,~c~-et~r~ ~ M O N DAY, JAN UARY 28, 2002 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAI RP~F~S~N~C~}NY~-:AR;NOLD ~ E~ ~ ~ ~., s ~%~ ;~~ a ~ .,, , ~:,, ~ ~~ ~;,;,. inirag,Cammiss~an~Age~'rd,a ~a~poste in the foyer~of #hs-~~tw~'cil 'Ch~rt~~ers ~M ~ ~~ ~; ~~z ~ ~ EE ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~.~ ~ Thurscfa~~ 3Ja~~~ ,~~~~`~9Q~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,r ~~E~ ~ ~ ~E~~~ ~s ,~e ~ ~ ~ E ~„ ~~~ F~T. ~ ~ . ~ ~E t~ '~ ~~9 r ~ F ~ a E: y,- ~ ,, ~ _ 4 .~ ;~ tir.,~,, ~ ~ ~` ~ ::~~°`~ ~. J ~SESSiO~ 11:~~ M~~~ ~ ~ N~U~ VARI~~~~~ ,~` ~ 5 F~EQUE~~ ~BY~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ y " a~a~;-~- ~rr~ ~ ~ ~ ~,, ~ ~ ~~,`. ~ ~~~. ~ ~' .,,, 8:30 on Friday, i also in the AGENDA POSTING~ ~~~~i January 25, 2002, irt~ ttl~ ~h outside display kiosl~~ , ~ ,,, F ~ ~.w~'" PUBLISHED: Anat~im e ~~~ ~ ~ ~: CALL TO ORDER ~~ ~ r ~,y, `~ PLANNING~~OMM • STAFF I~PRAT DEVELOPIVI~N PLANNING C~ • PRELIMINARY RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARINt~SE$S!`fJ`~1~~~= '`~,~ RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. CLOSED SESSION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Bristol PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT H:\DOCS\CLERICAL\M I NUTES~AC012802.DOC -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ~lanningcommission@anaheim.net JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M CLOSED SESSION: Motion to recess to closed session for the following purposes: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code) Name of case: Vista Media Group, Inc. v. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. OOCC08157 ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), to recess to closed session for the purposes of conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation in the case by Vista Media Group, Inc. v. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. OOCC08157. (1:32-1:42) ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), to reconvene to public hearing. (1:43) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney indicated that discussion was made pertaining to the subject case and no action was taken during the closed session. 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: Items 1-A through 1-C on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll ca!! 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 Bosfinrick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-A through 1-C) as recommended by staff (with a correction on page 16 of the January 14, 2002 Planning Commission Minutes as read into the record by Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner). Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. A) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04282 (TRACKING NO. CUP GUV I~V'f951 J~ ICG4~UCJ 1 rVR N RC 11CVAV I IVC CJl l CIY~IVIY Vr TIME: Spieker Properties, L.P., Attn: Mitch Ritschel, 19600 Fairchild Road, Suite 285, Irvine, CA 92612, requests a retroactive extension of time to construct a 45-foot high office building with roof-mounted equipment with waiver of required structural setback adjacent to a freeway. Property is located at 150 North Riverview Drive. • ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved Approved retroactive extension of time for 1 year {to expire on December 4, 2002) (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) 01-28-02 Page 2 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded b Commissioner Y Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for a one-year retroactive extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04282 (Tracking No. CUP2001-04491) to expire on December 4, 2002 based on the following: (i) That the proposed plan remains in conformance with the current zoning and existing General Plan land use designation for this property. Further, there have been no code amendments that would cause the approval to be considered inconsistent with the Zoning Code, nor has the petitioner submitted plans that would render the project inconsistent with the existing Zoning Code. ~ • (ii) That this is the first request for a time extension, and Code permits a maximum of two requests for extension of time to comply with conditions of approval. (iii) That the property has been maintained in a safe, clean and aesthetically pleasing manner with no outstanding code violations affecting this property. (iv) That there is no information or changed circumstances which contradict the facts necessary to support one or more of the required findings for approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04282. SR8201 KB.DOC 01-28-02 Page 3 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • B. a) E PERMIT NO. 2417 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2002- - REQUEST FOR TERMINATIOI • • Company, Inc., 1300 Quail Street, Suite # 106, Newport Beach, CA 92660-2711, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2417 (Tracking No. CUP 2002-04504). Property is located at 5642 East La Palma Avenue, Unit 105. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-12 Terminated (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) SR8203NA.DOC 01-28-02 Page 4 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • C. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of January 14, 2002. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of January 14, 2002 with the following correction to Page 16: Corrected the 4th sentence of the 3~d paragraph as follows: "He feels this is due to the demand for energy efficient burning fuel and propane meeting its demand as natural gas has ° r ~ Approved, with correction to Page 16 (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) 01-28-02 Page 5 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT ~ 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMiT NO. 4148 (TRACKING NO. CUP2002- 04509 : OWNER: Robert L. Zucherman, 1715 Glen Oaks Drive, Santa Barbara, CA 93108 AGENT: City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 601 South Magnolia Avenue. Property is approximately 0.46-acre located at the southwest corner of Orange Avenue and Magnolia Avenue (Le's Automobile). • City-initiated (Planning Department) request to delete a condition of approval pertaining to a requirement to obtain a conditional use permit for an existing non-conforming billboard and to either waive provisions of the Zoning Code, including a provision prohibiting any new use on the property while a nonconforming use exists, or imposing a new condition requiring the removal of the nonconforming billboard and the payment of compensation by the City pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 5412.6. Approved Approved Approved modification fo deiete condition of approval (Condition No. 22 of Resolution No. 2000R-57) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-13 • SR8208VN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 2 as Conditional Use Permit No. 4148, 601 South Magnolia Avenue - Le's Automobile. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends deletion of the condition of approval that pertains to Condition No. 22, Resolution 2000R-57 that a Conditional Use Permit be obtained for the billboard and waive the nonconforming sections of the code that are referenced in subparagraph (b) in the staff report dated January 28, 2002 so that the billboard will not require a Conditional Use Permit. ApplicanYs Statement: Michael Tidus, attorney at law, 4 Park Plaza, La Mirada, CA, representing Vista Media, stated they would like to keep the sign and is supportive of deleting Condition No. 22 but would like clarification on how Condition No. 8 impacts the subject sign and is in need of an answer to the following three questions: 1. Were the applicants notified of the change? 2. Is there is any change in the actual conditions other than the deletion of the requirement of the removal of signs? 3. Is the final stop the Planning Commission Meeting or would they have to continue on to the City Council Meeting? 01-28-02 Page 6 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Pub~ic Testimony: Don Cho, 2620 W. Orange Avenue, Anaheim, CA, stated he is against the proposal because the billboard prohibits exposure to his business. Applicant's Response: Mr. Tidus stated the court issued an order that the sign must be allowed to remain other than just compensation from the City. Mr. McCafferty clari~ed with regard to Condition No. 8 that the intent is not towards the billboard but signage that pertains to the primary use on the site which is the automobile repair. He suggested a possible modification of Condition No. 8 would indicate "except for the billboard" so that it is clear for the applicant. With regard to public notice staff noticed in accordance with the state law 300 feet surrounding the property as well as in the paper and feels the City has complied with the notice of requirements. THE PUBLIC HEARiNG WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Arnold clarified for the opposition that there is a state statue passed by the state legislature, which protects the billboard from removal. ~ • 1 - ! 11 11 ! : • . ! - - - • 11 11 • - ! • - OPPOSITION: A person spoke in opposition to the subject request. ~ ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved Waivers of Code Requirement, as follows: Approved waivers pertaining to (a) Nonconforming Structures and Uses - General, and (b) Nonconforming Signs and Billboards - General as it was determined that such deletion is necessary to permit the reasonable operation of this use permit as mandated by a court order issued by the Orange County Superior Court dated November 30, 2001. Approved modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 4148 (Tracking No. CUP2002- 04509) to delete a condition of approval (Condition No. 22 of Resolution No. 2000R-57) pertaining to a requirement to obtain a conditional use permit for an existing nonconforming billboard in conjunction with the waiving of provisions of the Zoning Code prohibiting any new use on the property while a nonconforming use exists based on the following: (i) That the permit as granted is in violation of applicable statute and law; (ii) That such deletion is necessary to permit the operation of this use permit and as mandated by a court order issued by the Orange County Superior Court dated November 30, 2001. ~ Incorporated the conditions of approval contained in Resolution Nos. PC99-165, PC2000-13 and 2000R-57 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition No. 8 was modified at foday's meeting): 01-28-02 Page 7 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 1. That this Conditional Use Permit No. 4148 shall expire on September 13, 2004. 2. That within a period of (6) months from the date of this resolution, the existing driveways closest to the infersection of Orange Avenue and Magnolia Avenue shall be removed and replaced with standard curb, gutter sidewalk and landscaping. 