The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 2002/10/21• ~ ~ CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2002 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRPERSON PRO;TELI~P4R~ IAI~IIES VANDERBILT COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: PH~!~~L~S~BO~ST~U~~~f;~TEI~~IEN BRISTOL, GAIL EASTMAN, RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, p/ease complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Koos PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT H:\DOCS\CLERICAL\MINUTESWC102102.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net OCTOBER 21, 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 public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. CONSENT CALENDAR: Items 1-A and 1-B on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-A and 1-B) as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED A. (a) GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY NO. 2002-00021 Determined to be • (b) REQUEST TO DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEM in conformance with the GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED LEASE OF FLOOD Anaheim General Plan CONTROL PROPERTIES FOR GOLF OPERATIONS AND A GOLF LEARNING CEN7ER: John D. Pavlik, Orange County Public Facility (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner & Resource Department, 300 North Fiower Street, Santa Ana, Ca Bostwick absent) 92702-4048, request to determine conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the proposed lease of Orange County Flood Control properties to the City of Anaheim and Tiger Woods Foundation for golf operations and a golf learning center. Property is located at 430-520 North Gilbert Street (Dad Miller Golf Course and Driving Range) and 2045 West Crescent Avenue (Crescent Recharging Basin). ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the County's proposal to lease Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) properties located at 430-520 North Gilbert Street (Dad Miller Golf Course and Driving Range/Gilbert Retarding Basin) and 2045 West Crescent Avenue (Crescent Retarding Basin) for golf operations and a golf learning center is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. General Plan Conformity items have a statutory guideline limitation of 40-days from the date the application is submitted, therefore it is given accelerafed processing and provided to the City Council at an early time. (The 40-day time limitation as required by Section 65402(b) of the Government ~ Code requires the City to act on this item by November 4, 2002, as the application was submitted on September 25, 2002 for the subject request.) SR1139TW.DOC 10-21-02 Page 2 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ~~ ~ B. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of October 7, 2002. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of October 7, 2002. Approved (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Bostwick absent) 10-21-02 Page 3 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 11 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04608 Concurred with staff Granted for 3 years (to expire on October 21, 2005) OWNER: Jerome Remick, MCT Investments LLC, 4616 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Shannon McDonald, Cingular Wireless, 1225 West 1gptn Street, Suite 250, Gardena, CA 90248 LOCATION: 4616 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 0.7-acre having a frontage of 125 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue located 365 feet west of the centerline of Hancock Street. To permit a flagpole telecommunication antenna facility and accessory ground-mounted* equipment in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. "Advertised as roof-mounted equipment. Continued from the October 7, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-158 • SR8453VN.DOC Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt introduced Item No. 2 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04608, 4616 East La Palma Avenue, a request to permit a flagpole telecommunication antenna facility and accessory roof-mounted equipment in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. Commissioner Koos indicated he is abstaining on this item due to his close relationship with the wireless telecommunications industry. While he has previously conferred with the City Attorney and determined that he does not have any financial conflict of interest, he abstains to avoid any potential perceived conflict. ApplicanYs Testimony: Shannon McDonald, 1225 W. 190th St., Suite 250, Gardena, CA, representing Cingular Wireless, states Cingular proposes to place a 60-foot antenna facility disguised as a flagpole focated at the subject site. The equipment, which is necessary to operate the antenna, will be located at the rear portion of the property behind the building. They wish to cover Lakeview Avenue, the 91-Freeway and La Palma Avenue. The reason why this site was chosen is because it is located within one of the light industrial areas and a higher density zone. It seems as though there are two concerns. One is the height and one is the width of the pole. Because there are not a lot of alternatives out there due to not only the typography but also the residential nature of that immediate area, they would need something at 60-feet in order to reach the 91-Freeway due to the distance but also due to the interference factors such as trees and the sound wall at the freeway. In order to enclose the antennas inside the pole, the minimum width of the pole has to be 21 inches in order to get coverage. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt states there were questions raised in the morning session that aflowed Commission to focus on what the concerns were and why staff was not providing a positive ~ recommendation. As mentioned, the issues had to do with height and the diameter of the antenna disguised as the flagpole in question. Commission is aware there are other flagpole antennas that are being constructed which seem to taper to a 16-inch width. 10-21-02 Page 4 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states it was actually 35 feet high and 10 inches at the top. Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt states it tapered to a 10-inch diameter at the top and therefore created a tapering effect making it look more like a flagpole. He asked since that is the kind of flagpole staff seems in favor of, if there is any chance tapering might be possible in the subject matter. Ms. McDonald states reducing the width to 10 inches is not feasible with Cingular's technology. The minimum width with the antennas inside the flagpole is 21 inches. Commissioner Romero wished to clarify if the only way to accomplish their objective is the way it is being proposed and there could be no changes. Felix Von Bormann, 216 35th St., Newport Beach, CA, the Design Network Engineer for Cingular Wireless, states as the engineer, he could always try and figure out something and that he does have something coming down the road, which he could use, but it has not been approved because it does not work with the original equipment. Between a year and two years there will be something they can do but currently they would not get any capacity on the site if they could not use the 21-inch diameter. Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt states the information is helpful in understanding what possibilities might exist in the future. Commissioner Bristol states another person tried to put a tower in Anaheim Hills and for 3 Planning Commission meetings he said the height could not be lowered but miraculously it was suddenly alright to come down so, he asked if the subject antennas could be lowered. Mr. Von Bormann states they performed a drive test at 60 feet and found the best design is to have • something slightly elevated above the local chapter, trees and buildings to give the look down effect so no matter how a person is situated with regard to the building it is on hedge. The 900-mega hertz spectrum is 4 times less flexible in terms of getting around the corners than the 800-mega hertz spectrum, which is an incoming process for AT&T and Nextel. PCS is going to be taller for that reason and therefore, he would be very hesitant to adventure in anything less than 60 feet. Commissioner Bristol asked if tf~e new technology that he spoke of would give more power so that the height is not necessary or if the interference would still be applicable. Mr. Von Bormann responded the more power that goes through would mean more coverage but the balance would be incorrect because a phone would only have a certain power to get back to the site. Commissioner Bristol states in a couple of years the new technology might make it possible to place the tower someplace else because staff is not in favor of the height or the width of the pole and the applicant states they have exhausted all possibilities. Mr. Von Bormann states the location of sites would not affect technology. As technology improves or changes there would still be the same things because they are dealing with frequencies. The major step between PCS and Cellular was the frequency change, which makes at 900, the flexibility approximately four times less than the current one at 800. However, the kind of technology changes he was speaking of is how they combine things, how small they can get the BTS's, cable runs, antennas, etc. That would reduce the frequency capacity on the site and at the same time reduce the natural mechanical limitations. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if what Mr. Bormann is stating is that the equipment would be in place to be able to do that within possibly two years. Mr. Von Bormann states he is speculating but yes, it is happening. ~ Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt states it is a very difficult item to decide on because the need is a growing one. However, he appreciates the desire of the City staff to encourage antennas that provide as 10-21-Q2 Page 5 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • little impact as possible on the community. Commission is able to see that some of the wireless providers are able to do that. But looking at the pFioto simulations of the subject design it unfortunately does not show advancement because it is as wide at the top as it is at the bottom. Ms. McDonald states they expanded the base of the pole per staff's recommendations in order to show the tapering effect but she personally feels 21 inches all the way down looks better than the current proposal. Also, they could paint the flagpole a metal color like other flagpoles around Anaheim. She states it was suggested they put two 30-foot monopoles in the area as opposed to one 60-foot but a 30- foot monopole would not cover the 91-Freeway, and between La Palma Avenue and the 91-Freeway there is no other location to locate another 30-foot flagpole to get the coverage. To the south of the freeway is Paralte Hills, which is an expensive estates; there is Kaiser Permanente, which at first was interested but now is not and across the street from Kaiser is a small community commercial center. So, if they were to have to reduce it to 30-feet they would not reach their objectives in that area to cover the 91-Freeway. Each antenna facility and the property that it is sitting on, is a property specific application. Commissioner Boydstun states it is in the middle of an industrial area where there are no homes and it is something that has become a necessity in today's world. Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt states he is not so much concerned about the height as he is the diameter and the fact that it is so wide at the top that it takes away what otherwise could look like a flagpole. He asked if there is any possible way they could lower the antennas to 55 feet and then continue to taper to the 60 foot point so that it gives the appearance that Commission and staff would be satisfied with. Ms. McDonald states constructability-wise it could be done but it is a tough compromise for Mr. Von Bormann because there are a lot of trees, a sound wall at the 91-Freeway, and Kaiser Permanente which blocks it. ~ Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt asked if trees represent an actual barrier to the radio frequency. Ms. McDonald responded yes, it causes interference and it impedes it. Ms. Boydstun asked how tall the sound wall is. Ms. McDonald responded approximately 30 to 40-feet. They would be shooting from La Palma Avenue all the way across the riverbed, Riverdale and the freeway. Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt states the freeway is elevated. It seems like the signal would over- shoot the trees, the sound wall, river and the neighborhood. Mr. Von Bormann states the freeway being elevated makes it more important for him to get above it and the wall. Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt suggested a continuance to research possibilities. Ms. McDonald states if 55 feet is what the Commissioners would approve with a 5-foot extension at 60 feet so that they could taper the pole, they would accept that. Mr. McCafferty states staff would like to know the height that is needed. Ms. McDonald responded 60 feet is the height needed. Mr. McCafferty asked if 40-foot high poles would do the job or what exactly from a RF perspective, is the technical requirements for the height. ~ 10-21-02 Page 6 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Ms. McDonald responded they have submitted propagation maps to the staff at three heights; 60-feet, 45- feet, and 10-feet. The one with the most red is at 60-feet and the significant reduction is shown at 40- feet. Mr. McCafferty wished to clarify if that was assuming one pole. Ms. McDonald states Mr. Von Bormann has submitted a drive-test map which shows at 60 feet the signal strength changes because of the sound wall, so 55 feet is a very big compromise for him. The 91- Freeway is a key-interconnect between Corona and the Inland Empire up to the Orange County area so it is a big high traffic area along with La Palma Avenue and Lakeview Avenue. Commissioner Bristol asked if there was anything pending as far as residential on the site. Mr. McCafferty responded there was nothing pending. Commissioner Bristol concurs with Commissioner Boydstun and states on the other hand even though it is close it is not so far away and it is big. He suggested a compromise or continuation to see if tapering could be done but feels 5 years is too long. Ms. McDonald responded that it is reasonable to have a specified review period to determine whether the new technology spoken of allows them to reduce the width. Commissioner Bristol referred to staff and asked if they believed the applicants have explored every single facility and the subject site is the only location for it. Mr. McCafferty responded staff feels they have conducted an extensive search analysis and looked at opportunities however staff is not privy to the negotiations and do not know. They have taken an honest • look at the area and staff is not opposed to the location but opposes what the proposal is for the location. Ms. McDonald states they have included a list of ten alternates in the area and she feels they have done their due diligence as far as trying to locate the most appropriate area for an antenna facility. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent and Commissioner Koos abstained), 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 Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04608 (to permit a flagpole telecommunication antenna facility and accessory ground-mounted equipment) for a period of three (3) years, to expire on October 21, 2005, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated October 21, 2002, with the following modifications: Modified Condition No. 1 to read as follows: 1. That the proposed telecommunications facility, consisting of one (1) "flagpole" with three (3) panel antennas enclosed within the pole and accessory ground-mounted ~ equipment shall be permitted for a period of #+ue~5} three (3) years, to expire on October 21, ~AA~ 2005. 10-21-02 Page 7 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ VOTE: 4-1 (Commissioner Bostwick absent, Commissioner Koos abstained and Commissioner Romero voted no) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 33 minutes (1:43-2:16) ~ ~ 10-21-02 Page 8 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04590 (READVERTISED) OWNER: Efren Gutierrez, 1750 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Micaela Munez, 1816 North Broadway, Santa Ana, CA 92706 LOCATION: 1750 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 0.6-acre having a frontage of 140 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue located 640 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street (EI Conejo Feliz Restaurant). Request to permit a public dance hall with a cover charge as an accessory use to a previously approved restaurant with on-premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces Continued from the September 9 and October 7, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to November 18, 2002 SR8457AV.DOC • Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt introduced Item No. 3 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04590, 1750 West Lincoln Avenue - EI Conejo Feliz Restaurant, as a request to permit a public dancehall with a cover charge as an accessory use to a previously-approved restaurant with on-premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Mc McCafferty states staff received a letter of opposition to the proposal by the adjacent property owner to the south of the apartment complex. ApplicanYs Testimony: Vincent T. Sarmiento, representing EI Conejo Feliz Restaurant states they have had a chance to review the staff report and realize there are concerns. He would like additional time to sit down with the departments that have concerns and problems with the application; namely, the Planning Department, Police Department, and the property owner that is adjacent to the location to find out what some of the specific problems and concerns are and to see if there is any sort of mitigation measure that could be taken on his clients part to resolve the issue. Public Testimony: Harash Kakar, owner of the apartments located at 1742 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA, directly south of the restaurant states tf~ere is a 43-unit apartment in which the tall apartments are located on the front side. The distance between the restaurant and the brick wall is approximately 200 feet. Residents complain that noise comes from the restaurant whenever the music plays and the children cannot sleep at night. Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt states the applicant has stated they are aware of a lot of the issues ~ and would like to try to address them in the next couple of weeks and he hopes that includes a discussion with the neighbors about particular concerns. He suggested Mr. Kakar, although welcome to amplify his 10-21-02 Page 9 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ concerns, would allow the applicant to approach them and address concerns directly with them to see if there is a possible resolution before returning before Commission. Mr. Kakar states they hired an attorney and their attorney would like to speak to the applicanYs attorney to see if they could resolve issues. Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt states if the item is brought before Commission again and there has not been a discussion that would be a large concern weighing against taking any action because the neighbors' input is very important. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: A letter was received, prior to the meeting, in opposition to the public dance hali. One person spoke in opposition to the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun temporarily absent and Commissioner Bostwick absent), to continue the subject request to the November 18, 2002, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the applicant time to meet with concerned neighbors and address concerns. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Boydstun temporarily absent and Commissioner Bostwick absent) ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (2:17-2:26) ~~ ~ 10-21-02 Page 10 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3 4b. VARlANCE NO. 2002-04534 OWNER: Valerie S. Ford, 747 North Lemon Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 747 North Lemon Street. Property is approximately 0.19- acre having a frontage of 53 feet on the west side of Lemon Street, located 170 feet south of the centerline of North Street. Waiver of maximum fence height to retain and permit an existing 6-foot high wrought iron fence within the required front yard setback. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-159 Concurred with staff Denied SR8450AV.DOC Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt introduced Item No. 4 as Variance No. 2002-04534, 747 North Lemon Street, a request to retain and permit an existing 6-foot high wrought iron fence within the required front yard setback. ~J Commissioner Koos indicated he is abstaining on this item due to his close relationship with the wireless telecommunications industry. While he has previously conferred with the City Attorney and determined that he does not have any financial conflict of interest, he abstains to avoid any potential perceived conflict. Applicant's Testimony: Valerie Ford, 747 N. Lemon St., Anaheim, CA, states she has lived in Anaheim since she was 4 years old and loves her neighborhood. Ultimately her intention is for the highest good of all concerned. Her reason for being present is that she has a 4 and 7-year-old who came into her life in the past year. She read a letter of explanation, which was submitted, to Commission for public record. The letter expressed concern with the quantity of traffic, high speed on Lemon Street, gangs, transients and sex offenders. Also, since there are 6-foot high fences to the north and south of their location they were unaware their fence did not meet City Codes. Their fence does not obstruct the driveway nor obscure the front of the house. The fence is 5 feet at its lowest height and could easily be accessed by fire or emergency services. As a historical structure the house has been significantly modified over the years inside and out and they researched what would be the most appropriate fence for a Victorian Vernacular house. According to several books and architects she consulted, wrought iron is the appropriate style and that is why she chose it. Some of the books consulted were Victorian Houses by E. Gillan, Treasury of Iron Work Designs by Graftan, Art New Vogue Decorative Iron Work by Menton, Wrought Iron Victorian Houses and Architectural by Gilans. She also went on the web site under "The Old House" where she consulted several persons. In addition, she visited the second floor of the Anaheim Library Historic Room where there is a large drawing of the City, and observed that apparently when the property was built in 1863, there was an enclosure around the house. She submitted the signatures of her immediate neighbors supporting the fence and states she has the support of Dave Dematto of the Neighborhood Preservation Office; and Mr. Larson of the Anaheim Historic Society. She brought a copy of a random Police Report for the northeast sector, stating numerous auto thefts, domestic abuse, numerous residential burglaries, assaults, drugs, commercial burglaries, and even a gang murder at the corner of Lincoln and Sycamore Streets. Therefore she is concerned for the protection of her children, herself and her pets. • 10-21-02 Page 11 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Public Testimony: Barbara Gonzalez, 330 S. Ohio Street, Anaheim, CA, states this is the second time in approximately two months she has spoken in opposition in the granting of a variance for a property owner that has erected a fence which was not in compliance with the Building Code. Frequently the fences are constructed and then after a visitation from Code Enforcement the property owner comes to Planning Commission or City Council and request that a variance is granted. The last property was on North Rose, and the block wall was completed by the time the owner indicated she was unaware of the height limitations. She recalls at the last City Council meeting the mayor and City Council directed City staff to find a way to avoid having this uncomfortable position before both the Planning Commission and City Council where they have to judge the appropriateness of having something built that is not in compliance with the building code. Her request to the Planning Commission is if there are standards and the standard is 3 feet then property owners, because they are property owners, need to be aware of what the guidelines are in the City and not begin construction unless they investigate whether it is legal or not. Ms. Gonzalez's states unfortunately there has been a proliferation of block wall and wrought iron fences that have been built in front yards in the last couple of years and her understanding is that from 1999 forward, it has not been permitted. Therefore, she asks that the standard be complied with and that the situation not go any farther. She feels it is uncomfortable and not good use of anyone's time to have the issue continuously brought before board, such as the Planning Commission and City Council when obviously there are guidelines and it is up to the City Council to enforce those guidelines and for Planning Commission to try and determine whether it is an appropriate structure. Michelle Lieberman, 319 N. Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA, concurs with Ms. Gonzalez that it is frustrating for neighbors in the area to watch again and again, these type fences going up and Anaheim residents find out after the fact that they are not in Code Compliance and end up bringing the neighborhood into situations such as the subject matter. She recently had her fence altered as a result of ~ putting in a pool and states the very first thing she did was visit the Building Department to find out what she could and could not do. Residents in the City need to find out ahead of time that there are code requirements. That they cannot just build any type of structure and do anything they want on their properties, there are limits. The fence is too high and she requests that Commission have the property owner make the fence compliant. Teresa Ferreira, 727 N. Zeyn St., Anaheim, CA., states she has lived in the neighborhood for 40 years and she is opposed to the fence because it destroys the character. She understands there are some fences on North Street that have brick walls and high fences, but it destroys the openness, the greenbelt, which they are all looking forward to in the Anaheim colony historic district. She realizes the applicant said that there were people who said it was okay and that they are residents of the historic district but she held brochures that come from the Anaheim Historic District and all of them state the fences should be down 3 feet, that they should be open-air picket fences and that the City does not recommend wrought iron or fan designs. Also, it does not fit the zoning. There is a problem in the neighborhood where someone put up a 6-foot fence and it blocks out the view. It is like they are living in the barrio, where they are in little shoots. First there are 6-foot fences and then later on there are vines installed on them. So, maybe the neighbors next door think it is okay but when they sale and someone else moves in they will have a 6-foot wall. She suggests cutting it down and going back with a 15-foot setback. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Phyllis Mueller, Neighborhood Development Coordinator, referred to the letter Commissioners received from the Architectural Resources Group, and states when they discovered that the fence was under construction she received permission to retain the services of the Architectural Resources Group to provide an opinion from their professional point of view. The letter indicates if there were any fences for houses of that vintage at that time, usually they would be no higher than 3 feet, which happens to be the limit that is set by code, and that those fences would be simple wooden picket fences, which were the ~ common fences at the time. In contrast to the front yard, the back yard was considered the private area and the front yard was considered the public area. In the last paragraph, it talks about the U. S. Secretary and interior standards and points out that those standards recommend that the design and 10-21-02 Page 12 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ scale of any new features to the property be compatible with the historic character of the building and the site. She feels the subject fence, at 6 feet is incompatible with the historic character of the home. Page 4, Condition No. 4 of the staff report, states that the City Council approved the establishment of the Historic District in 1997and also a Historic Preservation Plan was approved and distributed to the community. There are a couple of pages in the report that speaks specifically about fences and it states they are discouraged because they interrupt the continuous greenbelt and dilute the neighborhood character of the street. The Historic Guidelines further describes the types of fences that may be appropriate, and those include picket fences altering vertical style fences and lattice wood panels. The guidelines also specifically mention wrought iron fencing as not recommended. It is the intent of the Preservation Plan to be a voluntary document. It is not a Code requirement such as the 3 feet height. There is concern expressed by residents of the community that the fence, if it were allowed, would set a precedent for others to come to Commission and ask for a permit to build fences that are 5 and 6 feet high. If that happens, a time and again up and down N. Lemon Street the entire neighborhood character would change. It is the open vista that brings out the historic character of a neighborhood. Sean Conklin, 742 N. Lemon St., Anaheim, CA, states he lives approximately 180 feet south of the centerline of N. Street, directly across from 747 N. Lemon Street and has a direct view of the fence in question. He is in favor of keeping the fence. He states The Anaheim Colony is kind of an interesting place. It is holding onto maintaining the look and feel of an old community and at the same time living in a 20th Century world where there are semi-trucks rolling down the street at 2 a.m. in excess of 35 miles an hour; Police helicopters circle homes at midnight; and gangs live in and around Pearson Park, but it is a good neighborhood. He enjoys the neighborhood a lot. He also had an opportunity to attend a function happening within the realm of the fence. It was a birthday party of a young child with approximately 20 children and numerous adults. The entire party took place in the front yard. A couple days later, after the party, another neighbor who lives on Lemon Street who had the opportunity to drive past the party stated, ~ "wow, that is why they built the fence, the fence is there to protect the children, to protect the yard". The brochure he read states fences are supposed to be 3 feet high but he does not feel that works. He states it may have worked a couple of years ago, but as the neighborhood grows and things grow around it, other things need to grow too. He feels the fence is appropriate. People state that it is 6-feet high and it should be torn down but only part of it is 6-feet high, some of it is 5 feet high. It alternates 6 to 5 feet and it has a nice sloping effect making it easy to see the things that stick out most. He can see the house, the stairs of the house, trees, and a little patio set made out of white resin chairs, etc. There is very delicate latticework of the wrought iron fence. He can see the entire house, the grass and the pathway leading up to the house, and even the trees that were planted behind the fence. He is the only person who lives in eyeshot of the house and the fence. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Eastman asked the applicant if she is familiar with the Historic Preservation Plan as set forth in the book that was approved by the City Council. Ms. Ford responded there is nothing in the booklet about codes or heights of fences to her recollection, but that she had the letter Ms. Mueller read. Portions of that letter mentioned the fact that wrought iron was indeed used in Victorian homes and in fact, all of the resources that she mentioned for Victorian Vernacular homes, wrought iron is appropriate. Ms. Ford states what she would like to skip to is the concern for her children. None of the people mentioned her children. They are worried about the look of their neighborhood, and she understands that but she did mention there was a murder in their neighborhood. Commissioner Eastman states that is not what Commission has to consider. Ms. Ford states she is concerned about the safety of her family and herself. ~ Commissioner Boydstun asked why there wasn't a gate on the fence. 10-21-02 Page 13 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Ms. Ford responded there is a gate. When the pictures were taken it was not fully constructed. Commissioner Romero asked if she anticipated opposition when she was putting the fence up. Ms. Ford responded actually no, not at all. They have driven up and down Lemon Street for many years and see fences to the north and south of them and also one on Helena Street, which no one has mentioned. It is a 5-foot fence that was constructed during the summer. Commissioner Eastman asked if she had reported it because it is her understanding that Code Enforcement does not go after fences proactively it is only when someone actually reports they are seeing a fence go up that is contrary to code. She feels that would not happen if people pulled the proper building permits and go through proper procedures to get it approved before building. Ms. Ford states Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, informed her that a Building Permit would not be necessary for the fence. Commissioner Eastman asked if she contacted Planning and Zoning to make sure it would be okay in her zoning area. Ms. Ford states no, as stated previously there are fences up and down their street and there are 40 fences in their district. She feels a 3-foot fence would not be effective these days. Commissioner Boydstun states she has very mixed feelings because she likes the fence and yet she understands it is against City code. It should have had a permit, but on the other hand it is not a solid fence, does not block the view or cut the air off and being open as it is, it does not make it offensive. Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt states when the applicant mentioned the park he initially believed • that was something to consider but then he thought about the proximity to the park and realizes there is some distance. There are homes on Lemon Street that are directly across the street and the applicant's home is farther up on Lemon Street. He asked her to specify more clearly how the park influences her in terms of safety or crime. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Ms. Ford, states the park is approximately 3 blocks from the house but the point is the people that created the gang murder is at large in the neighborhood and she does not know if they were ever caught. She understands that you cannot condemn someone for the way they dress and she does not know if they are committing crimes, but there are lots of young men roaming around with skinhead haircuts and the classic gang clothes. Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt states the reason he is exploring the issue is because safety may present a possible circumstance to be considered. He referred to Ms. Mueller and states the applicant mentioned extensive research with respect to the type of fence but reading through the staff report and the letter she mentioned with the consultant, it does not agree with what the applicant was saying with respect to her research. He concurs with Commissioner Boydstun in that the fence does have a certain character, unlike other wrought iron fences seen in the neighborhood that include block wall construction and it is conceivable that perhaps there was a time when such fences were used. Ms. Mueller responded they did not get opinions from professional architects and do not know whether Ms. Ford received anything in writing from Historic architects because she told Commission verbally that she consulted with them. However, if they were to go to the historic room and look at pictures that were taken of houses around 1900-1922, the predominant property type was such that basically they did not have fences period. Pretty much it was opened farm-like and no one knows whether the subject property ever had one, but she did not feel it would have been one {ike the one that she has now. She belives the ~ proposed fence would not have existed during the period of significance of the house. She concurs the fence does have a certain artful flare to it but cannot concur that it is appropriate to the historic character and architecture of the house. 