The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 2002/05/06C7 • • MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or pubiic comments on agenda items with the exception of pubiic hearing items. CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 1-A through 1-C on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-A and 1-C) as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Consent Calendar Item 1-B was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . • A. a) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED) Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2147 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2002- Approved for two, three (3) 04533) - REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME: month retroactive extensions Exxon Mobil Pipeline Company, Attn: Mayela Quezada, 800 Bell of time Street, Room 553K, Houston, TX 77002, requests a retroactive (to expire October 10, 2002) extension of time in order to comply with conditions of approval for a previously-approved fuel terminal expansion. Property is located at 1477 North Jefferson Street - Mobil Atwood Terminal. (Vote: 7-0) ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified Environmental Impact Report for the Mobil California Air Resources Board Phase 3- Reformulated Gasoline Project is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for two, three (3) month retroactive extensions of time, to expire on October 10, 2002 based on the following: (i) That the proposed use remains in conformance with the current zoning code and General Plan land use designation, and that there have been no code amendments that would cause the approval to be inconsistent with the zoning code. (ii) That the property has been well maintained and is free of any Code violations. (iii) That this is the first and last request for an extension of time, and does not exceed the two permitted extensions of time permitted 05-06-02 Page 2 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ,• • • by Code Section 18.03.090.0301. (iv) That no additional information or changed circumstances are present which contradict the facts necessary to support the required findings for approval of this project. SR8284NA.DOC 05-06-02 Page 3 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • B. a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 3 b) VARfANCE NO. 2002-04489 (TRACKING NO. VAR 2002-04503) - REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF FINAL ELEVATION PLANS: Imperial West, LLC., Attn: Pablo Villanueva, 12741 Bellflower Boulevard, # 206, Downey, CA 90242, requests review of final elevation plans to construct three single family homes. Property is located at 739, 743 and 745 North Harbor Boulevard. (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) Concurred with staff Approved Final Elevation Plans with an added stipulation (Vote: 7-0) SR1078CW.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item 1-B as Variance No. 2002-04489, a request for review of final elevation plans for single-family homes at 739, 743 and 745 North Harbor Boulevard. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed overall the applicant has worked very well with staff to address Commission's concerns about being in the historic district and therefore, staff recommends approval as conditioned. The stipulation staff would like to have on the plans is found under Recommendations in paragraph '12b. • • Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if questions regarding 2b, the round window, has been clarified to indicate precisely which is being referred to. Mr. McCafferty responded the window is the northern most housed as proposed and that would be the east elevation. The square window is being replaced with a round window with divided lights. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if it is a second story closet window. Mr. McCafferty clarified that is correct. ApplicanYs Testimony: Pablo Villanueva, 2373 Camino Rey, Fullerton, CA 92333, stated he has no questions and did not wish to give a testimony. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if he is indicating he is in agreement with all of the conditions. Mr. Villanueva responded yes. Commissioner Eastman stated she noticed that there would be wood window seals and asked if the actual windows in front of the property are specified to be wood. Mr. Villanueva responded no, they are not. Commissioner Eastman asked if there is a reason for that. Mr. Viltanueva responded mainly expense. Commissioner Eastman stated that would be varying from what the historic preservation plan recommends which is to at least have wood windows in the front of the property. Mr. Villanueva responded in working with staff and in a discussion with Phyllis Mueller, Neighborhood Development Coordinator, their plan was to use recessed windows with a great effect to them and Ms. Mueller felt that was going to be okay. He noted there were other properties in the area that had the same style of window and it was never brought to their attention that was going to be an issue. 05-06-02 Page 4 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify if the properties he referred to are the ones with material that looks like wood from the street. Mr. Villanueva responded it is hard to say because the windows are recessed and the material of the window is not emphasized, only the trim and the grids. He feels the overall look of the window fits in with what they are trying to do. Chairperson Arnold asked to hear a report from Neighborhood Preservation. Phyllis Mueller, Neighborhood Development Coordinator, stated the principal planner from 30'h Street Architects consulted with the Neighborhood Preservation Office and there were a number of issues that were paramount to the consultant, but the idea of there being just wood windows, not only the second story closet windows but throughout, was not something they thought would be required by the developer because it is new housing. Commissioner Eastman states she is mainly referring to the street view, which is what is addressed with historic houses, that the street view is kept consistent with the historic nature. She feels it would be a better project if the windows could go along with the sides and back of the house and also the French door on the balcony of each one of the properties should also be wood in keeping with the wood front door, which was not specified in the plans. Ms. Mueller states the Commission could make that a condition of approval. Commissioner Bostwick is concerned with longevity and wondered if it would look good in five years. He stated he put in French doors but with a vinyl clad and received the efFect of the panes and the mullions (muntins) to make them look like smaller panes but it is a product that is going to last a long time without as much maintenance. ~ Commissioner Eastman states there are all grades of vinyl; there are sliders, double hung, some are very flat and some have depth to them. She feels it should be specified so that at least if a vinyl product is used it may be vinyl clad or wood vinyl clad as opposed to all medal. Commissioner Bostwick concurs. Commissioner Bristol stated the City Council wanted an answer from Commission regarding the setback. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, states the only thing before the Commission today is the plan elevations however, City Council expressed concern about the previously-approved waiver and it is set for a hearing. So if there were anything the Commission would like to add towards that it could be relayed on to the Council. Commissioner Bristol asked is the front setback comparable to other houses in the area. Mr. Hastings responded yes, in fact, it might be back just a little farther than the other homes. Chairperson Arnold states only if it were radically different would it look out of character with the neighborhood. Commissioner Eastman states regarding the front facade she likes the idea that he is going to use tile around the door of the one in the middle. She wished to clarify if the middle plan is going to be one of the plans using the rounded effect that is seen on the archway of many houses or is the door actually set out so that there is some depth. Mr. Villanueva responded yes there is some depth and the door is setback 2 feet in the arch of all of • them. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify what would be the color and if all three are the same. 05-06-02 Page 5 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Villanueva responded no, color and material charts were submitted. The tile roof has not been determined and is left as a condition to be discussed with Ms. Mueller and will be decided during construction however, the three would not all be the same. Each house is going to have a different color and a different tile. Commissioner Koos commends the applicant for making great strides in the project and his willingness to work with staff regarding the Anaheim Colony Historic District and recognizes that it probably costs a little more to meet the City's goals. He thanked him for his cooperation. Commissioner Eastman concurred and states she appreciates the fact that the applicant is working with Commission and overall the project is a big improvement. Chairperson Arnold stated Commission spent a lot of time both during the morning's staff briefing and currently looking over the particular design in each of the three homes and it has received quite a bit of attention at this level. I FULLUWING 15 A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION_ I ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3(New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final elevation plans for the • proposed construction of three single-family residences approved under Variance No. 2002-04489 based on Commission's concurrence with staff that the final plans are substantially in compliance with the corresponding conditions of approval identified in the staff report dated May 6, 2002 with the following stipulations which should be noted on plans submitted for final building permits: (i) That specific Spanish tiled roofs, stucco finish and wood trim colors shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Neighborhood Preservation Office prior to application of said materials during the construction process. (ii) That the two square windows as shown on Final Plan No. 3(745 North Harbor Boulevard) shall be replaced with one round window. (iii) That the new second story windows at 743 and 745 North Harbor Boulevard (Final Plan Nos. 2 and 3) have muntins to match the other windows in the facade. (iv) That each house shall have a different, but architecturally appropriate entry door as approved by the Neighborhood Preservation Office. (v) That the balcony on the east elevation of Final Plan No. 1(739 North Harbor Boulevard) shall be widened to eight (8) feet. (vi) That the windows on the front elevation of the property be wood simulated vinyl to provide a sense of depth. DISCUSSION: 10 minutes (1:40-1:50) • 05-06-02 Page 6 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ C. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Continued to Meeting of April 22, 2002. (Motion) May 20, 2002 (This item was not discussed) (Vote: 7-0 ) ~ • 05-06-02 Page 7 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: ~ • 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 2b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 2001-00396 ftecommended adoption of " " . 2C. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00060 Exhibit A to City Council Granted, unconditiona~~y 2d. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00399 Recommended adoption of 2e. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00063 "Exhibit A" to city counci- Granted, unconditionally 2f. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00400 Recommenaed adoption of 2g. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00064 "Exhibit,4" to city Counci~ 2h. REQUEST FOR C1TY COUNCIL REVIEW OF ITEMS 2C., 2e., artd Granted, unconditionally Recommended City Council ~ Review OWNERS: City of Anaheim, Community Devefopment Department, Attn: Elisa Stipkovich, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 Dorathy Brunson Trust, 2455 Tuckahoe Terrace, Watsonville, CA 95076 Danros Inc., 511 Helberta Avenue, Redondo Beach, CA 90772 Andres Fernandez, 3123 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 Thomas Tislow, 17319 Alexandra Lane, Cerritos, CA 90703 LOCATIONS: GPA NO. 2001-00396 AND RCL NO. 2001-00060: 100 South Beach Boulevard. Area 1 is approximately 0.58-acre located at the southeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Lincoin Avenue. 120-320 South Beach Boulevard and 2970 West Lincoln Avenue. Area 2 is located south and east of the southeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue located 238 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. '2942 West Floyd Avenue has been deleted from this request. GPA NO. 2001-00399 AND RCL NO. 2001-00063: 2300 - 2340 West Lincoln Avenue. Area 1 is approximately 8.8 acres with a frontage of 660 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue located 650 feet east of the centeriine of Gilbert Street. 2330 - 2340 West Lincoln Avenue. Area 2 is approximately 4.4 acres with a frontage of 330 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue located 650 feet east of the centerline of Gilbert Street. GPA NO. 2001-00400 AND RCL NO. 2001-00064: 3119 - 3169 West Lincoin Avenue. Property is approximately 2.7 acres with a frontage of 816 feet on 05-06-02 Page 8 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • the north side of Lincoln Avenue located 290 feet west of the centerline of Grand Avenue. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00396 - City-initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan redesignating the properties from the General Commercial to the Low-Medium Density Residential and Police Station (P) land use designations for Area No. 2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00060 - City-initiated reclassification of Area No. 1 from the CH (Commercial, Heavy) to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone, and a reclassification of Area No. 2 from the CH (Commercial, Heavy), CL (Commercial, Limited) and RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) to the RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) or less intense zone. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00399 - City-initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan redesignating the property from the General Commercial and Medium Density Residential to the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation for Area 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00063 - City-initiated reclassification from the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone to the RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) or less intense zone for Area 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00400 - City initiated amendment from the General Commercial to the Low-Medium Density ~ Residential land use designation. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00064 - City-initiated reclassification from the CL (Commercial, Limited) and RS-7200 (Residentiat, Single- Family) Zones to the RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) or less intense zone. * Reclassification of the property located at 2942 West Floyd Avenue has been deleted from this request. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00396 RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-60 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00060 RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-61 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00399 RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-62 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00063 RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-63 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00400 RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-64 • RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00064 RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-65 SR2107DS.DOC 05-06-02 Page 9 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 2 as General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00396, a set of general plan amendments and reclassifications for several parcefs in West Anaheim, requested by the Community Development Department to provide for various housing opportunities. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed it is a series of City-initiated general plan amendments and reclassifications that are being proposed for three geographic areas within the City. Staff recommends approval of the reclassifications as well as adoption of "Exhibit A" for each of the proposed general plan amendments. Chairperson Arnold states they will be reviewed by the City Council as one of the motions is for the City Council to review the general plan amendments and reclassifications. Public Testimony: Wayne Johnson, 208 S. Corner St., Anaheim, CA, states he is very much against the project because currently there are commercial buildings in the area and one is burned down and that is the area they want to put the apartments; low-medium density housing. He feels if this happens this will really bring down the value of the area. He states there are plenty of apartments all around. As a matter of fact, two bfocks down the street there is a brand new complex under construction. He, along with several of his neighbors, feel if this goes in it is really going to bring down their property, causing problems in the area as far as crime. Commissioner Bostwick suggested the City representative from Housing explain to him what they are planning for the area since it does not sound as though they are fully informed of the project. Mr. Johnson states he understands basically the City has a couple of parcels in the area set aside for low-medium density housing and a police station. ~ Commissioner Bostwick wished to clarify if he is speaking about the property on Beach Boulevard. Mr. Johnson responded no, the property on Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert, the parcel between Daniel's and Sav-On. David Gottlieb, Redevelopment Property Senior Manager, states the housing product types Redevelopment has specified for all three of the sites; the presidential tracts that Mr. Johnson is indicating on Lincoln, the South Beach Boulevard properties - south of Lincoln and the former Home Depot parking lot site, will all be ownership type housing, no apartments. They will either be attached or detached single-family homes built at a maximum density of 10 to 13 units per acre. Mr. Johnson asked if they were going to be low cost housing. Mr. Gottlieb responded when people say low cost housing what they mean, particularly by the law that Redevelopment has to comply with, is what is called "affordable housing". And, there may be certain components of all the developments that would be deemed affordable by state law. The state law states that any properties developed within the redevelopment project area (which these are) are required to include 15% of the units deemed affordable. Affordable is based upon income, income is specified based upon the median income and upon the median income in the area in which the county is building. Orange County has the third highest median income in the entire state of California. The affordable goes from a low-income classification up to what is called the moderate-income level classification. For example, the median income for a family of four in the County of Orange is about $72,000/year annual income. For a moderate-income level, a family of four in the County of Orange is about $76,000/year. So when Redevelopment speaks about affordable units being developed, we have an income range that is pretty hefty. It is not something that we want to see developed that would be so far off the scale that people would not be able to keep it up. They are going to be ownership units and people are going to have to ~ have sufficient funds and resources to maintain them. In the County of Orange, the income levels are so high that even if a component of these developments are developed as affordable units it is still higher than the median income currently of West Anaheim. 05-06-02 Page 10 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Johnson states it is presently commercial at this time. Mr. Gottlieb concurred, except for the one on Lincoln Avenue, which is residential. It has commercial zoning on it but is used as residential. The South Beach Boulevard properties are commercial and the former Home Depot site is a parking lot. Mr. Johnson concurred it is a parking lot and it has been used as commercial and asked why couldn't it stay commercial since there is so much housing in the area. Mr. Gottlieb explained actually there is a deficiency of ownership housing in the area but there are sufficient apartments, as everyone is well aware. There are sufficient apartments to perhaps take care of the needs in the community today but there is not ownership housing and the two years that Redevelopment has been meeting with the West Anaheim residents, City Officials and officials from the different school districts, the desire is for ownership housing. To provide home ownership opportunities in West Anaheim and the best way in which we can accomplish that is for the agency to acquire large tracts of land like the subject land, master plan them, solicit request for qualifications from the development community and control the quantity and quality of homeownership opportunities that is coming into the community. Mr. Johnson concurs but feels the amount of property they are dealing with and the amount of housing that Redevelopment is speaking of is very minute and would be much better used as commercial than residential. Commissioner Koos asked Mr. Gottlieb to touch on the commercial economic analysis done by Keyser Marston. ~ Mr. Gottlieb responded Commissioner Koos is referring to a study that the agency commissioned by the economist firm of Keyser Marston & Associates when Redevelopment was going through their West Anaheim Vision Plan. It was approximately a year and a half long visioning process and they found, based upon the population of West Anaheim and the market area that West Anaheim draws from, they have three to four times more commercially zoned land than that area can support. And, what that leads to is supply and demand. If there is so much of a supply of commercially zoned land, the value of that land actually diminishes, and what is found proliferating in the area are the strip malls with marginal type uses in them. He states by removing the marginally performing commercially zoned land from the supply side the demand for really good commercially zoned land at the major intersections is increased; which is what Redevelopment plans on keeping, and also increases the value of the commercially zoned land that is currently in existence by building in a new marketplace and having new residents come into the City. He concurs it is a small amount of land but it is their first step. He states they have been at it since initially coming before Commission in November 2001. They have gone through a lengthy request for qualifications and have been meeting with developers looking at their product type. Redevelopment is currently entitling the sites so that they can work with the developers to develop site plans in conjunction with the neighborhood that is felt of benefit to the neighborhood and will bring on more properties as the land is sold off. This will acquire money back into the City coffer so that Redevelopment is free to go out and obtain more land. It is the first step in a rather lengthy and ambitious process to transform West Anaheim from an area of mid-block marginally performing commercial centers into a vibrant residential area with better and higher quality commercial developments at the major commercial nodes in West Anaheim. Mr. Johnson confirms he understands what he is saying but he has been a resident there for five years and was just notified approximately a week and a half ago. He states he did not have prior knowledge of planning or anything and feels had his neighbor not complained about it he would have never found out • about it. He challenges that Redevelopment states that the residents of the area have helped plan the new project but he does not know anyone in his area that has been involved or know anything about the project other than a week and a half ago. 05-06-02 Page 11 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Gottlieb responded that he could not answer for the Planning Department's outreach efforts but in regards to the West Anaheim Vision, it was published in the newspaper and in the City's web page. He states Redevelopment deals primarily with the existing community groups in West Anaheim and the school districts, etc. He assures Redevelopment does a general outreach through publication and electronic media as well as newspaper advertisements and public hearing notices. Mr. McCafferty concurs and confirms staff complied with the public hearing notices for the public hearing today. Chairperson Arnold states it has been a useful exchange to get a clear sense of what is in the report and to get it out in the hearing, but wishes to reflect on public testimony which he feels are concerns of bringing additional housing to the old Home Depot site. Mr. Johnson concurs and states Mr. Gottlieb touched on moderate income housing and stipulated $76,000 per household and states he understands what he is saying but realistically looking at it that is low income for a family of four. Houses in the area are going for $200,000-$300,000 and no one in the moderate income range could afford that. Mr. Johnson states his concern is they are going to get low- income people moving in the area and they already have a problem with the hotel across the street. So if they bring in another small community of low-income housing it is going to drive down the prices of their homes. Commissioner Koos asked Mr. Gottlieb to explain that the 15°!o set aside for affordable housing is not by project but by project area. Mr. Gottlieb concurred it is by project area. ~ Commissioner Koos wished to clarify that it is not necessarily hard and fast 15% at the proposed site and again, maybe it will be. He asked what is going to be the market rate, on average, of the units at the site. Mr. Gottlieb states a small single-family home of about 1200 to 1400 square feet, in the area of resale homes, is selling for approximately $250-$260. However, Redevelopment is aware of newer market studies that indicate homes of approximately 2000 to 2200 square feet, which are selling for approximately $400,000. He states when talking about the affordable component that is in housing developments, as Commissioner Koos points out, 15% does not have to be done on each project. There is what is known as inclusionary housing requirement, which means that at some point and time it all catches up with you and that is why Redevelopment likes to take it as long as it will go. But what typically will happen then is that the agency will step in and offer some type of financial assistance that will bring the normal price of that unit down to that of an affordable buyer which could be up to the moderate income level purchaser. In addition to that, there may be a housing product type. Using the former Home Depot site specifically, there "may be" a component along Lincoln Avenue of a row house or a townhouse type development which would not be selling for the same price as a stand along single-family home. So, there are a number of different ways that Redevelopment can meet that requirement through the offering of financial assistance from the agency and/or mixing and matching of housing product type in the current specific development. Richard Vergel deDios, 2331 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA, representing the property owners at 2301, 2323, and 2331 Lincoln Avenue, Parkgate Centers, LLC, states they have a concern regarding the signal light in the area across from the former Home Depot site and the proposed residential unit. They propose that it be deleted and the left turn lanes removed from that area. They are concerned that if the light remains the left turn lanes should remain as well. Communication from the planner indicates there is going to be further traffic signals at the intersection between school sites. He states apparently there is an intersection where there is a lot of tra~c or pedestrian traffic for schools and there will be a disruption of traffic flow if those two signals were there. So their objection is that whether or not the signal is there at • least leave the left hand turn signal lanes there for the traffic to go into their buildings. 05-06-02 Page 12 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Arnold states there would be an opportunity to hear from the transportation planner on that point. David Heinz, 202 S. Coraer St., Anaheim, CA, states he is Wayne Johnson's neighbor and is also against the project. He asks if the houses are going to be subsidized by the state to the homeowners; the state making up part of the payment. Mr. Gottlieb responded the program that he is referring to is the Section 8 program where a person receives assistance between the fair market rent and what they can afford to pay and no, they would not be covered by Section 8. They will be ownership units. Mr. Heinz asked what the houses would be selling for. Mr. Gottlieb states off hand the general market today is pretty good in terms of the units but Redevelopment does not have an exact cost and he would hate to say a figure now and have it proven wrong. He offered to get his and Mr. Johnson's number in order to keep them informed of Redevelopment's progress as they move along with developers. However, because they are going to mix and match product types appropriate for the site it is difficult to say. Mr. Heinz states he was under the impression they were going to be low-income houses. Commissioner Bristol feels there has not been anything in the west side built and sold under $300,000. Chairperson Arnold understands Mr. Heinz's feelings but feels the evidence at hand indicates it is much like the standard homeownership opportunities in West Anaheim. He states affordable can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. ~ Commissioner Koos recalled mentioning once before conflicts regarding the zoning code update and feels the public announcement probably reads the same way, "a reclassification from the CL zone to the RM 3000" and in parenthesis "residential multiple family". He feels that sends off a message that they are going to be apartments because it says multiple-family but simply, the density that the City is going for needs that zoning classification, even though it will be building single-family homes in that area. He states when the public notice goes out it says multiple-family and that would send the trigger to him also that they are apartments. He cautions staff needs to be mindful of that, especially when going through the zoning code update they would not want zoning classifications named after things that send the wrong message. That is a disconnect. Chairperson Arnold feels it means that the density allows, for example, clustering so there is acquisition of better green spaces and traffic flows, etc., so they would not have to create very distinct and distant parcels one from another. Mr. McCafferty concurred and states that designation allows anything from a townhouse or condominium all the way up to small lot single-family development. Commissioner Eastman illustrates that because she is a very visual person, sometimes she reads something and it indicates one thing but if she sees a picture it would tell her something completely different. So what came to mind as Commission was going through the analysis and listening to staff describe it, both in the morning and afternoon sessions is some of the projects that the City has been involved with in the more downtown area. In the Colony, on East and Broadway there are some boulevard style or condo smaller units and they are owner occupied and behind them are the single- family detached. That is a really nice project that they did some years ago and the prices have grown there in the same way ihat they have grown everywhere in the City in the past few years. She encourages the opponents to go out and look and actually see what Redevelopment is referring to. ~ Mr. Gottlieb concurred and states that is a representative of what they could look like however, the property that they have is somewhat of a greater depth so he feels they can achieve a greater setback and do a lot more on the front. 