3. That one (1), minimum fifteen (15) gallon size tree shall be planted for every twenty (20) feet of planter length in the existing landscape planers along Orange and Magnolia Avenues. Landscape plans showing the type of tree proposed shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review within sixty (60) days of the date of this resolution. Said landscaping shall be planted within six months of the date of this resolution. 4. That the trash storage area(s) shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, to comply with approved plans on fiie with said Department. 5. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval showing conformance with the most current versions of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. 6. That no "compacY' sized parking spaces shall be permitted. 7. That within 30 days from the date of this resolution the owner of subject property • shall submit a letter to the Zoning Division requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2410 (to retain a convenience market at an existing service station). 8. That within a period of one (1) month from the date of this resolution, plans showing all the existing signage (except for the billboard) on the property shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item. 9. That the hours of operation shall be limited to the following: Monday through Friday: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Sunday: Closed 10. That no outdoor storage of, display of, or work on vehicles or vehicular parts shall be permitted; and that no other outdoor use, including storage, shall be permitted. Any existing outdoor storage shall be removed including the oil drums and display rack. 11. That no vending machines which are visible to the public rights-of-way shaA be permitted 12. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 13. That window signage shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of the window area. Any • existing signage in excess of ten percent (90°/a) shall be removed. _ 14. That the existing building wall signage shall be modified to remove the words "mini mart" and any duplicate copy on any building elevation; and that the signage for the property shall be limited to that which is shown on the approved exhibits. Any 01-28-02 Page 8 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • additional signs, including any freestanding sign, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approvai by the Planning Commission as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. 15. That no banners or other advertising shall be displayed within the service bays facing Orange Avenue or Magnolia Avenue unless a Special Event Permit is ~rst obtained to authorize such display. 16. That any on-site public telephone shall be located inside the building. All existing telephones located outside the building shall be relocated to comply with this requirement. 17. That no "for sale" vehicles shall be displayed. 18. That the snack shop, as depicted on Exhibit No. 2, shall not sell nor serve hot food or fountain drinks. 19. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and as conditioned herein. 20. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other ~ applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (1:52-2:01) • 01-28-02 Page 9 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r~ ~ 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 3 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04489; OWNER: Cal Asia Property Development, 1517 South Sepulveda Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90025 AGENT: MPA Architectural Group, Attn: Jennifer Gerner, 1205 J Street, Suite F, San Diego, CA 92101 LOCATION: 1001 North State Colleqe Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.5-acre located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and State College Boulevard. Requests to construct a five-unit commercial retail center. Continued from the January 14, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to February 11, 2002 SR1053CW. DOC I FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ~J ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), to continue the subject request to the February 11, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the applicant additional time to meet with the adjacent property owner. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 01-28-02 Page 10 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04471 4c. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2001-105 OWNER: Properties L. Seaward, 923 North Main Street, Orange, CA 92867 AGENT: Stuart Architecture, Attn: Ernest Stuart, 5031 Birch Street, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 1531 -1601 South State Colleae Boalevard and 1500 -1701 East Babbitt Avenue. Property is approximately 12.66-acres with a frontage of 460 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard located 325 feet south of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue. Variance No. 2001-04471 - Request waivers of (a) type of freestanding sign, (b) maximum number of freestanding or monument signs, (c) maximum area of freestanding or monument signs. (deleted), (d) minimum distance between freestanding or monument signs, (e) maximum sign height, (fl maximum sign width and (g) minimum number of parking spaces. *Waiver (c) has been deleted. ~ Tentative Parcel Map No. 2001-105 - To establish a 12-lot industrial subdivision for an existing industrial complex with frontage on a proposed private street. Continued from the January 14, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-14 Approved Granted, in part Approved SR8193KB.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced ltem No. 4 as Variance No. 2001-04471, 1531-1601 South State College Boulevard and 1500-1701 East Babbitt Avenue, a request for a Tile Marketplace industrial subdivision with sign waivers. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval of the variance as indicated in paragraph 35 of the staff report except for the recommendation of deniai for waiver (c) and also recommending Commission approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 2001-105. ApplicanYs Statement: Mark Hillgren, 923 N. Main St., Orange, CA, Principal of Seaward Properties, stated the vision of the project is to create a unified community scale public destination environment that provides the region with one-stop pedestrian shopping for tile, ceramic, stone materials, and products. Ernest Stuart, 1100 S. Coast Highway, Stuart Architectural, stated it is his pleasure to present the project and convey the urban concept and design principles which they followed in its development. He presented a PowerPoint presentation with the following descriptions: ~ 01-28-02 Page 11 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSlON MINUTES • Please Walk With Us By Means Of Virtual Imagery To The New State College Promenade. • The initial concept is the abandonment of Babbitt Avenue and the restructuring of the existing cul-de- sac. • Transformation of project community presence along the "Tile Mile". • Creation of urban graphic pageantry features and place making elements. • Additional architectural features and transformation of its existing structures with color patterns. • Implementation of landscape enhancements and urban design features. The design principles were established as a first step towards guiding the team members and achieving the vision: • Legal integration of the entire project and the comprehensive master plan. • Urban use, redefinition and redevelopment of existing structures. • Redefinition of street as a pedestrian way. • Urban character and region identity achieved with a prominent ablates feature in a court yard define central to the project. • Balanced composition of forms was critical to the expression of interest and animation at the entry courtyard. Where the architectural becomes a backdrop and framework for the entry: • Integration of public utilities within the revised urban patterns led to concepts of project phasing and overall development. • • Repeating forms in materials provide an architectural design pallet. • Integration of landscaping building design concepts. • Size, color, pattern and locations of unique project identity signs flanking the entry path. • Pedestrian accessibility and comfort are provided with restful shopping experiences. • Vistas to the west are carefully composed with new urban feature buildings. Mr. Hillgren stated the project benefited from the support of the City of Anaheim Planning/Building and Public Works Departments and all the effective public utilities and engineering disciplines whose comments and concerns have been addressed in the proposal. Chairperson Arnold stated it is an impressive presentation. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun stated it looks great. Commissioner Bostwick asked if they had approval of the one piece of property within the project, which is not owned by Seaward Properties. Mr. Hillgren stated they are working closely with the owner, Mr. Walter pong, who is a member on board with the Seaward Properties Project and has signed the application for Abandonment of State College. Commissioner Bostwick inquired of the possibilities of installing underground utilities throughout the project. Mr. Hillgren responded the electrical system phase 1 is currently partially underground in conjunction with State College "undergrounding" (approximately 110 feet) and will be able to be built with the underground ~ utilities as they are, subsequent phases will require undergrounding of the entire electrical system on Babbitt Avenue. 01-28-02 Page 12 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. McCafferty stated Kevin Bass, Planner, checked into the utility issue and understands that "undergrounding" of the existing overhead lines would be in conjunction with the abandonment of Babbit Avenue. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if it does not have to be separately conditioned as part of that process. Mr. McCafferty responded, that is his understanding. Mr. Hillgren wished to clarify if it would be conditioned on the abandonment process. Chairperson Arnold responded, "that is correcY'. • • 1 - : -1 -1 ! : • . ! - - - • 11 11 • - ! • ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted, in part, Variance No. 2001-04471 approving waivers pertaining to (a) type of freestanding signs, (b) maximum number of freestanding or monument signs, (d) minimum distance between freestanding or monument signs, (e) maximum sign height, and (~ maximum sign width based on the irregular shape of the property, which is unusually deep (over 1,300 feet) with minimal opportunities for advertisement of the tenants at the rear of the property. The proposed waivers will allow a comprehensive sign • program to identify the tenants within the proposed tile marketplace development without requiring large, oversized freestanding signs adjacent to State College Boulevard for advertisement to the public; and approving waiver (g) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces based on the recommendation of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager that 246 spaces is adequate for this development, and based on the findings as discussed in paragraph nos. (27) and (28) of staff report dated January 28, 2002; and denying waiver (c) pertaining to maximum area of freestanding or monument signs since it has been deleted; and subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated January 28, 2002. Approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 2001-105 subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated January 28, 2002. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Parcel Map and the 22-day appeal rights for the Variance. DISCUSSION TIME: 11 minutes (2:02-2:13) ~ 01-28-02 Page 13 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04470 (READVERTtSED) Concurred with staff Granted OWNER: Resources I. Enrichment, 6254 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Paul Kott Realtors, Attn: Paul Kott, 1225 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 6254 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is approximately 0.94-acre with a frontage of 200 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, located 515 feet west of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard. Requests approval to expand an existing private school and day care facility. Continued from the January 14, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-15 C~ SR8189VN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 5 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04470, 6254 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, a request to expand an existing private school and day care facility. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated staff recommends Commission approve the expansion because the number of children enrolled previously would not increase, the hours of operation would remain the same and the only expansion would be in the existing office space. Staff also recommends changes to some of the conditions of approval that were in the previous resolution that permitted approval of the prior school being incorporated into the subject resolution and that signs on the subject property shall be limited to one monument sign. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if he was suggesting a modification to the staff report. Mr. McCafferty responded that is correct, conditions are being added to the conditions of approval. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify that the conditions would be Condition Nos. 17 and forward. Mr. McCafferty responded that is correct. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify that signage shall be limited to one monument sign. Mr. McCafferty responded yes, and the hours of operation are in Condition No. 1, the cap on the number of children is in Condition No. 3. He interjected to acknowledge a letter received via fax from the Anaheim Citizen's Coalition in opposition of the proposal. ApplicanYs Statement: Paul Kott, 1225 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA, representing the expansion of the Montessori School, stated over the past year he has worked closely with the owners of the school, Dr. and Mrs. Jayaratna, who have very high standards and quality in running the school. !t is no wonder that such an asset like • the Montessori School of Anaheim Hills is in need of expansion. They feel this affords the perfect opportunity to do so. They are aware the project and the buildings on the subdivision have had negative connotations with the City and neighborhood and they appreciate those past issues. They have respectively tried to move forward with the expansion making every attempt possible to contact 01-28-02 Page 14 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ homeowners in the area to see what their issues were. The underlining issue was that they just do not like the building there. Mr. Kott stated in the absence of the subject building being there nothing could be done to destroy it unless an earthquake knocks it down, etc. He feels that this project is a perfect use for the building and in the absence of that someone would have to try to figure out what could go on the property. He requested clarification on a few subject matters: • The school currently has the playground opened from 8:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and from 2:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. They would not like to change that however in the staff report Item No. 2 states that the playground hours shall be limited to 9:00 a.m. He does not know if that is a mistake or if it is an effort to try to change what exists currently. Regarding Item No. 3; currently the school occupies the property at 6274 East Santa Ana Canyon Road which is the building two back from the subject property, and the condition is for a population of 100 children on site and 7 employees. He feels since they are asking for expansion they should not be limited to the same number of children, which they are currently entitled. One of the reasons for expansion is that they expect to have approximately 30 new children, which was identified in the original letter of operation. They need to provide one teacher for every 12 students, and they have only one on-site administrator (Mrs. Jayaratna). They ask that California law dictate that decision. They estimate three additional employees given the expansion that they are requesting. • Condition No. 15 on page 8 asks that prior to commencement of the activity by this resolution, or prior to final building and zoning inspections, whichever occurs first, Condition No. 12 shall be complied with. He pointed out that there is not a number 12 listed in the staff report so they are uncertain what Condition Nos. 15 and 12 signify. ~ • Condition No. 14 states prior to issuance of a building permit, Condition Nos. 5, 7, 8 and 11 shall be complied with. Condition No. 5 refers to parking spaces but parking on-site is an existing project and has never been an issue. Mr. Kott states he has been to this project about 50 times in the past year and there has always been at least 50 or 60 empty parking spaces at all times and he has never seen the parking lot close to half-occupied. • Condition No. 7 refers to trash storage areas but it is already there as an existing project so he feels it has already been accomplished. • Condition No. 8 states that a plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection be submitted. He feels Condition No. 8 falls within the same category as Condition No. 7. • Condition No. 11 refers to the sign. He states that of course brings up another bone of contention. The applicant would actually like to have an "on building sign" as well as a monument sign, which is very standard and customary for most businesses throughout the City of Anaheim, and they should also be entitled to such. He respectively requests these items be deleted from the conditions and that they be allowed to move forward with their project to expand their school. Chairperson Arnold thanked the applicant for conditions already complied with and clarified for him that Commission has a responsibility to apply standard conditions to each applicant. Mr. Hillgren responded he recognizes it as such but felt the need to point out the items that had already been accomplished. ~ Public Testimony: Bart Allen, 6278 E. Calle Jaime, Anaheim, CA, stated he resides right next door to the school and feels what Mr. Kott stated makes his best point. Three and half years ago the neighborhood stood in front of 01-28-02 Page 15 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commission forewarning of possible problems of granting the original Conditional Use Permit; number of children, parking lot waivers, huge signs, etc. The Montessori Schoof and Canyon Church received everything they asked for and the neighborhood received nothing. This was and has been at great expense to the peace of the neighborhood. Activities of the school have been monitored and decibel readings have been taken. He feels the neighborhood has tolerated the forewarned problems and now 3%z years later the Montessori School is requesting to engage in more commerce, size, children and noise. These are the issues the neighborhood initially fought against. He states the purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to determine that everything is lived up to on the original permit before any additional use is permitted. He would like to revisit the old one and prove that the Montessori School and the Canyon church are not eligible to receive a new permit. He asks that the original permit is pulled until his complaints and the complaints of the neighborhood have been investigated. He asks Commission to remember when people testify to them that "it is best for the neighborhood" that they do not live 5 feet away from the playground. His family lives on the other side of the wall. They contested the size of the building, City Hall heard their argument and agreed that the top story of the building should be taken down but when it went to court the owner won uncontested due to opposition monetary inefficiencies. He called Code Enforcement on conditions he felt violated the CUP but to date nothing has been done. The City ordinance noise level is 55 and the school was granted a waiver of 60 but he has measured the noise level consistently between 65 and 70 when the largest number of children are on the playground. Dances occur every Saturday night in the front building that is being proposed for office space or classrooms, the windows are blanketed, children are coming and going and there is drinking in the parking lot. There is no evening security or locked gate on the parking lot and no supervision there at night. Geographically it is a perfect place to park if you are 16 years old and you want to smoke dope or drink beer. Rock and Rollers pull in next door, drink, use drugs, throw things over the wall and assault his ~ family with objects but when he tries to chase the children away he only get problems. He hesitates to let his 3-year old daughter out to play and feels if City Ordinance is not regulated or monitored other problematic issues will arise. There is the issue of the "carnival tents" erected on the property. The original Conditional Use Permit states there should not be any other structures added on the property and the owners claim the 20-foot long tents are temporary but they have been up permanently for over 2%z years. The tents are so large that they can be seen over the wall from the entrance of the cul-de-sac (he presented Commission with photographs depicting his property and the tent being hurled partially over his wall by the Santa