10-21-02 Page 14 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ She states she and Mr. Hastings (Zoning Division Manager) met with Ms. Ford to suggest lowering the existing fence to 3 feet, take it down or apply for a variance, and she chose to apply for a variance. Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt states he is not asking so much about the legal possibilities, but artistically or historically if the fence were 3 feet high and they were not present discussing the merits of it in terms of its height, would she as a historic expert, say the fence would be in character with the building, Ms. Mueller responded it would be more so but still not in character with the historic nature of the house. What would be more appropriate, speaking of safety of the children, would be to replace the existing fence with a picket fence that is 3 feet tall. Commissioner Eastman referred to staff and wished to know since the property has a large setback if there is any portion of the front yard that could conceivably, within their code, contain a fence such as the proposed one. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, responded the property is zoned RM-2400 so the front setback would be 15 feet and they could construct a higher fence outside the 15-foot setback. Commissioner Eastman wished to clarify if he was stating if the fence were to be moved back 15 feet from the sidewalk or 15 feet from the street. Mr. McCafferty clarified 15 feet from the ultimate right-of-way, which typically is back a sidewalk. Commissioner Eastman states if Ms Ford had checked with the City to see what was acceptable and what was not, in the way of fencing and the fence were back 15 feet, Commission would not be discussing the issue. ~ Mr. McCafferty concurs with Commissioner Eastman and states a clarification needs to be made that there are two levels of approval. One is the zoning approval for the height and where it is located and depending upon the type of fence, it may require a building permit. Typically, wrought iron and chain link fences do not require building permits but block walls do. Commissioner Bristol concurs with Commissioner Boydstun that it is a very difficult decision to make. He states he has driven the area twice and cannot get over how pretty the setback of the entire street is. The fence, even though it is mostly open, does change the setback of the property. Therefore, he feels the fence should be removed or moved toward the back and that would protect the children and keep the integrity of the setback for the street. OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke in opposition, and a letter was received prior to the meeting, in opposition to the subject request. IN SUPPORT: One person spoke in favor of the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent and Commissioner Koos abstained), 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. ~ Denied Variance No. 2002-04534 (for waiver to retain and permit an existing 6-foot high wrought iron fence within the required front yard setback), based upon the testimony 10-21-02 Page 15 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ presented at today's meeting and as stated in the staff report dated October 21, 2002, as follows: (i) That there are no special circumstances applicable to the property pertaining to topography, location, and surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity. (ii) That since no other front yard fence height variances have been granted within the vicinity of the subject site, strict application of the Zoning Code would not deprive this property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. (iii) That ample recreation/leisure area exists in the secured rear yard of this property. VOTE: 4-1 (Commissioner Boydstun voted no, Commissioner Koos abstained and Commissioner Bostwick absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 40 minutes (2:27-3:07) ~ ~ 10-21-02 Page 16 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3939 (TRACKING NO. CUP2002-04619) OWNER: ALL AMERICAL PETROLEUM Corp., 301 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim CA 92805 AGENT: Jerry Zomorodian, 25105 Mustang Drive, Laguna Hill, CA 92653 LOCATION: 301 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.93-acre located at the southwest corner of Broadway and Anaheim Boulevard (ARCO Service Station) To amend previously-approved exhibits and conditions of approval pertaining to signage (to permit and retain 2 unpermitted wall signs, modify 1 existing wall sign, modify 6 existing informational signs and construct 2 directional signs), and modification to conditions of approval pertaining to hours of operation and operational conditions pertaining to the convenience market and the retail sales of beer and wine for a previously-approved service station with a full-service car wash and accessory convenience market with fast-food and sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption with waiver of permitted sign copy for freestanding entrance or exit signs. ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-160 Approved Denied Approved, in part (To amend CUP, approving the "car wash" sign on the north elevation of the car wash building.) SR8459AV.DOC Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt introduced Item No. 5 as Conditional Use Permit No. 3939, 301 South Anaheim Boulevard - Arco Service Station, a request to amend previously-approved exhibits and conditions of approval pertaining to signage (to permit and retain 2 unpermitted wall signs, modify 1 existing wall sign, modify 6 existing informational signs and construct 2 directional signs), and modification to conditions of approval pertaining to hours of operation and operational conditions pertaining to the convenience market and the retail sales of beer and wine for a previously-approved service station with accessory full service car wash and accessory convenience market with fast food and sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption with waiver of permitted sign copy for freestanding entrance or exit signs. ApplicanYs Testimony: Jerry Zomorodian, 301 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA, President of The All-American Petroleum Corp., states with a strong growing economy it is important they have as many opportunities to communicate with their potential customers as possible. They need the signs and modifications of a beer and wine license approved in order to remain competitive. There is an existing approval for the $6.99 sign. The conditions dated February 19, 1998 states, "approve the logo sign on the pump island canopy and the gasoline pump and informational sign at the end of the pumps". He believes the sign is informational. It gives information to their customers regarding the 100% hand car wash and the price of it. ~ Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt asked if he would say his justification for each is consistent with providing information for his customers to make them aware of the availability of the car wash and that their placement is designed as such. 10-21-02 Page 17 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Zomorodian responded yes, after the first approval (Conditional Use Permit of February 18, 1998) he came back and requested five items and one of them was the informational sign. Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt states since staff is in agreement with some of the signs, Commission would focus on the signs which they have concerns with and that being the car wash sign 15 square feet on the north end of the building over the car wash tunnel. Mr. McCafferty states staff is not opposed to that sign. Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt states the second sign is 100% Hand Car wash. Mr. McCafferty responds that sign was permitted previously and the only issue before the Commission is the condition by the City Council that it display either the name of the business, fuel pricing, or 24-hour operation. However, Mr. Zomorodian is asking to have the sign copy that he is currently proposing. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify that it was previously-approved but with a different content. Mr. McCafferty responded that is correct. Mr. Zomorodian referred to Mr. McCafferty and asked what is the difference between the price of the gas and the price of the car wash. He feels if he has approval for the sign and already has the monument sign he should be able to use between the names of the tenant, which is "Arco Anaheim Center City Center Car wash", or "100% car wash -$6.99", in order to help his business. Mr. McCafferty responded staff's reasoning is that most of the signs the applicant requests to have, state the same thing, "$6.99 car wash". He asks if it is really appropriate to have that many signs for a sign program that identifies the site saying the same thing. It is not a matter of what the sign says, it is how ~ much it says it. Commissioner Koos referred to the pump islands signs he believes to be new. Mr. Zomorodian responded they do not have a pump-island. Mr. McCafferty states they are informational signs, the intent was to direct the patron to pull forward so as not to block a pump, which is what informational signs mean. However, Mr. Zomorodian wants to have the opportunity to change that out to have car wash advertisement there as well. Mr. Zomorodian states they already have the "pull forward" signs at the end of each canopy and that is the reason they returned on February 18, 1998 and requested to be able to get the informational signs. Otherwise it should be directional, not informational. Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt referred to the signs that sit on the grassy area, the freestanding directional signs. Mr. Zomorodian states they are needed to emphasize the entrance to the car wash. He could put the full name of the business or just AM PM car wash entrance. There are no signs to represent his car wash. The logo represents the AM PM and the car wash is separate. Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt referred to the monument sign. Mr. Zomorodian states he had a meeting with staff and his understanding is that both the Commission and City Council gave him the option of triangle or beveled signs and he chose to use the triangle sign. According to square footage of each side he is able to have 65 square feet, according to planning staff and currentfy he is at 140 to 143 square feet. Therefore, 1 X 12 X 3 should still be on course. ~ Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt referred to the issue regarding the sale of individual cans of alcohol. 10-21-02 Page 18 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Zomorodian states he has studied 11 locations and seven or eight of them are in less than one mile from his location. Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt asked if what he was saying is that essentially those businesses sale individual cans of alcohol and he is feeling that he should be permitted to do the same. Mr. Zomorodian responded yes, and that he wished to ask Sergeant Smith if he did not sale a single beer what would happen. The customer's desire would go away; he would buy a Pepsi, Coca Cola or a six- pack and drink more beer or he would go down the street and purchase from another location. Also, in his location next to Disneyland they are permitted to sale single cans. Graciella Silva, 301 S. Anaheim Boulevard, states she has been working with Mr. Zomorodian at All- American Petroleum for approximately two years and at the Arco station located at Ball Road and Disneyland Drive they are able to sell single beer or single cans. Their customers are local people and they have never seen anybody drinking outside or inside their cars. As an employee of All-American Petroleum they are trained and constantly reminded to avoid sales to any intoxicated person, should there be any. They would like to have the same opportunity at their location on Broadway and Anaheim Boulevard. They have a full staff working at the car wash and their manager Bruce is always aware and checking outside premises in order to maintain a nice environment. There are no homeless people sitting or walking around the premise and he makes sure the customers feel comfortable at all times. There is at least a customer a day that walks inside the store and tries to purchase a single beer. After telling them they do not sell single beers the customers asks where they can purchase a single beer. They are constantly trained for alcohol sells and have at least one meeting per month for any suggestions and comments. Therefore, she believes there should not be any reason why they should not be able to sell single beers at the proposed location. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ Mr. Zomorodian submitted two letters from adjacent neighbors regarding their support. Commissioner Bristol states it has been years since Commission has approved singles. He referred to Sergeant Smith and asked if it is true what he is hearing in reference to singles being sold and the fact that the applicant has them at his other location. Sergeant Smith, Police Dept, responded yes, he reviewed the list of 8 locations that sell singles and one of them is 1037 W. Ball Road. All of the locations were issued permits and licenses in the 1970's and 1980's and within approximately the past 6 or 7 years the Police Department has recommended conditions and one of the conditions being, not to sell singles. The big issue with selling singles is the wellbeing and overa{I quality of fife for the residence of Anaheim. He has been a Police Officer for over 20 years and has seen on many occasions over the years where transients will purchase a single can or bottle of beer. They sometimes do not have the money to purchase more than a single, but the main reason is they do not have the means to keep multiple cans or bottles cold. They do not have a refrigerator so they buy one at a time. They will go somewhere and drink it; it may not be on the property it may be in an alley or park or somewhere nearby and then they will return and buy another. And that can create more crime in the community. Also, another concern that they have is the traffic issue. Usually when a person buys a single can or bottfe of beer they are going to drink it right away but if they buy a six-pack or a 12-pack usually they take it somewhere else. Someone often times will buy a single can of beer and as they drive off after they have gotten their gas, etc., drink it on the way home, and that is the type of things the Anaheim Police Department is trying to prever-t. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify if the Arco on the southwest corner of State College Boulevard and Katella Avenue was not built after the new program started. Mr. McCafferty clarifies the station was rebuilt fairly recently and there could be a condition on the • approval that prohibits the sell of singles. 10-21-02 Page 19 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if Ms. Silva stated that the station on Disneyland Drive and Ball Road sales singles. Mr. Zomorodian responded yes. Commissioner Boydstun clarified it was an existing business when they purchased it. Commissioner Koos states there was a variance and Commission did not condition the variance on the expansion of the cooler. Mr. McCafferty feels the use was already established. Mr. Zomorodian clarified it was a transfer of the license and that he also purchased another location on Brookhurst Street and Crescent Avenue and they already sold singles. Commissioner Bristol asked Sergeant Smith what his theory was on selling alcohol at 6 a.m., since many businesses sale alcohol at 6 a.m. versus 8 a.m. disregarding singles but alcohol in total. Sergeant Smith responded the Police Department is concerned with the overall availability of alcohol connected to crime. There are many studies that show a direct correlation between an increase in alcohol availability to an increase in crime, and that is one of the Police DepartmenYs concerns when conditions and ABC licenses come up for PCN (Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity), etc. So as far as the hours of operation, routinely in the past they have requested no alcohol sales before 10 a.m. The proposed location is not in a residential neighborhood specifically, so out of the two issues the Police Department is primarily concerned with the singles issue. Commissioner Bristol states the staff report states the crime rate is up by double since 1998 when it was ~ approved. Sergeant Smith responded it is currently 143% above average. Commissioner Bristol states in 1997 it was 62% according to the staff report of June 9, 1997. Sergeant Smith referred to a memo dated 1998 indicating crime rates in various areas and it showed 301 S. Anaheim Boulevard as 84°/a above average and that would have reflected 1997. In 1999 it showed 301 S. Anaheim Boulevard as 200% above crime and that would have reflected the 1998 or 1999 year. Commissioner Koos asked Mr. Zomorodian to hetp Commission understand what customer base there is for alcohol or beer and wine use between 6 and 8 a.m. Mr. Zomorodian responded he actually does not have a base for the customer between 6 and 8 a.m. but the reason he made the proposal is because he wanted to be able to compete with other businesses and did not want any unfair decisions in his location. He states if the City of Anaheim, and the Police Department feels single beer is bad on crime, he would want to be the first person to sign the petition to ban single beer from all the liquor stores and gas stations in the City of Anaheim. He asked if it is bad for society, why are manufacturers permitted to make it. Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt states there is a jurisdiction within the city limits and they do not have the ability to influence manufacturing or how the beer is distributed or the combinations of packaging. Mr. Zomorodian states he does not want to look like a bad guy when asking for singles. He is a businessman and has to compete with the economy in order to make money. ~ Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt states in all fairness, he sees a lot of customers going in and out of his store more so than any of the smaller liquor stores shown in the Commissioners' packages. 10-21-02 Page 20 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Zomorodian states the reason is because he keeps his gas prices low and fair, and customers come to take advantage of that. Commissioner Boydstun referred to Mr. Zomorodian and stated for many years Commission has eliminated the single can with every new business. Mr. Zomorodian came in on Ball Road and took over an existing business and consequently it was there, but they have to start somewhere to try and improve. Mr. Zomorodian states but there are seven stores less than a mile on Anaheim Boulevard next to his store. Commissioner Boydstun states if it ever gets to the point where it can be stopped everywhere then he would not have it at Ball Road anymore either. Mr. Zomorodian states it does not matter, if nobody has it then he does not want to have it either, but if seven of 11 stores in one mile have it, he feels he should have it also. THE MEETING RECONVENED. Mr. McCafferty states the service station that the applicant is referring to is the Arco station at the southwest corner of Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard. They did a teardown and reconstruction of the center in 1996, but the station was there prior to that. In looking at the resolution that approved the station he found there were conditions intended to restrict the sale of alcoholic beverage or beer and wine sales but the condition that pertains specifically to selling singles was not included. Historically the applicant requested in 1998 to do the same thing to be relieved of that condition and the Planning Commission extended the hours of it but held the line on the sale of singles. He states just because other establishments in the area do not currently have the condition does not mean it is a prudent thing for the Commission to do. If that logic were accepted and spread across the • land use decisions, Commission would never improve anything in the City. Staff Concurs with Sergeant Smith, it is a necessary condition. It is intended to prevent potential criminal activity. As the Police Department gets more sophisticated with knowing what the impacts of the sale of alcohol are, their conditions are refined continually. The subject condition was one added to the menu of conditions that were recommended within approximately the past 5 years. Commissioner Boydstun states she looks at it as a Building Code, etc; if it is changed on the electric even though 40 years ago they did not have to do it but now have to, from that time on everyone would have to comply. Linda Johnson, Principal Planner, states regarding the service station at the northwest corner of Ball Road and Disneyland Drive, specifically where they have the condition that Commission is contemplating for the proposed project, that project did not include that condition, it was not brought up at the time. That project was primarily to expand a cooler area on the mini-mart and to change the facade of the service station. In looking at the background on the project, it was approved in 2000 and the last time it was modified in 1998 and that Conditional Use Permit included a condition that they comply with the code relative to service stations and the sale of alcoholic beverages in conformance with provisions in the code. Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt states it is clear that Commission now have an understanding of why staff's position is what it is and why it may appear on the surface to be a contradiction. It is due to the fact that the issue really is a matter of timing and the various businesses that are allowed to sale alcohol in single can sizes do so. Commissioner Koos states generally when it comes to contents the City of Anaheim's tradition is to not regulate content of signage, but in this case for whatever reason, City Council was specific on the content. ~~ 10-21-02 Page 21 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. McCafferty does not feel the City Council was speaking necessarily on the content but about an overall comprehensive sign program for the site and what made sense in any particular location per sign so that it would not be duplicated. Commissioner Koos states it is somewhat of an important issue here irrespective of the new signs and what the spirit of the approval was of the City Council. He asked Assistant City Attorney Mann if she believes the action on behalf of the City Council is within their powers given the issues of free speech, etc., or if it could simply be reviewed as directional, safety, etc., or certainly within their purview in terms of the contents of the signs. He wished to know if it were coming forward today, would she advise Commission to regulate content. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, responded she would not advise Commission to regulate specifically what a sign would need to say, and would agree there would be some first amendment issues involved. However, in regard to the aesthetics and proliferation of signs, traditionally cities have categorized such as informational signs, directional signs, etc. Because she was not present at the City Council meeting it may very well be that it is as Mr. McCafferty suggested, that what the City Council was looking at was a sign program and that is what actually got approved rather than expressively what a particular sign stated; the categorization of certain signs that indicate direction of where something is located as opposed to informational signs with regard to prices. She feels general categories would not be inappropriate. Commissioner Koos states a part of Commission's job at times is to interpret, especially when there are previous entitlements, to interpret the intention of the City Council when it is otherwise vague. It is possible that the City Council in approving the six pump-island signs was doing so under the premise that they were speaking of which way to pull into the pump islands rather than thinking that they were approving signage in general. He asked staff if that is their interpretation. ~ Mr: McCafferty states the signs says, "Pull Forward". Commissioner Koos states as well as staff believes that City Council was probably under the understanding that the 24-hour sign was informing customers through public awareness that the establishment is open 24-hours and that was the intent of their action. They were not intending to allow just any signage at all. Mr. McCafferty states in staff's view when service stations come in, staff gives their recommendations to Commission and Commission considers as well as City Council the overall sign package, not necessarily what any individual sign states but how it all fits together on the site to make it understandable to someone who wishes to visit the center, whether it is open 24-hours, car wash, pull forward so that a pump-island is not blocked, etc. As an advertisement device, that is truly needed but not to specifically state that a particular text on a sign is not permitted. Commissioner Koos asked Mr. Zomorodian if he finds that since he has removed the directional aspects of his signage the customer has any issue problems with maneuvering around the site. Mr. Zomorodian states he did not remove it, though maybe on the photo presented one can see that it is pull forward on the dispenser, but the majority of the dispensers come with that sticker intact. Mr. McCafferty states when Commission is deliberating on the issues with regard to the monument sign modification in order to approve the tack-on on the three sides for a car wash, one of two things would have to happen; 1) Staff would have to readvertise that aspect of it because it would be exceeding the maximum sign area allowed for a 3-sided monument sign, and 2) Commission could request staff, as a review item, to reduce the overa{I copy area to comply with the code so that everything is complying within the code maximum for sign copy (area). ~ Mr. Zomorodian referred to the staff report dated January 21, 1998 that said maximum 65 square foot monument sign is allowed for each side and due to that he has the option to use triangle or double. 10-21-02 Page 22 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Therefore, he feels he should be able to have 180 square feet, which today he only has 160 to 170 square feet. Mr. McCafferty concurs Mr. Zomorodian is correct if it is a double sided monument. However, the code further specifies if it is a multifaced sign the total sign area of all such faces should be a maximum of 130 square feet. Therefore, a double sided monument sign would be the lesser of 65 square feet per face or .5 square feet per linear for the street frontage. Mr. Zomorodian states that was the reason they came to the City Council and received the variance for the proposed site. Commissioner Koos states the issue is that the second sign is brand new since the entitlement was approved in 1998 and this is a sign that indicates pricing. Commissioner Romero states during the morning of his visit it was abundantly clear that if he wanted to get a car wash there he could. He could not complete a transaction with a credit card without it asking him if he wanted a car wash or from the gentleman walking up to him and handing him a flyer and asking if he wanted a car wash. He feels more signs implicating the car wash are unnecessary and that less is definitely more. It is a very nice station and more signs would clutter it up. Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt referred to the third item, the wall sign that is a modification on the north elevation. Commissioner Koos states the AM PM previously had a sign that displayed a"big 24". Mr. Zomorodian responded unfortunately finro times it was stolen and then he replaced it with something else but after the car wash became full service they needed more signs. ~ Commissioner Koos asked if Arco did not have certain branding or certain signage that he must have. Mr. Zomorodian responded Arco likes to have a promotion every month. Any other Arco would have a promotion and therefore many pictures would be seen on the site. However, he put the promotion on one time and Code Enforcement told him that he was not able to have them. So after that he stopped doing it. Commissioner Koos states he supports the word "car wash" probably less than 25 feet away to the right of the sign. Mr. Zomorodian states he has less signage per square feet compared to the majority of the car washes in the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Koos referred to Mr. Zomorodian as a reference point as someone who wants to raise the standards across the board of how the City of Anaheim looks and states a lot of the issues being discussed with respect to the places that sell singles as well as most of the car washes in town probably would not have gotten singles if it had come before the Planning Commission today and they would not end up looking the way they look. It is referencing development standards and what is acceptable from the past. If that were going to be Commission's justification Commission would never be able to impose new design standards. He understands the applicanYs predicament but does not necessarily subscribe to it. Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt concurs he understands the philosophical position that the applicant and staff have. Commissioner Bristol suggested staying with the staff report stating four years ago it would have been an ~ issue for a lot of reasons; it was a very pivotat site, the signage became a tremendous issue, especially when the car wash came in, and also the alcohol is a huge issue. Therefore, to do anything different is going backwards. 10-21-02 Page 23 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Eastman concurs and states Commission and staff are really trying hard to raise the standard in Anaheim and one of the things they have done to try and raise the standard, not only in appearance but in the area of crime, in the addressing of single sales of alcohol. Any give on those points would push things backwards rather than forwards. The proposed site is a main intersection in the City of Anaheim therefore, she concurs with Commissioner Romero sometimes less is better. Commissioner Boydstun states the only two signs she feels are necessary are the ones over the car wash and she cannot understand the applicant wanting to have the two directional signs of how to enter. Commissioner Bristol states the directional signs have been approved by the original Conditional Use Permit but the text is different, the applicant added the "Van" sign, which was not permitted. Mr. McCafferty states there is another station down Harbor Boulevard south of Vermont Street that Commission recently approved a few years ago that has been cited for the very same reasons so what Commission approves today may cause others to come in and request the same thing. I FOLLOWING 15 A SUMMAKY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION_ I OPPOSITION: None IN $UPPORT: Two letters were received in support of the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration • is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved, in part, to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 3939 (Tracking No. CUP2002- 04619) denying all the requested sign modifications (including the waiver pertaining to permitted sign copy area for freestanding directional signs), with the exception of the "car wash" sign on the north elevation of the car wash building facing Broadway. Incorporated conditions of approval contained in Resolution Nos. 97R-137, PC98-166 and PC2000-27 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition No. 34 is a new condition; and Condition No. 4 was modified at today's meeting): That final sign plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Division. Any decision of the Zoning Division may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. That the roofing shall consist of Spanish tile or another similar type roof, as may be approved by the Planning Commission. 3. That all signs shall be of high quality and if internally lit "can" signs are proposed, such signs shall consist of individually routed letters similar to those used in the Anaheim Civic Center retail store fronts. 4. That the signs on subject property shall be limited to: (i) One, maximum eight (8) foot high, triangular monument sign located near ~ the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and Broadway and subject to approval by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for line-of-sight 10-21-02 Page 24 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ considerations. The monument sign shall include a brick base and shall be placed in a landscaped planter area; and (ii) Two (2) wall signs, one (1) facing each street and not exceeding finrenty- five (25) sq.ft. each. Such signs shall display only the name of the tenants and/or a tenant logo, fuel pricing as required by the State of California, and/or specification of being open 24-hours. (iii) One (1), 15 square foot "car wash" sign on the north elevation of the car wash building. « • ,~ 5. That neon tubing around the roof shall not be permitted. 6. That all on-site landscaping shall be in conformance with, and compatible to, landscaping in the Downtown Area. 7. That trash enclosure walls shall be screened with permanently irrigated plant materials consisting of vines and shrubs. 8. That no advertising signs other than those approved by the Planning Commission shall be constructed or placed on subject property. • 9. That roof-mounted equipment shall not be visible from ground level and shall, to the greatest extent practical, be screened from the view of nearby high-rise buildings. All equipment shall be painted to match the roof material. 10. That any exterior vending machine(s) shall not be visible to the public rights-of- way. 11. That during open business hours of this facility, separate men's and women's restrooms shall be available to the public, and shall be properly supplied and maintained. 12. That, in conformance with Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.44.050.070 pertaining to removal of closed service stations, an unsubordinated agreement shall be recorded with the Office of the Orange County Recorder agreeing to remove the service station structures (including the underground tanks) in the event that the service station is closed for a period of twelve (12) consecutive months. A service station shall be considered closed during any month in which it is open for less than fifteen (15) days. 13. That all provisions of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.87.023.020 pertaining to the retail sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption (as it may be amended from time to time) shall be complied with. 14. That the sale of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed thirty ~ve percent (35%) of the gross sales of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis showing the separate ~ amounts of sales of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be subject to audit, and made available, when requested by any City of Anaheim official during reasonable business hours. 10-21-02 Page 25 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 15. That no display of beer or wine shall be located outside the building or within five (5) feet of any public entrance to the building. 16. That the areas of beer or wine displays shall not exceed twenty five percent (25%) of the total display area in the building. 17. That window signage shall not be permitted for the service station or the convenience market. All fixtures, displays, merchandise and other materials shall be located a minimum of three (3) feet from all window areas. 