05-06-02 Page 13 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Eastman clarified even better possibilities than what you will see out there and it is right around the corner from the City Hall. Commissioner Vanderbilt concurs and states he has lived in the downtown area almost ten years and every example where the City has been involved in some sort of collaboration, he cannot think of a single incidence where the job was not of high quality. He states he knows because he lives in one of the collaboration projects which is Kaufman & Broad and has seen the neighborhood continue to be maintained at the level it was first constructed under and he has every reason to believe that the projects done in West Anaheim will equal or exceed that degree of quality. He confirms he is excited about the project and is in favor of it. Chairperson Arnold asked Mr. deDios to restate his transportation concerns so that it could be properly responded to by the Traffic Engineer. Mr. deDios stated they had concerns of the removal of the turn signal at the old Home Depot site and the removal of the left turn lanes. It is proposed that they all be deleted. Taher Jalai, Principal Traffic Engineer, stated after relocation of Home Depot the existing signal no longer reached the signal and as a result the Transportation Department is going to remove it because it no longer meets the warrant. The idea behind the Lincoln Avenue beautification project is to minimize unsignalized midwalk median openings because based on research conducted by Federal Highway Administration they determined that the midwalk unsignalized median openings reduce the accident rate by 30% at those locations and also since a new signal was put up at Monterey Street, which is approximately 100 feet to the east, the City did not feel a need to retain the median opening. Commissioner Boydstun asked if the left turn lanes could remain. She feels it would give people who wish ~ to visit the center a place to pull into until they could turn into the center and would do the same thing for the new tract. Mr. Jalai responded the idea behind the study of the beautification project is to minimize unsignalized median openings. The Federal Highway Administration chose that those unsignalized locations contribute to accidents and removal of the unsignalized openings reduces the accident rates by 30%. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify what is going to happen when people are headed east on Lincoln Avenue and want to turn into the center, which is across the street from the old Home Depot site, or when people are headed west on Lincofn Avenue and want to turn into the residential community. Mr. Jalai responded if they go east, they will continue east for a couple hundred feet and then make a U- turn at Monterey intersection, which is a new signal that has been requested by the school district for a number of years. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if when a U-turn is used would drivers encounter school children crossing at the signal. Mr. Jalai responded it would be a protected U-turn with a left turn signal indication and the left turn indication would inhibit conflicting pedestrian movement. The same would be if you are going west bound, there is another signal at Belinda Circle to the east of Gilbert Street where drivers could make a U-turn and access the driveway to the new development. Mr. deDios asked if the notice has been approved in terms of the beautification plan. Mr. Jalai responded yes, the beautification plan has been to the Council hearings and the workshops, etc., ~ Mr. deDios asked if proper notice was sent out to all the property owners in that area. 05-06-02 Page 14 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Jalai responded yes, that was in 1999. Mr. deDios states they have been property owners since 1980 and have never received notification of the approval. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, interjected that it appears everyone is getting beyond what the items before the Planning Commission are when discussing the land use element of the general plan and not the circulation element of the general plan. While public testimony and responses from Traffic Engineering is always useful and in order to provide information what is before the Commission really does not involve the signal or the level of detail currently being discussed. The issue before Commission at this point is the general land use planning for the City. Chairperson Arnold assures he understand the frustrations and encourages the opponents to visit with the City staff and find out more on what is going to happen along Lincoln Avenue, etc. because what is before Commission is more focused and different in nature than the present discussion, having really to do with the appropriateness of housing as a land use on the proposed sites. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS C~OSED. Commissioner Boydstun feels the left turn should remain on the Home Depot property from both sides because it allows a place in which to pull off and that a lot more accidents are seen when people are making U-turns than if there were left turn pockets. • • ~ ~ - • ~ • ~ ~ • OPPOSIT{ON: 2 people spoke in opposition pertaining to General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00399 and Reclassification No. 2001-00063, and 1 person (represented owners of 2301, 2323 • and 2331 Lincoln Avenue) who spoke with concerns pertaining to the traffic signal across from the Former Home Depot site and suggested the signal and left turn lanes should remain. ACTION: Approved a CEQA Negative Declaration for each of the three (3) geographic areas recommended for amendment and reclassification. SEC BEACH & LINCOLN Recommended City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00396 (redesignating Area Z from the General Commercial land use designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential and Police Station (P) land use designations) by adopting Exhibit "A". VOTE: 7-0 Granted Reclassification No. 2001-00060 (to rezone Area 1 from the CH to the CL or less intense Zone, and rezone Area 2 from the CH, CL, and RS-A-43,000 Zones to the RM-3000 or less intense Zone} unconditionally. VOTE: 7-0 FORMER HOME DEPOT SITE Recommended City Council app~oval of Genera! Plan Amendment No. 2001-00399 (redesignating Area 1 from the General Commercial and Medium Density Residential land use designations to the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation) by adopting Exhibit "A". VOTE: 6-1 (Commissioner Boydstun voted no) ~ Granted Reclassification No. 2001-00063 (to rezone Area 2 from the CL Zone to the RM-3000 or less intense Zone) unconditionally. VOTE: 7-0 05-06-02 Page 15 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • PRESIDENTIAL TRACT Recommended City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00400 (redesignating these properties from the General Commercial land use designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation) by adopting Exhibit "A". VOTE: 7-0 Granted Reclassification No. 2001-00064 (to rezone these properties from the CL and RS-7200 Zones to the RM-3000 or less intense Zone) unconditionally. VOTE: 7-0 MOTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council review of the reclassifications in conjunction with City Council's mandatory review of the General Plan Amendments. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated this item would be set for a public hearing before the City Council. DISCUSSION TIME: 35 minutes (1:51-2:26) ~ • 05-06-02 Page 16 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00072 3c. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04499 OWNER: Choco Realty Corporation, Attn: Kerri Rupert, 455 South Main Street, Orange, CA 92868 AGENT: Mercy Housing California, Attn: Ben Phillips, 500 South Main Street, # 110, Orange, CA 92868 LOCATION: 2761 West Ball Road. Property is approximately 0.77- acre with a frontage of 100 feet on the north side of Bali Road located 465 feet east of the centerline of Dale Avenue. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00072 - Request reclassification from the RS-A-43,000 (Residentiai/Agricultural) Zone to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) or less intense zone. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04499 - Request to construct a two and three- story "special needs" apartment complex with waivers of a) minimum number, type and design of parking spaces, b) maximum structural height, c) minimum unit size and d) minimum setback abutting one-family residential developments. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. • VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. Continued to May 20, 2002 SR2109DS.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the May 20, 2002, Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to address issues pertaining to a parking study, Certificate of Affordability, appraisal and a financial analysis relative to development incentive issues. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 05-06-02 Page 17 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04333 (TRACKING CASE NO. CUP2002-04539) OWNER: Larry & Ca Henry, 7692 Haidor Piace, Buena Park, CA 90620 AGENT: Agape Church, Attn: Dean Garcia, 1303 Beacon Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 309 North Manchester Avenue. Property is approximately 0.25-acre with a frontage of 120 feet on the south side of Manchester Avenue located 210 feet west of the centerline of Loara Street (Agape House of Prayer). Request reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on April 24, 2001 to expire April 24, 2002) to retain a church. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-66 Approved Approved reinstatement for 18 months (to expire on October 24, 2003) SR8280VN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 4 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04333, 309 N. Manchester Avenue - Agape Church, a request for reinstatement of the CUP. i Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval of the reinstatement for a limited period of six months and deletion of condition of approval No. 3 on page 5 of the staff report. ApplicanYs Testimony: Dean Garcia, 1303 Beacon Avenue, Anaheim, CA, representing Agape House of Prayer, stated they were present approximately one year ago and were approved by the Planning Commission for two years by the City Council. At that time Mayor Daly allowed them to have a year and invited them to return if they needed more time and he would be willing to work with them. He states staff recommended 6 months and they requested 3 years but would be extremely grateful to get at least 18 months given the nature of most of the items they have been discussing that has to do with real estate. Mr. Garcia states they have complied with City requirements and have had no complaints from the City or Code Enforcement. And, within the entire neighborhood, to their knowledge, there has been no crime for the past year. He feels Agape House of Prayer ignited a spark in the community and everyone has been keeping up the buildings including their property owner. As a matter of fact, their neighbor is repainting his entire building. Therefore, they request the opportunity to continue there as long as possible and to be a positive impact to the local community, schools, and high schools as they have been in the past. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if they were on a month-to-month long-term lease. Mr. Garcia responded they are on a five-year lease. ~J Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if the owner of the property were to get a better offer to sell for another use would Agape House of Prayer have to vacate the property. He explained he was trying to get a feel for what is going to happen eventually with the property and possibly why the City Council made the decision they did a year ago. He asked if Agape House of Prayer was in the second year of their lease. 05-06-02 Page 18 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Garcia responded yes, going on their third year and most of the time they were repairing the building. He states they are very well aware of the nature of the area and the redevelopment cost and admits Commission would be more accurate as far as sources, but to their knowledge they have heard that there would be nothing done for several more years. In fact, a company down the street from their property just received approval for a two year CUP so he is not quite sure what is going on in the area but realizes it has been talked of for many years and Agape House of Prayer is also aware but is grateful to be there and ask only to be there as long as possible. Commissioner Bristol clarified that is why the request for three years to fit with the lease. Commissioner Bostwick asked Redevelopment to explain what is actually happening in the area and the surrounding properties. David Gottlieb, Redevelopment Property Senior Manager, states there is actually significant action occurring in the area. The Community Development Department, Redevelopment Agency concurred with Planning DepartmenYs recommendation for a six-month extension as the last and final consideration to be given to the Agape Church. In the area where the church is currently operating there has been no definitive action, although Redevelopment has been in contact with the property owners in the area to find out what were the eventual intentions of the land. The more definitive action and current action actually appearing May 7, 2002 at the City Council Meeting is to the east side of Loara Street and that is the use by the lots in that area; Anaheim Chevrolet - Woody Chevrolet for a used car facility. In viewing the map attached to the staff report the area indicated as Animal Hospital in reality is owned by the Redevelopment Agency. The remainder of the sites indicated by the ML Auto Repair and ML vacant, are owned by CalTrans and in the upper corner indicated by ML and CUP 3831 and designations of ~ industrial firms is owned by Anaheim Chevrolet. Redevelopment has been working with Anaheim Chevrolet and CalTrans. Actions with CalTrans are to acquire properties from CalTrans as part of the remnant disposal process of the I-5 Freeway widening. The entire area of Lincoln Avenue and Euclid Avenue have been studied by the Community Development Department for at least three and a half to four years with anticipated relocations of automobile sales facilities from south on Euclid and south of Lincoln Avenue to an area closer to the freeway for better freeway exposure. The action by Anaheim Chevrolet and moving to Loara Street and Manchester Avenue site is probably the first step in that process. So there is a lot going on in that area and it is difficult for Redevelopment to say it is going to happen in a year or two years, etc. During the City Council Meeting, the CUP that was granted to the church had issues of parking, etc. It was an accommodation approval. It is felt another six months would at least allow the church adequate time to do certain things but nonetheless not prohibit or preclude any development in acquiring the area, which could happen in a rather short period of time. Redevelopment has been in contact with the property owners and has an understanding as to what they want and what they want to see happening in the area. An exact time frame cannot be given. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify specifically how the duration of the entitlement prohibits any future redevelopment of the area. Mr. Gottlieb responded he could not say that it would be a major impediment but what typically happens is there is a property owner that is faced with attending things on that order. The issue goes deeper than just the agency acquiring property in the area but there are issues of parking and the ability to have public services conducted in the type of facility that is lacking in onsite parking, etc. Redevelopment is the main item of consideration. Commissioner Koos admits struggling with the response and states he is having trouble making a leap from a duration on the entitlement prohibiting future redevelopment because that justification is used • many times for the limitation on CUPs in Redevelopment Areas and he would like to see where that really fits. He states a property owner could easily rent out to somebody whose use is by right as well and 05-06-02 Page 19 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ probably will do so when the current lease is up, particularly if the owner is going to make money someway or in anyway possible. He affirms the answer did not satisfy his concern. Mr. Gottlieb states the only thing he could say is that the type of use that is currently occurring on the property itself is not in the furtherance of the redevelopment plan and the land use studies that Redevelopment has done in the area. The redevelopment plan identifies assemblage of property, the disparaged elements, the different properties in the area, the acquisition of CalTrans properties, unifying and assembling those to provide for land uses that are in the furtherance of the plan; removing the void from the area. Land use studies have been done at the Lincoln/Euclid Avenue area by the City Council, exactly when they were submitted is unknown, along the major corridor areas. And there is the Lincoln Avenue Public Improvement Process going on. All are basically laying the ground for future development to occur in the area. THE pUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol could not understand how assemblage of parcels would affect involvement of the church or any use. He states if Mr. Garcia has a five-year lease then he has a five-year lease and when and if the church has to leave, if they are not affecting any other use, he did not see the need to rush them out within six months. Commissioner Boydstun concurred and feels he should be granted his request for 18 months to October 24, 2003. Commissioner Vanderbilt wished to follow up on Commissioner Bristol's statement about affecting adjoining uses and asked staff to remind him what parking arrangements the church has with adjacent businesses. ~ Mr. McCafferty states they have an agreement with an adjacent property owner to provide a minimum of 28 onsite-parking spaces. Commissioner Vanderbilt feels it is a point to consider because the impact that the use has does cross over into adjacent uses. If that were not the case he would be in agreement with the rest of the Commission. Commissioner Koos concurs with Commissioner Vanderbilt insofar as if the entitlemenfi that is granted stipulates a parking agreement which is impacted by some other property being acquired and that parking is no longer available, then it becomes a problem. But, as long as the situation remains the same he could not understand how it would impact the redevelopment of the area. Commissioner Vanderbilt feels there are other uses and negotiations may be occurring between the City and adjacent businesses. He states if the property were autonomous from other uses in its degree of use then he would say, "okay, we see that there is an arrangement between the church and the property owner, they have a five-year lease in place and it seems that is the arrangement that is going to exist for the next five years given that contract arrangemenY'. But, when there are other uses on either side and on one side there are arrangements that are affected by the parking agreement, in effect by extending the lease the other businesses would be drawn into the impact. He advises it does not necessarily shoot down his support for the CUP but since the discussion leans toward impacts and how it may be minimal since it is just one property but seeing how on the other hand it affects more than just one property. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if one of the properties can no longer fulfil their end of the parking agreement what would happen to the CUP because it would result in not having enough parking. Mr. McCafferty responded the church has to comply with the City Council Resolution, which obligates them to provide 28 offsite-parking spaces in the area. And, if they cease to provide appropriate parking • spaces then they are out of compliance with their conditions of approval. 05-06-02 Page 20 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Koos feels Commissioner Vanderbilt's concerns are that arrangement would prevent the other people from entering into deals, etc., with the City or some other person that may want to redevelop the land. However, he doubts the deal is so lucrative for the church that that would prevent them from going forth. He feels it is probably a handshake deal such as, "hey it's a church, let's let them use our lot because we are not here on Sundays". Commissioner Bostwick states the area is in transition and Mr. Gottlieb spelled out proposals for the east side of Loara Street but not for the subject area however, it is known that it is going to change and continue changing but the church has done what Commission has asked it to. It is a good citizen in the area. There is a five-year lease with three years into it and two remaining and giving them 18 months is appropriate because obviously at the end of the lease they would have to do something. Chairperson Arnold states contrary to the general observation that these types of churches tend to be obstacles, there is no precise obstacle identified and no particular plans being interfered with at this particular time. The applicant has stimulated the improved maintenance of properties in the area and, as Commissioner Koos has pointed out, if the church is no longer there because maybe sometime in the future the City is going to do something with the parcel, some other use could come in the interim that is of right and that could be relatively poorly maintained. He sees no basis to push them out early until the City is ready to do something. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine ~ that the previously-approved CEQA Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04333 (Tracking No. CUP2002-04539) to retain a church for a period of eighteen (18) months to expire October 24, 2003. Incorporated the conditions of approval contained in City Council Resolution No. 2001 R-106 into a new resolution with the following conditions of approval (Condition No. 1 was modified and Condition No. 3 was deleted at today's meeting): 1. That this conditional use permit shall expire on October 24, ~A4~ 2003. 2. That three-foot high address numbers shall be maintained and displayed on the roof in contrasting colors to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from view of the street or adjacent properties. 3. ~ ~I~~@V~IAp@C. If 4He evic~4inn cor~iinec ~re ni+ Innnnr r~nnilni!' 4he rlevel~r~er 4. That the property shall be maintained in conformance with plans previously reviewed by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager pertaining to Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 601 and 602 relative to parking standards and driveway locations. ~ 05-06-02 Page 21 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5. That the existing structures shall comply with the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim. 6. That there shall be no accessory day care facilities or private schools permitted on this property. 7. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of gra~ti within twenry-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 8. That signage for subject facility shall be limited to that shown on Exhibit No. 4, as submitted by the petitioner. Any additional signage shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 9. That the petitioner shall maintain a minimum of three (3) potted plants as reviewed and approved by the Planning Department, to be located in the front of the building. 10. That no exterior amplified bells shall be installed or utilized in conjunction with this facility. 11. That the trash barrels shall be stored out of public view. 12. That guard posts shall be maintained around the existing fire hydrant located in the parking lot. ~ 13. That subject property shall be maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and as conditioned herein. 14. That the hours of operation shall be limited to the following: Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 4:30 (office hours) Tuesday and Wednesday 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. (Bible study) Thursday and Friday 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. (Choir practice and Outreach) Saturday and Sunday 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. (miscellaneous office activities [Sat.] and services) 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 appficable City, State and Federal~regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 18 minutes (2:27-2:45) ~ 05-06-02 Page 22 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3400 (TRACKING CASE NO. CUP2002-04532) OWNER: Lederer-Anaheim Ltd., 1990 Westwood Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025 AGENT: Anaheim Indoor Marketplace, Attn: Pamela Marcum, 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 Farano and Kieviet, Attn: Tom Kieviet, 2300 East Katella Avenue, Suite 235, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately 14.74 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard (Anaheim Indoor Marketplace). Request to permit an outdoor farmer's market in conjunction with an existing indoor swapmeet. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-67 Concurred with staff Denied requested amendment to CUP 3400 SR8288VN.DOC Commissioner Bostwick announced he would be abstaining from Item No. 5 due to having property in the area. ~ Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 5 as Conditional Use Permit No. 3400, 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard - Anaheim Indoor Marketplace, to permit an outdoor farmer's market in conjunction with an existing indoor swapmeet. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends denial based on the reasons stated on the staff report and also recommends adding Condition No. 28 to the timing for Condition No. 31. So it would be Condition Nos. 18, 21, 23, 28 and 30, above mentioned. ApplicanYs Testimony: Pamela Marcum, 1440 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA, representing Anaheim Indoor Marketplace, states they both have read the staff report and are in agreement with most of the report, except for a few of the items: 1) They are under the impression that Commission assumes they would be taking all of their vendors from inside the indoor marketplace and moving them outside which is not true. They strictly want a farmer's market. She states they applied for five (5) each being food, market, and craft booths, which no inside vendors do at this time. So no marketplace indoor vendors wil! be going outside. 2) She states regarding the condition that there be no amplified music or food, as everyone knows, just like the downtown marketplace, any successful farmer's market has music and food outside. ~ 3) Regarding concerns about parking, she states Mondays is one of their slowest days and she might use up a third of the parking lot, which is approximately 400 spaces and she would have more than 800 spaces left over for parking, which is more than adequate. 05-06-02 Page 23 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Ted Ho(comb, 1440 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA, representing Anaheim Indoor Marketplace states he is the Market Director and his job at the Marketplace is to bring more people. They feel that the farmers market would be something different than what they currently have and would draw a different market. Mr. Holcomb states one of the concerns Commission had was beautification of the Gateway area and they feel this is something that would appeal to the upper class or different neighborhood of people, perhaps people from Brea or Anaheim Hills, which currently do not patronize them. So their goal is to draw a different crowd and help bring more shoppers to their 190 vendors. Commissioner Bristol referred to the staff report indications of a verbal statement by the petitioner that a monster truck ride attraction would also be proposed. Mr. Holcomb responded it is something that would have been but is not needed. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if it was verbally proposed. Mr. Holcomb responded yes, but is something that could be in addition to. He explained the petitioner attempted to come on their property once before and was removed and so he is now trying to be included as part of the farmer's market, if that is a possibility, but for sure a monster truck ride is not needed. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify in paragraph 15, the first sentence says, "the CL Zone does not provide for outdoor uses on a permanent basis" and goes on to say, "it is inconsistent with the zoning code provisions". He states when he read the sentence his thoughts were that it is a land use and yet it sounds rhetorical but nevertheless it is a land use, and like anything else on the agenda, a gas station, etc., zoning classifications allow some land uses by right and Conditional Use Permits are required for some. He asks where does the subject proposal fit into the land uses listed in the CL Zone. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, states it fits in as an unlisted use. However, the code provides ~ that all uses are to be indoors unless specifically allowed in the code. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify when it is stated "unlisted use", normally in Commission's experience, unlisted uses are those that are not mentioned anywhere in the code. Mr. Hastings clarified that is correct. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if marketplaces were not in the code. Mr. Hastings responded no, the existing indoor swap meet use is thereby unlisted as well. Therefore, a Conditional Use Permit can be applied for however, the catch is technically there should not be any outdoor use other than what is listed in the code. Chairperson Arnold states that sounds a little confusing because on one hand, for example, if it is a cyber cafe unlisted, until recently going through City Council, but nonetheless unlisted, not allowed, not conditionally allowed, prohibited, one would have to look at it as a catchaA that a CUP is a possibility. He wished to clarify if staff was referencing a particular provision, which would sound like they were saying certain provisions would make it prohibited. Mr. Hastings responded the condition does not state "prohibited" and that is why there is a gray area. It states, "all uses, unless otherwise specified, shall be within the building". However, there is not a catch where if the use is not listed anywhere, a Conditional Use Permit can be applied for. He suggests there are possibly two things that do not match well in the code. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify how it is possible to have a marketplace downtown on Thursdays and if a CUP was granted. ~ Mr. Hastings responded the downtown marketplace is through the downtown association and he would have to check with someone from the Community Development Department since it is on a private street. 05-06-02 Page 24 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify if the subject proposal is not on a private parking lot as well. Mr. Hastings responded yes, that is correct. Commissioner Boydstun stated she could not see the difference between the two. Mr. Hastings responded that is a community activity that is sponsored by City Government so he would have to check out the details. Commissioner Koos feels it is relevant from a zoning code standpoint to question the legality of the downtown marketplace but is not sure if it is relevant to justify the approval of the subject use on the downtown marketplace existence. Chairperson Arnold concurs and states he recalls Commission dealt with something of the same issue with Lowe's (Lowe's Home Improvement), where there was an outside hotdog cart vendor and Commission came to the conclusion that home improvement stores, just by their very nature, have as an accessory use, outdoor hotdog cart vendors. "The essence was that a home improvement store could not exist without an outdoor hotdog cart vendor". Mr. Hastings responded that is correct and that was a determination made by the Planning Commission and the Commission has a right to interpret the zoning code. In fact, there is a provision in the code that says that is one of the responsibilities of the Planning Commission. Chairperson Arnold stated but as he recalls that had a very limited impact. Mr. Hastings feels it was formulated very carefully in very small portions of what the use entails and concurs it was considered as an integral accessory use to the home improvement store. ` Commissioner Eastman concurs with staff concerning the installation of an outside sink in the area. Ms. Marcum responded it is not a fixture it is portable, which is removable and will not be permanently fixed. Commissioner Boydstun concurs and states it is portable and required by the health department and she and her business comrades have to rent a sink for the Children's Festival every year as well. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol states he has been a proponent of the subject site and also argued for an extension of the indoor swapmeet to extend to the year 2010. However, he agrees with staff's comments which states, " the intention was that by doing so enabled the swapmeet to slurry the parking lot, get the place clean, grow internally, and allow the expansion of Anaheim Boulevard to continue because there is public money on Anaheim Boulevard". He states there has been a lot of activity and a lot of money expended and the marketplace has done its part as far as making the site clean. However, when the subject proposal came his first thought was, "here we are going to have another outdoor area that is not to the north, not to the east, it is not hidden, it is going to be right in view of the brand new, refurbished facilities on Cerritos Avenue" and he wondered what the people would think to see all the activity there. He recalls the deal was to allow the indoor swapmeet to do whatever possible to make money internally but now it seems as though the question is, "if this is Monday, are we going to have Tuesday and if we have Tuesday are we going to have Wednesday, etc." And, when Commission indicated that the marketplace would not have a lot of parking to take away the applicant indicated that they are going to take one third of the parking away. He states for those reasons he is leaning towards not supporting the proposal. Chairperson Arnold states regarding parking he did not perceive it that way. • Commissioner Bristol clarified the applicant stated she would take 400 and have 800 left. 05-06-02 Page 25 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Arnold states he cannot support it even on the findings necessary for the Conditional Use Permit because he feels already the visual impacts of the particular parcel on the surrounding adjacent parcels are significant and the outdoor activity would simply add to it. It is not the right kind of place; it is not the right kind of location; it is going to have a very obvious and severe impact that is going to suggest a lot of activity, a lot of various vendors and booths and people milling around, etc. And, it is not clear how it will expand. There are references to monster truck rallies and portable sinks coming in and out, etc. The idea is to enhance the visual appearance of the subject area. So just purely on the basis of the CUP, disregarding parking and the use permit, he feels it is hard to support it even under the best of circumstances. Commissioner Eastman concurs with staff also and is concerned with the overall week-to-week appearance. She feels it could be a thing that would be going on every week and already there are special events that come in with tents. She states it appears that they have a revolving use of the parking lot, almost in the way that one would expect a fairground type usage and it does not seem to be the best interest of getting other projects going in the area, at this point and time, that would match up with the vision for that part of the City. She cannot support it. Commissioner Koos concurs with Commissioner Bristol and recalls the last CUP from the applicant requesting a beer and wine license inside, he was a prime advocate for it and stated, "you know what it is inside, they have not been a problem and the census tracts are huge". "So, let's let them do what they can inside as long as they can keep it contained". He recedes he hopes it is not too much of a blow but feels Commission has been supportive and has worked well with the applicant before however, this time he agrees with the majority. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ~ ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Denied requested amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 3400 (Tracking No. CUP2002-04532) to permit an outdoor farmer's market in conjunction with an existing indoor swapmeet based on the following: (i) That the proposed use would adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located in that this would be an extension of the indoor swap meet with similar vendors; (ii) That the size and shape of the site for the proposed use is not adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare and this site, in the past, has been specifically conditioned to not permit outdoor uses in association with the indoor marketplace; (iii) That the proposed use does not further the goals and objectives of the South Anaheim Boulevard Corridors Overlay Zone and redevelopment project area to promote long-term preferred land use strategies through quality projects and to eliminate blighting influences. Further, outdoor uses are not permitted • in the CL Zone. 05-06-02 Page 26 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMM1SSlON MINUTES • (iv) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, would be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. VOTE: 4-1 (Commissioner Boydstun voted no; Commissioner Bostwick abstained; and Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 17 minutes (2:46-3:03) Commissioner Vanderbilt left the Planning Commission meeting during Ifem No. 5. ~ ~ 05-06-02 Page 27 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04538 OWNER: Sirianni Enterprises Inc., C/O Sterik Company, 50 Tice Boulevard, Woodcliff Lake, NJ 07677 AGENT: Auburndale Properties Inc., Attn: Lila Kent, 828 Moraga Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90049 LOCATION: 1602 North Lemon Street. Property is approximately 11.3 acres 4ocated south and east of the southeast corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Lemon Street (Tek War Inc). Request to establish land use conformity with current Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing commercial retail center and to permit and retain a computer rental/internet access/internet amusement business for the purpose of playing interactive computer games. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-68 Concurred with staff Granted for 1 year SR1074CW.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 6 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04538, 1602 N. Lemon Street - Tek War, Inc., a request to establish land use conformity with current zone code land use requirements for an existing commercial retail center and to permit and retain a computer rental/internet access/internet amusement business for the purpose of playing interactive computer games. ~ Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval for one year consistent with the recommendations made with prior internet access business requests. Staff also recommends Commission amend Condition No. 18, page 8, to add a sentence to the end which says, "that installation occur within 60 days of approval of said plans" and on page 9, Condition No. 35, strike from the last part of the sentence, "prior to ~nal building and inspections". It should read, "that within a period of 60 days from the date of this resolution". And, add to Condition No. 35, Condition Nos. 15 and 32. Applicant's Testimony: Eric Schneider, 828 Meraga Drive, Los Angeles, CA, representing Auburndale Properties, Inc., states today is the first time he has actually had a chance to review the conditions and he has worked principally with staff providing information from everything from site plans to tenant square footages, etc., He states the subject site, prior to being leased to Tek War, was vacant for approximately 10 years and over the past year they have had a very good paying tenant, which is something they have previously not had. He feels the conditions that are being placed on the overall center are of greater significance than that placed on the individual tenant. He has spoken to the tenant prior to the meeting and is not sure that the tenant understands all of the conditions in terms of physical impacts and admits some of the conditions being placed on the entire property, he himself has not been able to quantify. Specifically, there are some tenants that have permitted uses and leased rights to perform certain businesses. One to be named, Food 4 Less Grocery Store, which is the lion share of their rent. Some of the conditions that are being placed on the center will affect their use, which perhaps may be trivial to some, but they are a needed service and a valuable service to its customers. Chairperson Arnold asked him to specify. • Mr. Schneider specified vending machines, the condition that all vending machines will be removed from view of the right-of-way, which he presumes that means vending machines outside the premises. There are water machines, soda machines, and amusement machines, which he feels quite honestly a lot of the 05-06-02 Page 28 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • children enjoy riding. Currently, there are public paid telephones permitted on the property and one of the conditions asks for those to be completely removed. He states the financial impact of the condition plus the convenience and service to the customers of the center and how it is directly affected with the specific tenant and their locale on the center, leaves him perplexed as to the correlation, but nonetheless it has been sited as a condition for removal. Commissioner Boydstun clarified staff is just asking that they be inside and suggests they could be in the entrance of the store. Mr. Schneider states unfortunately, with the amount of space that some of the businesses have they may have already dedicated space for other merchandise and it may just be a function of having to remove them altogether. And, whether the particular tenant who is not present to speak for himself, would be willing to do so or not and having that right presently as a property manager, he does not know if he could get them to cooperate and thus satisfy one of the conditions. Chairperson Arnold asked Mr. Schneider to go down the list since he is speaking of the center as a whole starting at No. 20, which are the phones. Mr. Schneider states the following: • Condition No. 20 and 21 in the sense that they have periodic sidewalk sales; normally, Memorial Day, 4th of July, and Labor Day. It is not an every week or every month occurrence but there are times when they do wish to have sidewalk sales. And, Goodyear Tire also does seasonal sales where they roll out their tires. • He points out Condition No. 22 because it calls for 90 days but on page 9, Condition No. 35 asks for 60 days. He asks for clarification, specifically for landscaping whether it is 60 days to submit plans or ~ 60 days to submit plans and have the work completed, which he feels might be somewhat difficult. • Condition Nos. 25, 26, and 27 he presumes refers to every single tenant in the shopping center and not just Tek War however, it was specifically noted in their conditions. • Condition No. 28 he presumes refers to all tenants however, he is not quite sure who would be affected by it. He assures they would want to satisfy the condition but is not sure if there is one already that does not have proper screening. • Condition No. 31, he wishes to clarify if the sign that is in place today is acceptable or if it is conditioning that the signage be to today's code. • He states regarding Condition No. 33, probably the biggest physical impact is the Food 4 Less, which is about 100,000 square feet. And, if for whatever reason they vacated the premises, finding another 100,000 square foot user would be difficult, as there are not very many of them. He feels more than likely the space would have to be divided at least in half, if not thirds, and the requirements of Condition No. 33 limiting the number of units to 12, in the future sense, might impact their ability to either split the space into two or more units. Mr. Schneider states the remaining conditions are fairly self-explanatory and they would be happy to satisfy the requirements but there are a few that he has ditficulty with existing uses and existing obligations. And, if he should happen to lose one of his larger tenants and have to split the space into more than one unit the physical impact of not being able to do so would probably be detrimental. He affirms he is present to support the CUP, but with caution, as he would like to understand some of the conditions clearly. However, some of the other ones he may not be able to stand before Commission and say they can comply. • Chairperson Arnold announced they would deviate from the normal procedures and have staff respond because some of the conditions are fairly routine and others may have to be addressed. He asked the applicant if they had security on the site from time to time. 05-06-02 Page 29 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Schneider responded normally, during holiday seasons, a security guard is hired around the middle of November through December 31. He states it is not due to any problems in the past because any problems they have are more of day labor, etc., and they have not had any kind of violent activities. He affirms he has managed the shopping center for over 12 years, knows it very intimately and security really has not been, in a violent manner, a real concern. Chairperson Arnold states providing security is a requirement of the applicant and not of the center as a whole but what Commission finds from experiences with lnternet Amusement Businesses generally is that the potential for violent crime is significantly higher and there is also a potential for gang activity, etc. In addition the potential