Ana wind). When the original CUP was granted the neighborhood had to prepare for the 100-year flood and drainage holes had to be put into the brick wall between his property and the Montessori School. The unsightliness of the huge holes was unbearable and City Council ordered a planter installed to hide the holes but in the last three years nobody has watered, clipped or weeded the bushes and it has now become unsightly. The City Ordinance ordered planting and maintenance of Juniper trees with hopes that in seven years they would cover the building. They have come up a little bit but two or three have died and have not been replaced. The 32-foot high sign on the building has unsightly huge gold lettering and red plastic behind it so that when it is turned on at night the entire street gtows red. The community complained and the City ordered them to take it down. The sign still exist. Mr. Kott stated that the parking lot is not an issue but he does not live on the other side of the wall. Cars driving up early in the morning, doors slamming and children exiting cars are all issues to some one living 5-feet on the other side of the wafl. • The neighborhood knew that once they got in they would want to expand. The original Conditional Use Permit said 100 students, now they are asking for 130. There are state ordinances or state laws about any commerce afFecting a neighborhood and this property is bordered on two sides by residential property. He accepts the building being there and the fact that business will be in the building but prefers 01-28-02 Page 16 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ to see a flower shop. A school is beyond his scope of tolerance but living next to it he has tolerated it and now wili have to tolerate more. Applicant's Response: Mr. Kott stated obviously Mr. Allen has some concerns about the project and he does live next door to the project however, most of what he said is unfounded and without evidence. The owner is completely unaware of issues regarding drug users, loud music, parties and rock-and-roll music on the subject property. It is a proven fact that anytime a building is vacant it presents a problem but once there is activity in the area the problem disappears. An invitation was sent out inviting neighbors within a 600-foot radius to an hour and one half ineeting held at the FoxFire Restaurant nearby to provide input about the expansion program. Refreshments were purchased; hors d'oeuvres, soft drinks, coffee, dessert, etc. and no RSVP was required. Mr. Kott's states he sat there for over 2 hours and the people that were so concerned about the expansion attended in such low volume that they could be counted on no hands (he showed Commission the guest list and it contained approximately 3 names). Mr. Allen was specifically asked why he did not show up for the meeting and he said he had been busy. Mr. Kott feels if they are so busy that they cannot come to talk about a solution to problems occurring in their own worlds then they cannot complain if what they perceive to be a problem is perpetuated. The sign on the front of the building is not a 32-foot high sign and it is not illuminated because the owner is sensitive to the neighbors, although he has the right to do so. Other neighbors viewed to be effected by the school were contacted and the leader of the group said he viewed the project as a good use, he would not oppose it and thought it could be a lot worst in terms of finding an occupant for the building. ~ With respect to wanting a flower shop, if a flower shop is going to stay in business it is going to have customers and customers are going to have to arrive in vehicles. Those vehicles are going to have car doors and just like the students' cars those car doors open and close. Most flower shops are opened seven days a week. The school is badly needed. If it were not needed they would not have the need to expand; there are three schools similar to this in Anaheim Hills. More projects that are built and approved by Planning Commission in Anaheim Hills are going to require more schools and this project is meeting that need. He asked Commission to approve the project as requested. Mr. McCafferty stated in Condition No. 2, the limitation on the playground hours is a carryover of the conditional approval the City imposed when the Montessori School was originally approved. Condition No. 3 is also a carryover from the prior resolutions and the letters of operation that are attached to the staff report are consistent with that. Condition Nos. 7 and 8 are imposed to make sure that the facilities are maintained in accordance to City standards so there is no new condition required. Condition No. 12 was inadvertently omitted and the staff report will be corrected to that effect. Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer, stated the trash storage area has been constructed and if Condition No. 8 has been satisfied it could be deleted. Condition No. 7 has been satis~ed so where the last sentence starts: "said information shall be specifically shown on plans", that sentence can be stricken. Commissioner Boydstun asked who owned the strip with sprinklers in it located on the outside of the fence. Mr. Allen responded that he is the owner. Commissioner Boydstun asked how tall the Junipers were. • Mr. Allen responded the fence staggers in height approximately 8 or 9 feet and the Junipers are probably 3 or 4 feet beyond that (about 12 feet tall). He states the building is 3-stories high but only 2-stories are 01-28-02 Page 17 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ permitted and he can see the top two windows across his fence. The second story balcony where the children come out is a front door view from his living room. There are cracks in the wall separating his property from the school and might be a liability concern later. The center bricks are starting to shift and he is concerned because he has a three-year-old on his side and the school has 73 children on their side and if the wall tumbles down someone might get killed. He spoke his concerns to the owner (Doug Brown) and he shrugged his shoulders and walked away. Commissioner Boydstun could not tell from the pictures but feels the Junipers are growing pretty tall. She asked if there were some missing due to the depth of the trees. Mr. Kott viewed the photographs presented to him by Commissione~ Boydstun and stated it appears a couple are missing but it is slightly misleading because on one side of the fence they are all uniformly planted and on the other side of the fence it looks like some are missing but there is a drainage area which makes it impossible to plant trees in that area. Chairperson Arnold stated the request mentions a maximum enrollment of 93 students and there was a letter in October that mentioned 78 and one in December that mentioned 93. He wished to clarify if Mr. Kott was stating Condition No. 3 should be modified with respect to the children or with respect to the employees. Mr. Kott responded both. They do not recall where the 78 came from and wrote staff to correct the error but were informed that they had already been approved for 100 students. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify why the indication in December, which was a little over a month ago that he was looking for 93 students, currently has 67 and now wants 130. • Mr. Kott responded it would give them an enrollment of 93 students but that should not be the maximum. Chairperson Arnold clarified the letter says maximum. Mr. Kott responded maximum enrolled not maximum allowed. Mr. Kott wished to clarify that there would be no change in the conditions for the playground. Chairperson Arnold responded, "righY'. Commissioner Boydstun asked if there would be any objections to having security patrol monitor it a couple times at night, particularly on weekends. Mr. Kott responded that would possibly be a consideration for the applicants but feels the subject property is not any more problematic than any other property in Anaheim Hills or Anaheim and therefore security is not necessary. Commissioner Boydstun feels that the location is an ideal spot for children to park because it is completely away from everything and is causing a problem in the neighborhood. Mr. Kott wondered if Code Enforcement has records of situations or problems concerning the subject property. He suggests if there is noise across the street or over a fence or on a particular property that the police are called. Commissioner Koos asked Mr. Kott if he had seen the pictures that showed the canopy. ~ Mr. Kott responded yes. 01-28-02 Page 18 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Koos stated it gets hot in Anaheim Hills and the canopy provides the necessary shade so the only time he perceives it as a problem is if the high winds pick it up and hurdles it from its position. He suggests conditioning weights to keep the canopy from moving. Mr. Kott responded he was not sure if that was a proper perception from Mr. Allen because it is a small umbrelfa canopy and did not go over the fence. Commission panel stated there are photographs showing a canopy over the fence. Mr. Kott asked if he could see the photographs. Commissioner Boydstun reminded him that she showed them to him earlier. Commissioner Bristol stated he was on the property over the weekend and noted three canopies on the property with one covering the eating area. The canopy where the children were located appeared to have a small cord approximately'/. of an inch thick and it would be easy to see that it could be snapped by the wind. He cautioned where there were children involved and the possibility of a canopy falling down a temporary canopy may not be the best thing to have. Mr. Kott responded quite frankly a permanent structure is favorable to the applicant and if Commission conditions as such they would love to have the opportunity to comply. However with year around schooling being implemented Anaheim City schools are building shaded areas in locations where the children have lunch outside, especially for the hot days. Commissioner Bristol referred to Mr. Allen's comments regarding the Junipers and stated a few years back Italian cypress were planted on a property and did not appear to do anything for awhile but given • time they have grown a lot. He feels the use is pertect for the school. He asked Mr. Kott to comment on the hours of operation regarding the playground because the original CUP indicates 9:00 a.m. Commissioner Sostwick clarified 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Bristol stated he was concerned with the children making noise at 9:00 a.m. Commissioner Boydstun stated the noise was Commission's concern also and that is why 9:00 am was decided on. Commissioner Bristol asked Commission if they felt comfortable staying that route. Mr. Kott asked if 9:00 a.m. was the original condition. Commissioner Bristol responded Commission