18. That no advertising of beer or wine shall be located, placed or attached to any location outside the building; and that any such advertising shall not be audible (interior or exterior). 19. That no video, electronic or other amusement devices or games shall be permitted anywhere on subject property. 20. That the sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made to customers only when the customer is inside the building. 21. That no person under finrenty one (21) years of age shall sell or be permitted to sell any beer or wine. 22. That no alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on the premises. • 23. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped and maintained 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 window areas of adjacent properties. 24. That the applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the premises free of litter at all times. 25. That beer shall not be sold in packages containing less than a six-pack and that wine coolers shall not be sold in containers less than a four-pack. 26. That no propane tank(s) shall be permitted on-site. 27. That all landscaped areas shall be planted, irrigated and permanently maintained, and shall be in conformance with Exhibit No. 4, except as otherwise conditioned. 28. That the owner of subject property shall be responsible for the removal of any on-site graffiti within twenty four (24) hours of its application. 29. That any tree or other landscaping planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. Trees and shrubbery shall not be unreasonably trimmed or pruned for purposes of increasing visibility to the property. • 30. That any public telephones proposed on-site shall be located inside the convenience market. 10-21-02 Page 26 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . 31. That the petitioner shall be responsible for compliance with all mitigation measures within the assigned time frames and any direct costs associated with the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 99, as established by the City of Anaheim and as required by Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code to ensure implementation of those identified mitigation measures. 32. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses. 33. That an on-site trash truck turn around area shall be maintained in accordance with Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 and as required by the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. 34. That prior to construction of directional signs adjacent to the driveways plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval showing conformance with Engineering Standard No. 137 pertaining to sight distance visibility for the directional sign locations. 35. That landscaped planters shall be maintained adjacent to the building except where pedestrian access is provided into the building. 36. That fast food sales areas shall be limited to those shown on the approved exhibits. 37. That no areas shall be provided for on-site food consumption. ~ 38. That no flags, banners or pennants used for advertising or promotional purposes shall be permitted to be displayed outside the building with the exception of one (1) maximum ten (10) square foot temporary banner (mounted on the building) per street frontage, which banners may be temporarily displayed only upon issuance of a Special Event Permit by the Zoning Division. 39. That sale of beer and wine shall be permitted only befinreen the hours of 8 a.m. and 2 a.m. 40. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Revision No. 2 of Exhibit No. 1, and Exhibit Nos. 2 through 6, and (new Exhibit No. 7) and as conditioned herein. 41. 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: 4-2 (Commissioners Boydstun and Vanderbilt voted no and Commissioner Bostwick absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 58 minutes (30 minutes, 3:08-3:38) and (28 minutes, 3:50-4:18) 10-21-02 Page 27 OGTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ During this item a 10-minute break was taken from (3:39-3:49) ~ ~ 10-21-02 Page 28 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04615 OWNER: MBS Holdings, Attn: Brian Grinde, 1363 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1363 South State Colleqe Boulevard. Property is approximately 6.1 acres located at the southwest corner of Winston Road and State College Boulevard. To permit and retain an existing building materials storage yard in conjunction with a tile/flooring business with waiver of required landscape screening of outdoor storage. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-161 Concurred with staff Denied Denied SR8451 KB.DOC Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt introduced Item No. 6 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04615, 1363 South State College Boulevard, a request to permit and retain an existing building materials storage yard in conjunction with a tile/flooring business with waiver of required landscape screening. ApplicanYs Testimony: ~ Brian Grinde, 1363 S. State College Boulevard, states before putting up the yard they came into Planning and showed pictures of different yards on the street and staff stamped and approved the request with a block wall. Later he returned wishing to change it to chain link and staff re approved it on April 16, 2002 for a 6-foot chain link fence. After that he put up the chain link fence with the full understanding that it was going to be tile and stone. Six weeks later Code Enforcement issued a citation stating it was not permitted. Planning and Code Enforcement were asked to come out and reconsider. Code Enforcement walked through and confirmed it was the code. Planning staff thought it would still go through and suggested the applicant go ahead and submit the pre-file because they had been told that it should not be a problem. The applicants put in a pre-file and were surprised when it returned denied. The appficants asked what they could do to improve it so that the way it looked from the street would not be a code problem. He states, "it was pretty much there wasn't anything we could do to bring it up to a standard that would make the City happy'. The applicants were informed that if they had a building in the rear it would be fine, but they only have 15 feet in the rear behind the building and other than that they have the width of State College Boulevard. They never had an issue with making it look nice but feel they were not given the opportunity to make that happen. They propose to install a tree shrub every 2 feet. That is consistent with the other block walls they have on the property. It grows in really dense and can grow up to 60-feet tall. Before they bought the property it was an office building with 220 parking spaces but they have only used approximately 60 parking spaces. Most of the parking area was unused therefore, they have a lot of trucks, campers, abandon cars, etc. Having the yard has made it less of a nuisance on the property. He states they are not in position to put a building up although they would someday like to. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Grinde if when they bought the building they were told it was okay to have an outdoor storage area on State College Boulevard. ~ Mr. Grinde responded they were not told because they were not planning on putting one in at the time, and an outdoor storage was not actually created until permission was given from Planning Commission. It was stamped twice stating it was okay to go from a block wall to a chain link. He states down State College Boulevard between Bal{ Road and Katelfa Avenue there are pfenty of chain link fences without 10-21-02 Page 29 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ landscaping in front of them with tile stone stacked 15 feet high. Therefore, they were under the impression it was fine, believing if everybody else is doing it and Commission approves it then there is no issue. Commissioner Bristol states he travels that road approximately two times a day, seven days a week and he wondered where on State College Boulevard is there other property similar to the applicanYs spacious area, which appears to be a large parking lot, that encourages outdoor storage. Ross Shevan, 1363 South State College, responded the companies that have similar yards with great exposure on State College Boulevard are Gilante Tile, one block down the street from the subject property going south, Marble Export, Strictly Stones, California Wholesale Tile and Marina Tile. Off State College Boulevard on the side street there are numerous tile companies with similar yards, such as U.S. Marble, Marble Express and Marbolis. The area is known as the tile mile. Due to the heavy stones it is recommended that it is stored outside because of the need for forklifts to move freely since they have to be lifted very high and with indoor spaces there is not enough clearance to move freely. Mr. McCafferty states staff mentions in the staff report that it is a constant enforcement effort on behalf of the City to make sure all tile businesses comply with code to warehouse indoors. Commissioner Boydstun states there are a couple of places on State College Boutevard with heavier rock or tile that is outside behind a fence. The applicants are not the only ones. Commissioner Bristol states the subject property is one where outdoor storage appears its main purpose. AI Brady, Code Enforcement, states to respond to the applicant they are currently working several properties along State College Boulevard in the Tile Mile area for noncompliance to outdoor storage. ~ Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt asked Code Enforcement if there was any explanation or understanding why the applicants may have been left with the opinion that they could construct a chain link fence. Mr. McCafferty responded they went through a profile process under City code to request an outdoor building material storage yard. Staff informs all applicants know what their recommendation will be. Prior to that the applicants came in to request perimeter fencing for screening but at that time it was understood from the planner at the desk that the screen was accessory to what was inside the building. Later staff found out that Jamming, an immaculate run business, was basically the ones occupying the site, and Granitext was occupying a little office area in the building. Their primary focus was to store outdoors and once that was understood that's when they went to the pre-file and it was then indicated to them that it was not something that staff would be able to support in that area because of the significance of that area to the City. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify if they did not have the waiver and did the landscaping to shield it what would staff's recommendation be. Mr. McCafferty clarified staff's recommendation would still be for denial. Staff believes they have enough room on the site to construct a building the same as all other professional tile businesses with professional showrooms along that area. Commissioner Bristol referred to Code Enforcement and asked if other businesses have pieces of rock as large inside their facilities. Mr. Brady responded yes, there are other facilities that have indoor storage. Commissioner Bristol feels it is a business that is coming in, expanding and using the outside facility ~ because they have lack of space inside. 