for teenage loitering can be significant. Therefore, in all Internet Amusement Centers, which Commission has considered, Condition No. 19 has been significant. He states it is a condition that is particular to the applicant and not to the center however, he understands sometimes there is a coordination between the two. Mr. Schneider responded the confusion was whether or not it was a security guard or surveillance camera. He feels it may mean both however, the tenant has not quantified the physical impact of that decision. He states it was noted in the staff report that seven times since their occupancy, police have been requested to the site, none of which have been associated with Tek War. He states he is not sure what the seven were but is glad to hear that the tenant has been very good in terms of payment and its responsibilities to the center. He notes there has been unfortunate incidences in neighboring cities but feels part of the testament is to the tenants in being proactive in the type of customers they permit. Chairperson Arnold asked Mr. McCafferty to address the concerns specified by the applicant. Mr. McCafferty states a lot of the conditions which relate to the retail center are standard conditions of approval that Commission places on nonconforming centers and the other conditions are just restating ~ code requirements however, the conditions are as follows: • Condition No. 20 - He concurs with Commissioner Boydstun, as long as they are located inside the building staff would not have a problem with it. • Condition No. 21 - He states outdoor displays are permitted in the subject zone subject to approval of a special event permit over the counter. He suggests possibly adding, "that unless a special event is obtained" and feels that would take care of it so that the City would have control over what is brought out on the store front. • Vending machines - He states as long as they are not visible to the public right-of-way it is okay. The center is fairly deep if you are looking at it from Orangethorpe. So, for the most part, the applicant probably would comply although he is not certain whether or not there are vending machines on Lemon Street. • 4-foot high address numbers - He states that is something that the Anaheim Police Department requires for responding to emergency locations and that would be for the entire center in addition to the tenant. So that would be staff's recommendation. • And, the same goes for Condition No. 28, with regard to roof mounted equipment. He feels for the most part, probably most of the tenants comply with the condition but it is just a catchall that staff provides and there are some users that have roof mounted equipment above the parapets but they are not required to comply with anything more than the code. • Condition No. 31 - The assumption is that all signage on the premises is legal signage at the time the building permit was obtained. Staff is not requiring the applicant to comply with the current Sign Code requirement as long as they have a valid permit. • • Condition No. 33; the number of tenant spaces - Is a municipal code requirement. He states if they were adding tenant spaces, and for example, if they were not coming to Commission but to the 05-06-02 Page 30 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • counter and requesting permission to divide Food 4 Less into three spaces, they would be before Commission anyway. He feels it is nothing unusuai that the applicant is requiring. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if Condition No. 20 is a code requirement. Mr. McCafferty responded Condition No. 20 is not a code requirement it is more of a Commission policy Commissioner Koos wished to clarify which ones are not requirements. He chooses to stick with the code and wish to discern the ones that are required from the ones Commission has discretion on and asked that they be flagged in order to see what kind of give and take they had with them. Mr. McCafferty responded Condition No. 20 is not a code requirement; Condition No. 22, for the current CG zone is not a code requirement; Condition Nos. 25, 26, 27 are not code requirements and Condition No. 31 is a code requirement. Chairperson Arnold states earlier Condition No. 25 was not addressed but it seems inconsistent with what Commission is approving. He feels, obviously, Condition No. 25 would not be consistent with the approval of a CUP for an Internet Amusement Business. Mr. McCafferty clarified what staff means in that instance is for example, there is a laundry or some sort of convenient store in the center and sometimes the owners will install amusement devices as an accessory to their use. Staff understands that the Internet Amusement Business is in fact that, and staff is not really pointing that out. Commissioner Koos explained the reason he asked for the conditions to be flagged is so when it comes time to deliberate Commission could factor that versus some of the other issues regarding the potential change in CL and a number of other health issues. ! Chairperson Arnold recalls there was an Internet Cafe that Commission approved that was in the center and Commission, as a matter of standard practice imposed synonymous conditions on that center as well. Specifically, the numbers on the roof that are standard police requirements for safety purposes. Mr. McCafferty concurs and calls to attention that when those type subject matters arise they are standard requirements that the Commission places on the CUPs. It is a standard condition required by the Anaheim Police Department for public safety. Mr. Schneider wished to clarify if on the landscaping it is 60 days or 90 days. Mr. McCafferty states there are two timings; one is the plan has to be submitted within 60 days and within 90 days of the plan approval, landscaping has to be in. Gerald White, 1602 N. Lemon Street, Anaheim, CA, one of the owners of Tek War, states they have been in business for one year and are now reapplying under the new conditions for a Conditional Use Permit. They have previously had a permit with the City of Anaheim to operate their business. Mr. White states they applied with the Planning Department to receive the sign and he feels they have tried to comply with all the rules set forth at that time but evidently they did not. They agree with most everything staff has done and they have set their hours at 2:00 a.m. He explains they did that from the start because of the children going to school even though there is not a school in their area. They open at 2:00 p.m. and close at midnight during the week, except for Saturday and Sunday where they stay open until 2:00 a.m. 7hey would like to continue staying open until 2:00 a.m. because two of their competitors were approved to stay open until 2:OQ a.m. and 4:00 a.m. He feels if they are required to close at midnight patrons will leave their facility and go to competing facilities. Regarding the one-year permit, which is suggested, their competitors were approved for two years and three years. He states they have two years left on their lease and would like to at least get two years on the Conditional Use Permit. ~~ ~_J 05-06-02 Page 31 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • In the issue of the security guard he states they have and/or currently installing a video surveiilance camera; they have an indoor lobby and there is no outside loitering; there is a couch; adequate seating and a television inside so that while they are waiting for a computer they can sit inside. Chairperson Arnold asked if he were confident that after the patrons are finished playing that they would either sit on the sofas in the lobby or immediately go home and not linger in the parking lot. Mr. White responded what they have seen in the year they have been opened, is that the only people that are in the parking lot are usually having a cigarette and then they will return inside. He feels for one, they are being charged by the hour so they do not want to be outside wasting their money and he has never seen them loitering outside. He states there are patrons sitting inside chatting in the lobby but not the continuance loitering outside. Mr. White states the issue of the security guard would definitely have a financial impact on them. They are charging $2.00 an hour in order to start up their business and have not come close to recouping their start up cost. At this point, they are operating their business themselves and do not have any employees. They are simply trying to make a go of it and a security guard would definitely be a financial impact. He states they are trying to comply with the video surveillance camera and are working with the property management for the other items. Gary Hager, 2928 Asbury Place, Anaheim, CA, an owner of Tek War, states he would like to clarify about the fact that they have been open a year and have not had significant problems. Regarding the police incidents which were mentioned he confesses he is one of the reasons, his wife is one of the reasons, and ADT Security System is the other reason. He explains there is a security code for opening and closing and he screwed up one day and put in the wrong code. The signal went off and "the Anaheim PD rolled" (Anaheim Police Department); his wife set it off another time and called crying her eyes out but it was too late; the other times occurred when ADT installed the security system. He states they should ~ have soldered all the joints but instead one of their people was lazy and just wrapped the wire around the contact, which came loose and consequently would trigger periodically. Originally the plan with ADT was that they would notify them before they called the police however, for some reason ADT changed that plan indiscriminately on their own and called the police. Consequently, Tek War has had to pay for it at the cost of $165 per call and that times eight calls has been quite expensive. Mr. Hager states they are currently battling with ADT trying to "recoup" the cost from them. Nonetheless, the incidences are faulty wiring and his family. He feels the concept of a security guard would be very cost prohibitive and might even make them shut the doors but more importantly they have observed the competition and from the very beginning have made some changes that they feel were significantly different than any others. One being that every other Internet Cafe they have observed has been very crowded and congested; the idea was to make more money by packing people in. Tek War felt that was appalling, not only for comfort but also for safety reasons in case of fire hazards, so they spread their aisles out. They sacrificed computer space and potential income for safety and comfort of their cliente{e. They feel that is one thing that has helped them "run a good ship". He states they also noticed that a lot of the other owners were not present during their hours of opening but utilized employees. The person in charge would sit in a very tiny area off to the side, again to maximize income with more computers, and could not see what was going on. Tek War took a different approach and decided to build a very large dais that is about a foot and a half tall that allowed them, even from a seating position, to see every face in the room and of course when standing just about anything going on. He states it is for two reasons; it gives better security and also so that they would be able to let people know they are watching; a neighborhood watch type of inentality. Mr. Hager states they get involved with the children. They let them know their names and get to know their names. They shake hands and give out sodas. He confesses it is not a bed of roses nor is it all boy • scouts because there are some young men that have him concerned. They are predominantly young men, and when they come in Tek War has trained themselves to deal with them in a polite and courteous but firm manner. He states it is mainly just fetting the young men know, like the neighborhood watch style, 05-06-02 Page 32 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • that they know they are there. He pays for candy to be given out freely to them, shake their hands, pat them on the back and walk away but if it looks like the group is going to cluster to talk about something they come back in and ask them how the game is going. They get involved and feel that that works significantly to keep people happy. They have had many of their customers to tell them they come because it is a clean safe environment. Tek War runs the air conditioners and a few of their competitors do not do that, as a result their patrons are hot and sweaty. Tek War tries to make it a comfortable clean place for customers to enjoy and so far it has worked quite well. He reiterates their incidences were ADT, himself and his family and along with the staff of Tek War he believes anyone working in the office needs to be security aware. Tek War is security aware, not because they have had problems, but from the beginning they chose to do that. He states when they heard that there might be a need for security officers they began looking at other facilities which have the minimum wage security o~cers and noticed a lot of them do not seem to be all that attentive or seem to care what is going on. He observed mischief occurring in supermarkets and the security guard would be flirting with girls. They felt by training themselves, being aware of proper techniques; who to call, what to do and what to look for they would stand a better chance of running a safe and clean environment and that has worked. They are always leaving notes for each other. Mr. Hager states their biggest problem is they have had some customers walk out without paying and that could happen. In order to combat the crime, they leave a physical description of who the person is so they could talk to them the next time or be alerted if they try and have perpetual petty crime history against them and it has worked. He feels the concept of a minimum wage security guard gives a false sense of hope and it can relieve the owners or the operators of the responsibility of being aware. He believes the key to running a good business is that owners and employees are aware. Commissioner Koos referred to Mr. White and states he visited his establishment about 8 months ago and would like to see him succeed. He concurs with staff's recommendations but feel Commission can "tinker" with it a little bit and there are some points deeming immediate attention. One of the issues he • feels has not been touched on, which everybody else who has an internet facility always comments on, is the window tinting. He recalls Tek War's facility is very blacked out and he asked if they would have a problem with the condition. Mr. White responded they have already complied with that on their own and the reason windows are tinted is so that people can see. He states he has read peoples comments about it burning up computers, etc., and that would happen if the computer were in direct sunlight and a lot of heat. But for them it is a simple matter of people being able to see the screen. He explains they have a west facing window and when the light comes in it is blazing and they cannot see anything. Originally they tinted their windows like everyone else but when staff first visited them with their list of recommendations, the first thing they did was strip off their tinting and put up blinds. During the peak hours, when they have to because of the sunlight, they adjust the blinds in order to deflect the light and then at night time or as soon as that period is over they pull the blinds completely up so there is total exposure. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if when the sun is setting or it is towards that time of day he pulls the blinds up. Mr. White responded yes, and on cloudy days also. Commissioner Koos asked is there anyway for the computers to be reoriented, possibly face the tables towards the wall to the east. Mr. White responded there is one wall adjacent to the laundry mat and there are shorter rows of tables at that point and they have tried it to see what would happen but the sun blinds the first several rows of people. And, although it does not deter from the screen from people facing the windows, the light gets into their eyes and they are blinded. Conversely, when they are facing east they cannot see the screen because it is washed out therefore, they stripped the tinting and put up blinds on their own and utilize • them during the critical times. Commissioner Koos bantered that he could issue sunglasses. 05-06-02 Page 33 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. White retorted they have goggles. He referred to the condition regarding public phone and stated the one that is in existence is approximately 150 feet away from their center, near the donut shop. They have made it a standing rule on their own to allow their patrons the use of their business phone for any local calls they need to make based on an honor system. Commissioner Bostwick states regarding the hours of operation staff has recommended 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. daily and the applicant asked for 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. however, the original proposal was Monday to Thursday 2:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m., Friday and Saturday 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. and Sunday 12:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. Mr. White responded yes, those are the current hours of their business. Commissioner Bostwick asked if he would be happy with the current hours. Mr. White responded yes, and asked for consideration for the summer months. In the summer when there is no conflict with school they have children (18, 19 and 20 year olds) who wish to come. He clarifies the predominant customers are junior college males and some high school students and they would be concerned that if they were restricted to just those hours, while competitors have expanded hours during the summer months, when there is no conflict with school, that they would not be competitive. Commissioner Koos clarified the hours staff recommends is 10:00 a.m. and asked if he was okay with that. Mr. White responded yes, that is fine. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify that he would be happy with 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Sunday ~ through Thursday and then 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. Mr. White responded yes. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Schneider the purpose of the trailer in front of Food 4 Less. Mr. Schneider wished to clarify if he was speaking of the easterly portion of the property. Commissioner Bristol clarified no, in front of Food 4 Less a trailer was present on the parking lot all day May 5, 2002, operating with power and producing photography. Mr. Schneider responded approximately once or twice a year several Food 4 Less locations do a promotion for portrait studios at centers where there is no one hour photo type of use where they actually have sign ups for a period of about two weeks prior to the actual period of photography. Total presence of about four weeks. And, that is probably what he saw. He states whether Food 4 Less came before the City and obtained proper permits to produce photography he is not aware of but that is what he feels Commissioner Bristol saw and in another three weeks they will be gone. Commissioner Boydstun asked if they did not need a special event permit. Mr. McCafferty responded it is really not a special event it is an extension of what is going on in the center. And, typically Commission would see that through a Conditional Use Permit for a temporary type trailer use and did not feel a special event permit could be obtained for such. Mr. Schneider states the vendor who does the photography studios does it for numerous locations, not only his. Being a reputable vendor he certainly hoped someone obtained proper permits but it would be outside of his jurisdiction, other than granting them a temporary permit. -__J 05-06-02 Page 34 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Bristof feels the applicant is stating everything is out of his jurisdiction; the phones, the parking lot, the trailer, etc., and the parking area was probably as dirty an area ail day long than he has seen in ten years. He wished to clarify if it did not have anything to do with management. Mr. Schneider responded no, it is completely out of their jurisdiction. He is not certain what time of day the parking lot was seen but if it was in the morning it was not indicative of the service they have given the property since owning it in 1986. He states they have daily sweeping, twice a month steam clean sidewalks, irrigation and landscaping twice a week, rubbish remover four times a week, parking lot lighting once a month and he personally goes to the site once a week. He apologizes if it was not in the condition that it should have been. Commissioner Bristol states what he is hearing is the applicant is trying to scurry out of things and put the blame on the tenants. He states in the meantime he is sitting back and wondering what is the responsibility of management on the property because the applicant is asking to get rid of numerous conditions and yet he is not sure why the trailer is on the property, why the parking lot is dirty, etc. He feels that is kind of odd. Mr. Schneider responded his hesitation is that he has not personally seen it but going out on the limb, it is probably the photograph trailer. Commissioner Boydstun asked if staff would check and find out if they have permits. Mr. Hastings responded yes they could check but normally, as previously mentioned, they would not issue a special event permit such as the subject matter. It is not an outdoor activity and his experience has been that they do not administratively give permits for those kinds of trailers. They would have to come before Commission. ~ Commissioner Bostwick states it would be the same as the MRI trailer Commission approved. Commissioner Boydstun states yes, but Food 4 Less has not come to the Commission. Mr. Hastings offered to double check, just in case, but feels there was not a permit issued for that kind of use. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Arnold states he understands what is being said about the security guard and the cost but would never vote for an Internet Amusement Center without one, except maybe where it was immediately adjacent to the Police Substation because he could imagine the headlines in the Orange County Register or the L. A. Times, etc., "Teen Shot At Cyber Cafe" and some where in the article it says, "Anaheim Planning Commission considered requiring security and declined to do so". He states his primary goal is public safety and there is enough evidence that Internet Amusement Centers are or have the potential to be unsafe, regardless of how well intentioned and well trained the people operating it are. He commends the applicants for their involvement and for training themselves about security issues, etc., but feels that should be in addition to having someone who is licensed onsite during peak operating hours. He affirms the potential for gang activity is too great and Commission should never allow them without security. Commissioner Koos states starting with the commercial retail center conditions of approval he encourages staff to agendize the reclassification of the property to the CL Zone so should any redevelopment of the property ever occur the development standards of the CL Zone would apply given that they are higher development standards than the CG Zone and that the City Council has directed the Planning Commission, when there is an opportunity, to reclassify CG and CH Zones to the CL Zone to do so. He feels Commission should move towards cleaning up properties and continue the trend of a number of conditions of approval however, he feels not all of them would be fair in this case because it basically ~ could result in a situation where the underline landowner may see that it is a greater expense to do than to keep the tenant and that is not necessarily what Commission wants to happen. He states as internet businesses go, they are doing a good job; it is not adjacent to residential; it is very isolated and it is 05-06-02 Page 35 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ clearly in an industrial commercial area. He feels Commission should find ways to make it work. So starting with Condition No. 20, he would be supportive and normally does support the condition but given the large size of the property and the expense that it may incur, he supports deleting it. He appreciates that Commissioner Arnold clarified Condition No. 25 and concurs it does beg the question if there is more of them on the property. Commissioner Boydstun feels in the front of Food 4 Less there are a couple of the "kiddy" amusement rides and most stores have them. She states as a grandmother she has put a lot of quarters in them while her daughter shopped and she does not feel that type of entertainment is a detriment. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if inerry-go-rounds and carousel horses fall into the category as well. Mr. McCafferty clarified under Title 4 it is anything where you basically put a coin in for entertainment. So for those sorts of uses they would have to obtain a permit from the Business License Division for four or less. If it were five or more then it would have to come before Commission. Commissioner Boydstun states there are usually two to three per location. Commissioner Bostwick states all they would do is get a permit for it so he suggests leaving it in there because it relates to the entire site and they could get a permit for the amusement rides. Mr. McCafferty suggested amending the condition to say, "unless a permit is obtained, therefore..." Commissioner Koos states Condition No. 26 concerns him because it still seems like a nexus thing, not in the legal sense, but basically there is an internet business that is going to be saddled with the entire property and he realizes Commission does that but if they initiate the reclassification to CL Zone then ~ over time a lot of the issues would take care of themselves. Commissioner Boydstun states all of the markets have water machines out front and feels they should be excluded or they should get a permit or something. Commissioner Bristol states that brings them down to just the Coca-Cola vendor machines because they have two water machines and three Coke machines. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify staff's definition of visible. Mr. McCafferty clarified from the right-of-way. He feels if one were on Orangethorpe he would not see them unless he is craning his neck and wrecking into the car in frant of him. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if it is being suggested to leave it in. Commissioner Bostwick responded yes because when Staples was on the other side of Food 4 Less they had their vending machines inside between the two doors. They could not be seen from outside but still was accessible to anyone coming and going. He feels they really litter up and if they are going to do that they may as well do as neighboring cities and put a Coke machine at every bus stop. Commissioner Koos asked if Condition No. 22 was too much to ask for this land use. Mr. Hastings wished to interject that although staff previously mentioned that it is not required because of the zone, because the landscape areas are already there the trees should be there and most likely were there to begin with. He feels if staff was asking for a new landscape area to be put in, it might be more of a nexus situation. However, staff feels pretty strongly that if there is a landscape area existing that trees should be reinstalled. • Commissioner Eastman states they should not be allowed to have empty planters and empty landscape areas. 05-06-02 Page 36 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Koos states if staff is confident they were already there then he agrees entirely. Othenrvise, it might seem like it was a reach because looking into the contents it is an internet facility and it did not come in as a shopping center. So he wonders at what point would the owner say, "forget you, we are not going to let you be here because this is going to cost us a fortune to do all of this stufP'. Commissioner Bostwick states but maybe the next time they come in Commission would ask for the same things again, and if they want to stay in business and keep their tenants and keep the place rented they are going to bring their product up to scale. Commissioner Bristol states with all due respect, maybe there is a reason it has been vacant for so many years. It was a very ill kept market area and no one can explain why. Commissioner Koos states he definitely wants to delete Condition No. 20. Commissioner Eastman states it would keep them from putting in additional but allow them to keep what is there, as there is one a few doors down from their shop by the donut shop but not encourage them to have every store put telephones outside. Commissioner Bristol states on page 7, under the CUP for the computers, the internet, on Condition No. 12, "that there should be no public telephone on the premises located outside the building and under control of the petitioner", and asks who is the petitioner, who has control of the telephones. He recalls being told by Mr. Schneider that he does not have control but the tenants do. Mr. McCafferty clarified the condition is intended for the petitioner, which is the Tek War applicant, and if he does not have control over the phone then he does not have to remove it. With regard to putting any new phones, under the general conditions for the CUP, then staff would have to find out what phones are ~ currently there so that they could make sure no other phones are installed there in the future. Commissioner Bostwick recalls requiring that condition of every shopping center, every service station, and every business; that there are no phones outside, lt has been a standing condition for the six to seven years he has been on the Commission for the reason that they tend to bring traffic that is unwanted. He states if the applicant truly wants to be a good citizen in the City of Anaheim and to clean up and help reduce crime and make the City better, he does not see why they would not want to do it. 7he phones could be mounted inside the store; they could put one inside the Internet Cafe and they could put them on the entryway because as long as it is inside it is under their control. Commissioner Eastman clarified the applicants already stated they permit customers to use their phone so it is not an issue for them. Commissioner Bostwick clarifies he is just saying the center could do the same thing. They could put the phones on the entryway into the Food 4 Less where they put the baskets, like a lot of other stores. Commissioner Boydstun feels if it is by the donut shop and the donut shop is the one that had it installed then they should move it inside. Mr. McCafferty wished to interject with an answer to Commissioner Boydstun's question of whether a special event permit was issued for the trailer on the parking lot of Food 4 Less and the answer is no. Their planner, Charity Wagner, Assistant Planner, called the Food 4 Less manager and found out apparentfy they bring in a trailer every year but do not come in and obtain a permit. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify if they get permits for their sidewalk sales, etc. Mr. McCafferty responded that question was not put before them. • Commissioner Boydstun feels the next one should be checked by Code Enforcement. 