restricted 9:00 a.m. because of the potential noise, it was a new request and in c{ose proximity to residents. Commissioner Eastman wished to clarify if the comment was made that they are not at 9:00 a.m. since the children are on the playground at 8:00 a.m. Commissioner Bostwick recalled 8:00 a.m. Commissioner Boydstun recalled 8:30 a.m. Commissioner Eastman determined that they are not in compliance with the original CUP. Commissioner Bosfinrick responded, "right". ~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol asked if the playground is being utilized before 9:00 a.m. 01-28-02 Page 19 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Chairperson Arnold res onded the records indicate it is be+n utilized at 8:00 a.m. p 9 Commissioner Bristol asked fellow Commissioners if they feei that is proper. Commissioner Bostwick feels the original hours are appropriate; playground hours are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., operating hours are Monday through Friday 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and a limitation on the number of students on the playground at one given time. Commissioner Bristol referred to Condition No. 3 and wished to clarify if Mr. Kott desired 10 employees as opposed to 7 employees to balance out the necessities of the state requirement. Chairperson Arnold feels more employees are okay but understood the maximum number of children would be the same as originally imposed. Commissioner Bostwick could not see why the limitation of employees was in question because the property never had a parking problem and does not interfere with the traffic on the road or the ingress and egress on Santa Ana Canyon Road. Commissioner Koos concurred with Commissioner Bosfinrick and appreciated Commissioner Arnold's concerns regarding staff's analysis of 100 children and the applicant's misinterpretation when filling out the forms that 93 would not be the maximum. So he proposed a compromise of 130 students with 25 maximum outdoors at any one time. He asked if that would impact staff s analysis for circulation or utilization of the building and if it would change their recommendation for approval. Mr. McCafferty responded it possibly would impact circulation because currently they have a surplus of ~ four spaces. If 30 more children were added that would be three more spaces required and if they were to add employees to serve that number of children it takes the spaces over into and away from City parking code. He feels it would intensify the use beyond what staff reviewed and at that point staff may have to rethink their recommendation for approval. Commissioner Koos asked given the number of parking spaces currently there and adding three employees for a total of 10 how many students could they afford without kicking the proposal into a parking waiver. Mr. McCafferty responded if it is 10 employees they could have 10 more beyond 100. Commissioner Koos stated he could support 110 students. Commissioner Boydstun concurred. Mr. McCafferty stated if 3 more employees were added and 10 more children it would be right at the parking code limitation. Commissioner Koos stated concern with children in close proximity to the canopy and suggested Commission accept the applicant's desire to place more permanent structures on the property or condition a mechanism to weigh them down. Commissioner Bostwick stated he would not like to see anymore development on the property but would be in agreement with a different anchoring system. He suggested twisting augers that could be put into the sand and then tied to the canopy to prevent them being pulled out easily. Commissioner Boydstun suggested large coffee cans filled with cement. • Commissioner Bostwick stated it would be difficult to condition such but the applicant needed to provide a better anchoring system. 01-28-02 Page 20 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Bristol feels certain the applicant is now aware of the possibility of the canopy flying off and would do something to correct the problem. He wished to clarify with Commissioner Koos if Condition No. 3 should be changed from 100 to 110 students and from 7 to 10 employees. Commissioner Koos stated that is what he is suggesting. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if the hours of operation should be the same for the playground. Commissioner Bostwick wished to clarify if a new condition approving only one monument sign was necessary since Condition No. 11 indicates approval for a new monument sign. Mr. McCafferty stated that is fine. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated since there are two properties that touch Santa Ana Canyon Road there should be one for the center itself rather than one for each piece of property. Commissioner Boydstun stated the sign lists the church and the Montessori School. Mr. Hastings responded the code allows the applicant to name the center and obtain one tenant. Mr. McCafferty stated the restriction concerning one monument sign could be added to Condition No. 11. OPPOSITION: A person spoke in opposition to the subject request and submitted photographs pertaining to the canopy which is utilized by the subject facility. ~ CORRESPONDENCE: A letter was received at today's meeting representing the Anaheim Hills Concerned Citizens' stating their input and suggestions pertaining to the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04470 (to permit the expansion of an existing private school and day care facility) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated January 28, 2002 with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 3, 7, 11, and 13 to read as follows: 3. That the private school and day care facility, both existing and expanded, shall not exceed a-AB 110 children on-site at any time and ~ 10 employees. 7. That trash storage areas shall be maintained in a location acceptabfe to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of • plant materials such as minimum 1-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. , 01-28-02 Page 21 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r 11. That if a new monument sign is proposed that the signage shall be limited to one monument sign for the entire center, revised plans for the monument sign proposing a maximum five (5) foot high by eight (8) foot wide, twenty (20) square foot sign face (as originally approved as an exhibit to Conditional Use Permit No. 3662) shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. Plans submitted for Zoning approval shall indicate the ~emoval of the existing unpermitted three (3) foot high identification sign. The following conditions of approval were renumbered to read as follows: 12. That subject property shall be devefoped substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and as conditioned herein. 13. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year fram the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 5, 7, 8~,and 11, above-mentioned, shalf 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. 14. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or prior to final building and zoning inspections, whichever occurs first, Condition No. 12, above- mentioned, shall be complied with. • 15. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. Deleted Condition No. 8. Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That within 60 days from the date of this resofution the existing canopies shall be properly anchored to the ground and shall be limited to three (3) canopies. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 56 minutes (2:14-3:10) u 01-28-02 Page 22 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04494 (READVERTISED)* Granted (portion of the permit OWNER: Splinter Investments Inc., Attn: Dan Moore, 8 Turtle pertaining to the Bay Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 automobile sales facility shall expire in 2 years) AGENT: Woody Chevrolet, Sherwood Oklejas, 215 South ~uclid Street, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 273 and 275 West Manchester Court. Property is approximately 0.70-acre located at the southeast corner of Manchester Avenue and Loara Street. Requests approval to establish land use conformity with existing Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing telecommunications monopole with accessory ground-mounted equipment and to permit a used auto sales facility with waivers of a) minimum parking lot landscaping (deleted), and b) minimum landscaped setback. *Readvertisement included above request for land use conformity. This request does not include the property at 214 North Loara Street. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-16 SR1052CW.DOC S Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 6 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04494, 273 and 275 West Manchester Court, a request to establish land use conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing telecommunications monopole with accessory ground-mounted equipment and to permit a used auto sales facility with waivers. Chairperson Arnold announced Commissioner Koos would be abstaining from Item No. 6. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04494 and denial of waivers a) since it has been deleted and b) that the landscaping required by code along Loara Street and Manchester Court should be installed since it is right next to the newly widened freeway. He corrected the staff report; paragraph 1 where the second sentence indicates a frontage on Loara Street of 174 feet, to 145 feet. ApplicanYs Statement: Woody Oklejas, 215 South Euclid Street, Anaheim, CA, a representative of Anaheim Chevrolet, stated they have been working with the Redevelopment Agency for a number of years and they have been very supportive of relocation of the existing facilities to the new location. The three properties were purchased as a group. One property was purchased by Redevelopment and they are trying to work with CalTrans to purchase the balance needed. The owners have the option to lease it as it is. They have painted it and tried to make it look as nice as possible but they are old buildings. The current proposal offers to take down the worst looking building which is a tin warehouse. If the proposal is not approved the owners currently have two people to lease it to in "as is condition" and they would not have to put the landscaping in. Mr. Oklejas feels the area would look far better in an interim basis with their late-modeled pre-owned cars there rather than the old building that exists now. He states when the permanent project comes to pass, the whole area is going to change and Manchester Street will no longer exist. It does not seem wise to put in landscaping that will be taken out regardless if their project goes forward and if it does not the • present zoning does not require any approvals. Commissioner Eastman asked in regards to the building for demolition versus the building that is going to be kept if any effort has been made to determine whether or not it is a historic building. 