05-06-02 Page 37 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSfON MiNUTES • Commissioner Bostwick feels the other issue is time. It is set for one year and obviousfy Commission could see what goes on within a year and then determine whether or not there are problems and then they could alter the conditions. Commissioner Bristol stated he visited the site on May 5, 2002, and it was noisy. There were approximatefy 20 people inside and although it was very dark it seemed okay. He recalled the applicant stating he removed the tinting however, he felt it was very dark. He asked if it was the shades or the blinds being used. It was about 4:30 p.m. and what surprised him was there was no one there to talk to him. Someone playing the machine stopped and came over and talked to him. Mr. McCafferty stated he was there during the afternoon on May 3, 2002, and he had the same observation. Even though the blinds were down, it still seemed like there was tinting on the window. He wants to make sure that the applicant is clear the condition would require them to remove the tinting and all they would have is glass. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, states there has been issues before with regard to telephones and the City cannot prohibit outdoor public telephones at al{. So what the position of the Pfanning Commission and the recommendation of the City Attorney's Office has been is to look at each of the issues on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it is appropriate to place the condition on a particular shopping center, possibly due to the crime rate in the area or where there are specific other reasons. There have been instances in which Commission has had applicants with the need to return for modification of the condition where it turns out there are existing contractual obligations that cannot be broken and they truly do not have the authority to move the telephones depending upon what type of an agreement there is for the particular phone. She suggests Commission may want to consider existing contractual obligations in crafting of the conditions. Chairperson Arnold states he does not really have any objection to the one phone being on the property ~ but what would be more problematic is if there were a proliferation of outside phones, that would be more ofi a concern. Commissioner Koos is supportive of 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Sunday through Thursday, and until 2:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. Also he feels Commission should drop Condition No. 20. 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 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. 2002-04538 for one year (to establish land use conformity with current Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing commercial retail center and to permit and retain a computer rental/internet access/internet amusement business for the purpose of playing interactive computer games) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated May 6, 2002, with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 2, 18, 20, 21, 25 and 35 to read as follows: • 2. That the hours of operation shall be limited to 10 a.m. to midnight, ~a+l-~ Sunday through Thursday; and 10 a.m. to 2 a.m., Friday and Saturday. 05-06-02 Page 38 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 18. That video surveillance cameras to monitor the activities inside the facility shall be shown on plans submitted for Police Department and Community Services Division approval. Installation shall occur within 60 days of approval of said plans. 20. That all public telephones (existing or proposed) shall be located inside the building only, unless an existing contract/agreement prohibits the phones from being moved. 21. That no outdoor storage, display or sales of inerchandise or fixtures shall be permitted, unless a special event permit is obtained from the Zoning Division. 25. That no video, electronic or other amusement devices or games shall be permitted anywhere on subject property, unless a permit is obtained from the Business License Division. 35. That within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution, er~ie~e~ Condition Nos. 3, 8, 10, 11,13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 27, 28 and 32, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent following Item No. 5) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour (3:04-4:04) ~ ~-.~ • 05-06-02 Page 39 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~ 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. CLASS 11 7b. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04498 OWNER: Living Stream Ministry, 2465 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Living Stream Ministry, Attn: John Pestor, 2431 West La Pafma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 2411-2461 West La Palma Avenue and 1212 North Hubbell Wav. Property is approximately 40.4 acres located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street, and at the northern termini of Hubbell Way and Electric Way (Living Stream Ministry). Request waiver of a) maximum number of freestanding or monument-type signs and b) permitted location of freestanding or monument-type signs to construct a new monument sign. ~ VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-69 Concurred with staff Granted SR8283AN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 7 as Variance No. 2002-04498, 2411-2461 West La Palma Avenue and 1212 North Hubbell Way - Living Stream Ministry and former Hubbell Site, to construct a new monument sign. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval. Applicant's Testimony: John Pester, 513 S. Valley, representing Living Stream Ministry, stated he was present to answer questions and noted they were appreciative of the staff report and in agreement with the conditions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. I 1-ULLUWING 15 A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMM15510N ACTI(]N_ I OPPOSITION: None ~ ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick 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 11 (Accessory Structures), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Variance No. 2002-04498 approving waivers pertaining to (a) maximum number of freestanding or monument-type signs and (b) permitted location of freestanding or monument type signs (to construct a new monument sign) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated May 6, 2002. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent following Item No. 5) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (4:05-4:06) 05-06-02 Page 40 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVEDI 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2703 (TRACKING CASE NO. CUP2002-04534) OWNER: Anaheim Storage Investors, 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1500, Los Angeles, CA 90024 AGENT: TNT Self Storage Management, Attn: Ray Tuohy, 17071 Imperial Highway, Suite 15, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 LOCATION: 1441 North Baxter Street. Property is approximately 2.8 acres located at the southwest corner of Via Burton Street and Baxter Street (Stor-A-Lot). Request reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on March 6, 1997 to expire March 6, 2002) to retain a truck rental operation in conjunction with an existing self-storage facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-70 Approved Approved reinstatement with deletion of time limitation SR8282AN. DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 8 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2703, 1441 N. Baxter Street - Stor-A-Lot, to retain a truck rental operation in conjunction with an existing self-storage facility. ~ Greg McCafferty, Principal P{anner, informed staff recommends approval without a time limitation and with the following changes to the conditions: Condition No. 5, page 4- delete the last sentence, Condition No. 9- add a sentence that states "that any additional signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a Report and Recommendations item" and Condition No. 12 - delete the last sentence. Applicant's Testimony: Ray Tuohy, 5608 E. Mountain Ave., Orange, CA, representing Stor-A-Lot Self Storage, commended staff on being exceHent to work with and states they are willing to comply with all of the recommendations. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Z~l ~ R~194 h[ei I+`leE.`IUI-111~1/_\:Y~~] ~1:1 ~ 1~G1-1- I h[~IK~]1~tl1~116'~cl[~]~ I_[~ ~[~]~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved CEQA Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2703 (Tracking No. CUP2002- 04534) to retain a truck rental operation in conjunction with a self-storage facility without • a time limitation. 05-06-02 Page 41 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Incorporated the conditions contained in Resolution Nos. PC85~176, PC95-25 and PC97-132 into a new resolution with the following conditions of approval (Condition Nos. 5, 9 and 12 were modified at today's meeting): 1. That the maximum number of U-haul rental trucks shall be limited to two (2) trucks and that no parking of the rental trucks shall be permitted in any of the required customer/employee parking spaces. 2. That the landscape planters shall be permanently maintained with live and healthy plant materials. 3. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 4. That the on-site landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained in compliance with City standards. 5. That all existing and proposed roof-mounted equipment shall be completely screened from view in all directions by properly maintained design elements of the building. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Division. 6. That the operator of subject facility shall pay for the cost of any Code Enforcement inspections which may be required to address any Code violations. 7. 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. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for review and approval by the Police Department. Once approved, the lighting shall be installed within sixty (60) days and maintained in accordance with the plan. 8. That there shall be no public telephones on the premises located outside the building. 9. That signage shall be limited to existing and approved signs. Any additional signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 10. That temporary signs and other advertising devices shall not be permitted. 11. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 12. That four (4) foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the flat area of the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from view of the street or adjacent properties. Said information shafl be specificalfy shown on plans submitted for review and approval by the Police Department. 13. 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 through 4, and as conditioned herein. 05-06-02 Page 42 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . 14. That within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution, Condition Nos. 5, 7 and 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. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent following Item No. 5) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (4:07-4:09) ~ • 05-06-02 Page 43 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 9b. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04497 OWNER: Ramesh Manchanda, 1140 San Marino Avenue, San Marino, CA 91108 AGENT: Redwood Construction, Attn: Dave Wyrick, 209 East Alameda Avenue, Suite 200, Surbank, CA 91502 LOCATION: 111 West Oranqewood Avenue and 2041 - 2051 South Haster Street. Property is approximately 8.13 acres located at the northwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and Haster Street. Requests waiver of minimum number of covered parking spaces for an existing apartment complex. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-71 Concurred with staff Granted SR8287KB. DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 9 as Variance No. 2002-04497, 111 West Orangewood Avenue and 2041-2051 South Haster Street, a request for waiver of minimum number of covered parking spaces for an existing apartment complex. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval and feels it is a great ~ improvement. Staff also recommends modification to Condition No. 8 to state, "with regard to the timing that prior to issuance of a building permit or demolition permit or within a period of one year from the date of this resolution those conditions be complied with". ApplicanYs Testimony: Dave Wyrick, 209 E. Alameda Ave., Burbank, CA, owner, stated he was present to answer questions and has no problem with any of the conditions. Commissioner Boydstun feels it is great and will get rid of problem parking spaces. Mr. Wyrick bantered they would like to get rid of them all if Commission would permit. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman 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. • 05-06-02 Page 44 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Granted Variance No. 2002-04497 approving waiver pertaining to minimum number of covered parking spaces subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated May 6, 2002 with the following modifications: Modified Condition No. 8 to read as follows: 8. That prior to issuance of a building or demolition permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 6, above-mentioned, shall be comp{ied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent following Item No. 5) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (4:10-4:11) ~ • 05-06-02 Page 45 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 10a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. CLASS 11 10b. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04494 OWNER: Equilon Enterprises, LLC., 2205 North Ontario Street, Burbank, CA 91504 AGEN7: A& S Engineering, 207 West Alameda Avenue, Suite 203, Burbank, CA 91502 LOCATION: 201 South State Colleqe Boulevard. Property is approximatefy 0.72-acre located at the southwest corner of State College Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue (Shell Service Station and Car Wash). Request to retain unpermitted modifications to an existing freestanding sign with waivers of a) maximum area of freestanding signs and b) maximum height of freestanding signs. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None Continued to May 20, 2002 SR1076CW.DOC ~ ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the May 20, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 05-06-02 Page 46 MAY 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 11a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. CLASS 11 11 b. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04495 OWNER: Equilon Enterprises, LLC., 2205 North Ontario Street, Burbank, CA 91504 AGENT: A& S Engineering, 207 West Alameda Avenue, Suite 203, Burbank, CA 91502 LOCATION: 1200 South State Colleae Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.49-acre located at the southeast corner of State College Boulevard and Ball Road (Shell Service Station). Request to retain unpermitted modifications to an existing freestanding sign with waivers of a) maximum area of freestanding signs and b) maximum height of freestanding signs. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. Continued to May 20, 2002 SR1077CW.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ~ ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the May 20, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. i 05-06-02 Page 47 MAY 6, 2002 PLANN(NG COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~ ~ • MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:12 P.M. TO MONDAY, MAY 20, 2002 AT 9:00 A.M. FOR DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL PLANNING OBJECTIVES ASSOCIATED WITH GENERAL PLANNING UPDATE PROGRAMS AND PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: ~ ~~ Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2002. 05-06-02 Page 48