01-28-02 Page 23 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Oklejas responded the building on the corner of Loara Street and Manchester Court is an old warehouse with a tin roof. Commissioner Eastman asked if he knew the age of the building and what the business was originally constructed for. Mr. Okiejas responded "no, I am sorry I do not know". Commissioner Eastman stated Commission has seen a lot of historically significant buildings demoiished in the City and there were not many left. Commissioner Bristol asked staff to comment on the applicanYs reasoning for not wanting to landscape. Mr. McCafferty stated what Mr. Oklejas states makes absolute sense. If the public streets were abandoned, landscaping would be farther towards the freeway. Staff is cautious because interim uses for a lot of reasons sometimes become permanent uses and if it is not so conditioned, it is very difficult to come back and require the landscaping. Abandonment of the streets depends on decisions that are out of staff s control and therefore the recommendation was made. Commissioner Boydstun asked if it would be appropriate to condition landscaping within a year or two or however long it takes to straighten things out with CalTrans so that it protects against the possibility of not being able to include landscaping. Mr. McCafferty responded staff recommends it consistent with Redevelopment Agency, which is two years because after finro years all the properties that need to be acquired would have been acquired and • then a permanent project would move forward. He states the applicant has a very nice project that he wifl ultimately bring in but it is worth being cautious because it is not known that far in advance whether the abandonment of the street will in fact occur since it is a City Council action. Commissioner Boydstun asked if it would be enforceable if it were conditioned that within two years the project should be developed with landscaping. Mr. McCafferty responded within two years the use theoretically is no longer authorized to operate under the condition staff imposed. Commissioner Boydstun suggested the length of time could be tied to the condition. Commissioner Eastman wished to clarify if implications were that if there is any extension of the Conditional Use Permit staff would prefer it landscaped at that time but because it is a short term approval it may be deferred and if there is an extension or reinstatement of the CUP landscaping would need to be installed as a conditional of approval for the reinstatement. Commissioner Boydstun asked Mr. Oklejas if that would work for him. Mr. Oklejas responded their arrangement with the Redevelopment Agency is that if the proposal were approved, their use is the only use permitted for the purpose as proposed. Mr. McCafferty stated staff's actions could not restrict the operation of the permit to Woody Chevrolet. It is a land use permit. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if staff stated they were in agreement with the restriction in terms of landscaping if there were an extension or reinstatement, etc. • Mr. Okle}as responded that they are only interested in the project on an interim basis and it does not make any economic sense to impose long-range goals upon them. 01-28-02 Page 24 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Chairperson Arnold asked staff if the historic nature of the property was known. Mr. McCafferty responded Planning Department Staff was not aware of the nature but when proposals of this nature goes before Commission they are routed to all of the departments including the Historic Division within Community Development and there has not been any feedback claiming it to be historic property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol wished to compromise with Commissioner Boydstun on the landscaping issue because he empathizes with both sides. Planting trees might be a waste but the vacant lot could be built up to look attractive. He suggests removing the condition requiring 16 trees and plant grass to keep the ground covered. That way it is not impacting for finro years but rather a compromise. Commissioner Boydstun stated that is fine. Commissioner Bostwick stated it is a good suggestion. • • ~ - : iiiie: ~ . e-. - ~ii~i •. ~ •- OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows: • Denied waiver (a) pertaining to minimum parking lot landscaping since it has been deleted because it is not applicable to the request; and approved, in part, waiver (b) pertaining to minimum landscaped setback approving the waiver pertaining to the required trees but requiring the installation of the landscape planters and the planting of groundcover. (Vote On Waivers: 5-0, Commissioner Koos abstained in order to avoid any potential perceived conffict due to his close relationship with the wireless telecommunications industry and Commissioner Vanderbiltwas absent) Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04494 (the portion of this permit pertaining to the automobile sales facility shall expire 2 years from the date of this resolution) to establish land use conformity with existing Zoning Code requirements for an existing telecommunications monopole with accessory ground-mounted equipment and to permit a used auto sales facility subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated January 28, 2002 with the following modifications: Modified Condition No. 2 to read as follows: 2. That a landscape plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval for installation of landscaped areas. Said plan shall include new groundcover Plans shall also indicate the location and screening of the ground-mounted . equipment for the tefecommunications monopole. Any decision made by the Zoning Division may be appealed to the Planning Commission. ~ VOTE ON CUP: 4-1 (Commissioner Eastman voted no, Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent and Commissioner Koos abstained in order to avoid any potential perceived conflict due to his close relationship with the wireless telecommunications industry.) 01-28-02 Page 25 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 13 minutes (3:11-3:24) • • 01-28-02 Page 26 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVEDI 7b. VARIANCE NO. 4377 (TRACKING NO. VAR2001-04477) OWNER: Festival Hotel Associates, 200 East long Lake Road, Bloomfield Nilis, MI 48303-0200 AGENT: Swain Signs, 1384 East Fifth Street, Ontario, CA 91764 LOCATION: 105-125 South Festival Drive. Property is approximately 85 acres located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Roosevelt Road (The Anaheim Hills Festival, Development Area 3). Requests waiver(s) of maximum letter height of primary wall sign with more than one row of letters for a previously-approved hotel. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-17 Approved Granted SR8209AN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 7 as Variance No. 4377, 105-125 South Festival Drive, The Anaheim Hills Festival, Development Area 3, a request for waiver of maximum letter height of primary wall sign with more than one row of letters for a previously-approved hotel. • There was no one available to speak on Item No. 7. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Granted Variance No. 4377 (Tracking No. VAR2001-04477) to waive the maximum letter height of the primary wall sign with more than one row of letters for a previously-approved hotel, sub}ect to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated January 28, 2002. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (3:25-3:36) u 01-28-02 Page 27 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 8a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 283 (PREV.-CERTIFIED) 8b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3304* (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04493) 8d. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2001-00003 OWNER: Sycamore Canyon Plaza Inc., 2125 East Katella Avenue, Suite 100, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Johnson Architects, Attn: Walter Lindgren, 440 East Corporate Drive, Suite 102, Meridian, ID 83643 LOCATION: 731 South Weir Canvon Road. Property is approximately 11.9-acres located at the southwest corner of Weir Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue (Sycamore Canyon Plaza). Conditional Use Permit No. 3044 (Tracking No. CUP 2001-04493) - Requests to expand an existing drug store within a commercial center with waivers of (a) maximum number of wall signs and (b) minimum number of parking spaces. • Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2001-00003 - To allow the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption within an existing drug store. (Withdrawn) "`Originally advertised as Conditional Use Permit No. 3044. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-18 DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTION NO. Approved Approved, in part Approved modification Withdrawn SR1051CW.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 8 as Conditionaf Use Permit No. 3304, 731 South Weir Canyon Road - Sycamore Canyon Plaza, to expand an existing drug store within a commercial center with waivers. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 3304 as modified and recommend withdrawal of Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2001-00003 since it is no longer needed and approval of waiver b) minimum number of parking spaces and denial of waiver a) maximum number of wall signs. We feel that the intent of the sign code for scenic corridor can be complied with by consolidating all of the identification signs into one comprehensive single sign. There was no one available to speak on Item No. 8. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ OPPOSITION: None 01-28-02 Page 28 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified EIR No. 283 (for the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan) is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows: Denied waiver (a) pertaining to maximum number of wall signs since the proposed wall signs can be redesigned to consolidate the sign copy into one sign thereby deleting the need for this waiver. fn addition, there are no special circumstances applicable to the property to make the findings for this waiver; and approved waiver (b) pertaining to minimum nurriber of parking spaces based upon the findings identified in paragraph (17) of the staff report dated January 28, 2002 and the recommendation for approval by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. Approved modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 3304 (Tracking No. CUP2001-04493) to expand an existing drug store within a commercial center. Accepted the withdrawal of Determination of Public Convenience or Necessiry No. 2001- 00003 (to permit the sales of alcohol for off-premises consumption) since it is no longer required. Incorporated the conditions of approval contained in Resolution Nos. 90R-352, PC98-195 and PC99-154 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: ~ 1. That the applicant shall submit revised sign plans for the expanded drug store to the Zoning Division for review and approval. Said plans shall incorporate the three proposed signs shown in Exhibit Nos. 12, 13a, and 13b into a design that appears to be one sign. The decision of the Zoning Division may be appealed to the Planning Commission. 2. That the developer sha11 submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying the best management practices that will be used on-site to control predictable pollutants from storm water runoff. The WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division for review and approval. 3. That no video, electronic or other amusement devices shall be permitted on the premises. 4. That all public phones shall be located inside the buildings. 5. That plans shall be submitted to the Traffic Engineer for his review and approvaf showing conformance with the latest revision of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 402, 436, 602, and 605 pertaining to parking standards. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. 6. That no outdoor storage shall be permitted. 7. That trash storage areas shall be maintained in a location acceptable to the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file • with said division. 8. That any additional water backflow equipment or other large water system shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Utility Division in either (a) underground 01-28-02 Page 29 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ vaults or (b) behind the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Such information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 9. That all roof mounted equipment shall comply with the following standards and that such information shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits: a. Screening of equipment shall be provided by acceptable permanent building materials the same as or similar to those which are used in the construction of the underlying building or shall be screened from view by acceptable architectural features of the building itself. Said screening shall not exceed the height limit as established by Section 18.84.062.031 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. b. Roof mounted equipment shall be located or enclosed in such a manner so as not to be visible from any public street, public or private property at finished grade level, or from any floor level of any residential structure. c. n order to minimize the visibility of screening methods and/or materials, all equipment shall be painted to match the roof on which it is located, as well as painted to match any material used for equipment screening. d. The method and/or screening material which is used shall not be readily recognizable as a screening device, but shall be designed as an integral design component of the building design. ~ e. All equipment screening shall be retained and maintained in good condition. 10. That the twenty thousand (20,000) sq. ft. of food uses (restaurant ) shall be limited as follows: Fast food with seating: 10,000 sq.ft. maximum Sit-down waitress/waiter service: 8,000 sq.ft. maximum Fast food without seating: 2,000 sq.ft. maximum Food uses less intense than "fast food with seating" and/or sit-down waitress/waiter service may be approved when reviewed by the Planning Department (i.e. adding "fast food without seating" square footage by subtracting a like amount of square footage from the "fast food with seating" allowance) provided the applicant supplies the Planning Department with a complete list of tenants, square footages and available parking. 11. That as required by the Uniform Fire Code, the following minimum standards shall apply to the service station with convenience market: a. Fuel dispensing devices shall be located a minimum distance of ten (10) feet from any property line and so located that all parts of a vehicle being serviced are on private property. b. Fuel dispensing devices shall be located not less than ten (10) feet from any building which is not fire resistive construction. Such devices shall also be located so that the nozzle, when the hose is fully extended, shall not reach closer than five (5) feet to any building opening. • c. Fuel dispensing devices shall be protected against physical damage from vehicles by mounting on a concrete island a minimum of six (6) inches in height. Alternate methods of providing equivafent protection may be permitted when approved by the Fire Department. 01-28-02 Page 30 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ d. Dis ensin of asoline into fuel tanks or containers shall at all times be under the P 9 9 supervision of a qualified attendant. e. The attendanYs primary function shall be to supervise, observe and control the dispensing of gasoline. f. Dispensing of gasoline shali not be into portable containers unless such containers are of approved material and construction, having a tight closure with screwed or spring cover, and so designed that the contents can be dispensed without spilling. g. It shall be the attendant's responsibility to control sources of ignition and immediately handle accidental spills and fire extinguishers if necessary. h. Emergency controls shall be installed at a location acceptable to the Fire Department, but controls shall not be more than one-hundred (100) feet from dispensers. i. Instructions for the operation of dispensers shall be conspicuously posted. j. Remote preset-type devices shall be in the "off' position while not in use so the fuel dispenser cannot be activated without the knowledge of the attendant. k. Fuel dispensing devices shall be in clear view of the attendant at all times and no obstacles shall be placed between the dispensing devices and the attendant. Use of cameras may be utilized as approved by the Fire Department. ~ I. The attendant shall at all times be able to communicate with persons in the fuel dispensing area via a two-way speaker system. 12. That there shall be no sale of beer, wine or other alcoholic beverages of any kind on the premises of the service station of the convenience market, unless a conditional use permit is approved specifically authorizing such use. 13. That during the business hours of subject service station with convenience market, separate men's and women's restrooms shall be available to the public. The restrooms shall be properly supplied and maintained. 14. That the alcohol sales authorized for any restaurants shall only occur in conjunction with the sale, serving and consumption of prepared food items. 15. That in the event a parcel map to subdivide subject property is recorded, an unsubordinated reciprocal access and parking agreement in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney shall be recorded with the Office of the Orange County Recorder. A copy of the recorded agreement shall then be submitted to the Zoning Division. In addition, provisions shall be made in the agreement to guarantee that the entire complex shal{ be managed and maintained as one integral parcel for purposes of parking, vehicular circulation, signage, land usage and architectural control. 16. That a11 plumbing or similar pipes and fixtures located on the exterior of the building shall be fully screened by architectural devices and/or appropriate building materials; and, further, such information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. , 17. That the six (6) foot high masonry block wall along the north and west property line shall be maintained. Said block wal{ shall be maintained with clinging vines to eliminate gra~ti opportunities. 01-28-02 Page 31 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES C~ ~ 18. That unless a variance is applied for and granted, {ighting of signage for subject property shall be prohibited between the hours of midnight and 6:30a.m. as specified by Zoning Code Section 18.05.091.052. 19. That minimum fifteen (15) gallon trees, planted on maximum finrenty (20) foot centers and having appropriate irrigation facilities, shall be maintained along the north and west property line. 20. That the on-site landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained in compliance with City standards. 21. That the parking area adjacent to Weir Canyon Road, Serrano Avenue and Canyon Creek Road shall be screened from view in conformance with Zoning Code Section 18.44.064.010. 22. That tne restaurant located at the south end of the westerly building shall continuously adhere to the following conditions: a. That this establishment shall be operated as a"Bona Fide Public Eating Place" as defined by Section 23038 of the California Business and Professions Code. b. That there shall be no bar or lounge maintained on the property unless licensed by Alcoholic Beverage Control and approved by the City of Anaheim. c. That food service with a full meal shall be available from opening time until either 10:00 p.m. or closing time, whichever occurs first, on each day of operation. d. That there shall be no pool tables maintained upon the premises at any time. e. That subject beer and wine license shal{ not be exchanged for a public premises (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premises as defined in Section 23039 of the California Business and Professions Code. f. That the sales of beer and wine shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the gross sales of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of beer and wine and other items. These records sha{{ be made available, subject to audit and, when requested inspection by any City of Anaheim official during reasonable business hours. g. That there shall be no live entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted on the premises at any time without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. h. That the sale of beer and wine for consumption off the premises shall be prohibited. i. That there shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, incfuding advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of beer and wine. Specifically, no umbrellas shall be permitted to display alcoholic beverage sales of any kind. • j. That the activities occurring in conjunction with the operation of this establishment shall not cause noise disturbance to surrounding properties. 01-28-02 Page 32 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ k. That sales, service and consumption of beer and wine shall be permitted only between the hours of 11:30 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Mondays through Saturdays, and between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Sundays. I. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the windows of nearby residences. m. That the business operator shalf comply with Section 24200.5 of the Business and Professions Code so as not to employ or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. n. That all doors serving subject restaurant shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and shall be kept closed and unlocked at all times during hours of operation except for ingress/egress, to permit deliveries and in cases of emergency. o. That there shall be no public telephones on the property that are located outside the building and within the control of the applicant. p. That the outdoor dining area shall be completely enclosed by fencing or other such permanent structure as approved by the City, at least forty (40) inches in height, ~ into which entry is only possible from the interior of the restaurant. Emergency exits required by the Uniform Fire Code shall be maintained, but not utilized by patrons/employees other than in an emergency. 23. That the existing stucco wall surrounding the outdoor dining area at the south end of the westerly building shall be maintained with rapid growth clinging vines on maximum three (3) foot centers to deter graffiti opportunities and that the two (2) water utility devices located west of the outdoo~ dining area shall be compfetely screened from view by shrubbery. 24. That no vending machines shall be visible to public rights-of-way or off-site private property. 25. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No. 1, and Exhibit Nos. 2 through 13; provided however, (a) that a minimum seventy two (72) foot structural setback shall be maintained along Weir Canyon Road and (b) that the loading dock area shall be enclosed by a block wall, of an appropriate height to screen it from the adjacent residential condominiums. 26. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, and 16 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. • 27. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Co~dition No. 25, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 01-28-02 Page 33 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 28. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (3:27-3:31) ~ • 01-28-02 Page 34 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04496 Concurred with staff Granted OWNER: Rollins Property Inc., P. O. Box 563, Redding, CA 96049 AGENT: Phillip Schwartze, 31211 Casa Grande, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 LOCATION: 1801 East Ball Road. Property is approximately 1.52- acres with a frontage of 179 feet on the north side of Ball Road located 490 feet west of the centerline of State College Boulevard (former Hertz Equipment Rental). Requests to permit an outdoor building materials storage yard CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-19 • i SR8205VN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 9 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04496, 1801 East Ball Road - former Hertz Equipment Rental, a request to permit an outdaor building materials storage yard. Greg McCafferty, Principat Planner, informed there are no changes to the staff report and staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04496 as conditioned. Applicant's Statement: Phillip R. Schwartze, 31682 EI Camino Real, S. J. Capistrano, CA, a representative of Blue Sea Properties stated, Blue Sea has a property across the street from the proposed property which has been very successful and is in need of additional outdoor storage for materials, both wholesale and retail. The subject property has previously caused the City some amount of difificulty through noise to the adjacent residential properties, etc. Mr. Schwartze proposes a project he believes will not hinder the City. He understands the conditions and agrees with staff s recommendations. Commissioner Bostwick wished to clarify if the Blue Sea property was next to the gas station. Mr. Schwartze responded yes. Commissioner Bostwick stated they have had a very serious problem of unloading and stacking, etc., and it is quite a mess. Mr. Schwartze feels that is why the proposed property is a God sent; it will answer problems on both sides. It will eliminate Blue Sea property's inability to pull trucks in and remove them because they will be able to make a circular route. Commissioner Bosfinrick suggested a condition that all trucks be unloaded behind the fence; pulling them all of the way into the yard to unload them rather than pulling part of the way into the driveway and hanging out while unloading them. That would help eliminate the mess the City had across the street. Mr. Schwartze stated that would be a very acceptable condition because presently they do not have the back up space in the existing facility. 01-28-02 Page 35 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bristol inquired about forklift noise. He recalled problems with noise to the north of the apartments on the subject property. Mr. Schwartze stated the forklifts are electric forklifts (implying they are less noisy than hydraulic forklifts) Commissioner Bristol asked if the applicant is convinced that ingress and egress to the site would not be any real noise situation to the neighbors. Mr. Schwartze responded it should not be and certainly not anything compared to what they were experiencing with Hertz. One of the biggest problems they had with Hertz was the hours of operation and the arrival of large diesel trucks at 6:00 a.m. But the proposed use would get deliveries a couple of times a week and the forklifts would move the material to the display pallets. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ • ~ - e ii-~e: • . _-- - •iiu •- e •. OPPOSITION: None ACTtON: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. ~ Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04496 (to permit an outdoor building materials storage yard) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated January 28, 2002 with the following added condition of approval. Added the following conditions of approval to read as follows: That truck loading/unloading shall take place behind the screen fence. That only electric-powered forklifts shall be used on-site. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (3:32-3:35) ~ 01-28-02 Page 36 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 10c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04495 Approved Approved Granted OWNER: Donald M. and Darlene J. Crisman, 3040 Julian Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90808 AGENT: Smog Check Centers Inc., Attn: John Wilson, 17922 Skypark Circle, Suite #A, Irvine, CA 92614 LOCATION: 2000 East Oranpethorpe Avenue. Property is approximately 0.45-acre located at the southeast corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and State College Boulevard. Requests to permit a smog check station with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-20 ~ ~ SR8'196AN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 10 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04495, 2000 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, CA, a request to permit a smog check station with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval of this project as conditioned with waivers. ApplicanYs Statement: John Wilson, 17922 Sky Park Circle Dr., Irvine, CA, the Executive Vice President of Auto Chek Centers, desired clarification on finro issues: 1) Condition No. 3; that the legal owner shall grant an easement for the utilities. He does not understand what the easement would be so it prohibits him from asking the legal owner to comply. 2) Sixteen (16) trees would not impact their visibility because they are on the corner but would impact the visibility of the retail businesses next to them which happens to be in the City of Anaheim as opposed to the retail businesses which are across the street and are tax revenues for Fullerton, CA. He wonders if the City might be hurting their own businesses by putting that many trees on that corner. Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer, stated the Public Utilities Department, Electrical Engineering Division, request easements whenever there are new electrical facilities installed such as transformers. However, she is not sure if such facilities are necessary for this building. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if it would be appropriate to say if the facilities are needed, etc., condition it on the need. Ms. Adams responded that would be appropriate. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None 01-28-02 Page 37 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces based on the "drive-through" nature of the proposed smog check station business and that the City Traffic and Transportation Manager has reviewed the proposal and has determined that there is sufficient parking to serve the proposed use. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04495 (to permit a smog check station) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated January 28, 2002 with the following modification: Modified Condition No. 3 to read as follows: 3. That, if needed, the legal owner of the subject property shall provide the City of Anaheim with a public utilities easement to be determined as electrical design is completed. Said easement shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim prior to connection of electrical service. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (3:36-3:42) ~~ ~ ~~ i 01-28-02 Page 38 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~ r~ ~ Continued to 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) February 25, 2002 11b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04277 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04457) OWNER: Gock Woey Jung, 433 South Vicki Lane, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: De Hua Tr, 12201 Brookhurst Street, Garden Grove, CA 92640 LOCATION: 420-504 South Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 1.5 acres with a frontage of 205 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street located 492 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue (Seafood Place Restaurant). Request for reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on November 6, 2000 to expire November 6, 2001) to retain a banquet hall with service but no sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption. Continued from the November 19, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8149VN.DOC OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), to continue the subject request to the February 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 01-28-02 Page 39 JANUARY 28, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:43 P.M. TO MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2002 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Res ectfully submitted: 1 (\ /~ ~ ~~ I% A, ~ I,,C~t/ ~/ Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2001. ~ \_ J 01-28-02 Page 40