10-21-02 Page 30 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Brady responded he conducted inspection on the proposed site and feels the use is an accessory to the main facility. They have a small showroom and a large area of marble and other materials in the parking lot. Commissioner Sristol asked what were future plans for visually improving State College Boulevard Mr. McCafferty states in the 5-year Capital Improvement Program there is a State Coilege Boulevard Master Plan which calls for extensive landscape enhancements, including trees, new parkways, medians, undergrouding of power lines and reconfiguration of the streets from the 91-Freeway to Katella Avenue on State College Boulevard. Chairperson Bristol asked if the applicant had any information he would like to add. Mr. Grinde states he forgot to mention that he is the owner of Granitex Tile Co., and wanted to elaborate on staff's comments as far as being under the impression that Jammin is applying for the fence. He is the one who came personally and presented his business card with "Granitex" on it and he was asked by the planner to go back, take pictures of the property and of the adjacent properties. He took pictures of his property, which had granite, stone and marble in it and returned with it. He feels staff knew it was for the tile business and not for Jammin. Planning staff approved it because they saw all the pictures that everybody else in the area had. He states they have a showroom inside the building and are in the process of enlarging both the showroom and storage area approximately 4-5,000 additional square feet indoors. Mr. McCafferty states even if they were to increase the square footage to 6,000 square feet, the outdoor area is 25,000 square feet. It is an awkward site because the building is pushed towards the rear. Commissioner Bristol states Commission has had direction in the subject matter from City Council in the ~ past and there is so much money and impact going on at State College Boulevard and the fact that everybody is trying to be sensitive to the Tile Mile because of what it means to the citizens and the City of Anaheim but he does not feel the applicants' intent is to ever have an outdoor storage area on State College Boulevard. FOLLOWING tS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick 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 Caiifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Denied waiver pertaining to required landscape screening of outdoor storage areas since the property is regularly-shaped and no hardship could be identified to support this requested waiver. Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04615 (to permit and retain an existing building materials storage yard in conjunction with a tile/flooring business) based on the following: (i) Although the use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the ML Zoning Code, the outdoor storage yard is visible to the public traveling on State College Boulevard (a major arterial highway) and ` would encourage other tile businesses in the immediate area to establish similar outdoor storage yards instead of constructing a permanent building. 10-21-02 Page 31 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • (ii) That the outdoor storage yard would adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area, since it is proposed in a location visible to the public along a major arterial highway (State College Boulevard) and would detract from the character of "Tile Mile" by permitting unsightly outdoor storage. (iii) That the size and shape of the site for the proposed use is not adequate to allow the development of the property in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare because the orientation of the lot prevents the siting of the outdoor storage yard behind the existing industrial building in order to properly screen the use from State College Boulevard. (iv) That the granting of the conditional use permit, even with the conditions imposed, would be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim by encouraging outdoor storage yards rather than the construction ofi warehouse buildings to contain these storage activities. VOTE: 5-1 (Commissioner Boydstun voted no and Commissioner Bostwick absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 19 minutes (4:19-4:38) ~ ~ 10-21-02 Page 32 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Continued to 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1098 November 18, 2002 (TRACKING NO. CUP2002-04613) OWNER: Huarte Family Partnership, 320 North Park Vista Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Burt Mazelow, M-K Development Services, Inc., 2221 East Winston Road, Suite K, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 320 North Park Vista Street. Property is approximately 29.5 acres located at the southeast corner of Park Vista Street and Jackson Avenue (Rio Vista Mobilehome Park). To modify previously-approved exhibits for an existing mobilehome park to allow 10 additional units. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8460VN.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None • ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bosfinrick absent), to continue the subject request to the November 18, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to readvertise the request to include additional mobilehome units. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 10-21-02 Page 33 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 8a. CEQA CATEGORiCAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04612 OWNER: BEL AIR Enterprises, INC., 1300 Quail Street, Suite 108, Newport Beach, CA 92660 AGENT: Young Park, 2885 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 2885 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 1.5 acres located at the northeast corner of Bel Air Street and Lincoln Avenue (201 PC BANG). To permit and retain a computer rental and internet amusement (arcade) business. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-162 Concurred with staff Granted for 1 year SR1098CW.DOC Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt introduced Item No. 8 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04612, 2885 West Lincoln Avenue - 201 PC Bang, a request to permit and retain a computer rental and internet amusement (arcade) business. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states Commission was presented correspondence submitted by the applicant dated October 18, 2002 regarding a petition of support for the proposal. • Appficant's Testimony: Paul Rianda, 38 Corporate Park, Irvine, CA, representing Young Park who operates the 201 PC Bang Cyber Cafe at 2885 W. Lincoln Avenue, wished to focus on the hea~t of the recommendations by staff in regards to their concerns about single-family residences and how they could be affected by the operation of the proposed business. He feels the site is a very good site for the proposed business located on a fairly busy corner of Lincoln Avenue and Bel Air Street. There are two apartment complexes nearby, one directly across Lincoln Avenue. Lincoln Avenue is two-lanes in its entirety and construction is going on to possibly widen it to three lanes and a center divider. The apartments across the street are far away from the business. In addition, there are apartments adjacent west of the business across Bel Air Street. He feels the apartments are insolated from any potential noise or any issues cited by staff because: 1) they are across the street, 2) there is a landscaped area, a slight greenbelt, 3) a centerblock wall and 4) a vacant lot next door further minimizes any issues regarding noise. He feels the focus of staff's concerns were with the area directly north of the property, mainly Po1k Avenue due to a number of single-family houses on the street. One of the first things cited by staff in regard to the potential for noise and affecting the people on Polk Avenue was on the northern edge of the property where there is an alley directly behind that structure. The structure is an L shaped building with the bulk of the building being on the north and the east sides of the property with a parking lot in the front, on the north edge between the houses and between the proposed building is a small alley. The alley has a large wrought iron gate, which makes it inaccessible to anyone. There have not been any complaints regarding noise or activity in the alley. People naturally would not go to the alley because their ingress and egress to the business would be from the parking lot, roughly to the corner of where the business is located and then back to their cars. One would have to actually walk around the entire building, go all the way around the back to get to the alley and then scale a 6-foot wrought iron fence to get next to the houses, and there is really no reason for anybody to do that. ~ In regard to Polk Avenue, our client went around to all the residents individually and asked them to sign the petition presented to Commission. He went to approximately 15 residences individually on Polk 10-21-02 Page 34 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNiNG COMMISSION MINUTES • Avenue. He was able to obtain 11 signatures, representing 10 of the landowners on Polk Avenue. The ones he did not obtain were not present when he attempted to receive the signatures but the residences behind are all in agreement. There is really no issue in regards to noise, loitering, etc. They have been happy with it and actually use the business themselves. in addition, there are a number of people on Bel Air Street, which is adjacent to where the apartments would be, that have also signed the petition in supportive of getting the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed facility. It is a family owned business and the only one the applicant owns. The owner is there everyday himself all day, along with other family members to monitor the business. Ninety percent of the clients are regulars. They are not people that are inter-local, they are not people that aren't from the neighbors coming there and causing problems. He has never had any complaints from the neighbors at all regarding the business, nor has he had any Police activity at the business. Mr. Rianda feels his client has done a number of things recommended by staff. He has a security guard on site. The only item that there is really any question about is in regard to the hours of operation. Currently he has been operating until 2 a.m. everyday but is willing to take some more restricted time but given the fact that there have not been any complaints or issues with the Police he would ask that they continue at 2 a.m. However, if there were anything more limited they would request that they be allowed to have at least what has been offered to other applicants previously. Previously some of the older Conditional Use Permits had time limitations all the way up to 4 a.m. The most recent ones have had up until midnight. The other issue of concern is the issue of the length of the Conditional Use Permit. Again, given the fact there has been no issues with the facility they ask that it be extended to a 2-year Conditional Use Permit. He feels if there were any enforcing actions the enforcement arm would go ahead and cite them, which would be a separate issue. ~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol asked why the applicant did not come in and apply for a Conditional Use Permit as indicated by the law. Mr. Rianda responded the business was recently purchased in August of 2001 by Mr. Park and at that time he wrongly assumed that the Conditional Use Permit in place for the business, was accurate, that it had been operating as an internet cafe since 1999. It was his oversight to not find out the Conditional Use Permit did not fit the use being used for. Commissioner Koos asked stafF for their perspective. Mr. McCafferty states paragraph 18 summarizes what staff's position is and that is that the business was originally established in April of 2002. It was computer service and support. There was a change of ownership on August 24, 2001 and during that time there was no indication by the new business owner that they were proposing to change it to a cyber cafe. It was still going to be a use that was permitted primary use in that zone. There was no indication on the business license for them that they were changing the business activity that was previously approved for that location. Given all the press that we recently had on these sorts of activities, the cyber caf~s and the problems that they create, it was pretty well understood what position our city was with regard to these and that they required Conditional Use Permits. Commissioner Boydstun asked what was the business before. Mr. McCafferty states it was identified on the business license as Computer Service and Support, which to staff would mean that they are servicing and supporting computers such as servers, computer repair and leasing but not a high-tech arcade where people go to play games. Staff understands there are ~ comments about not being any problems inside the business but feels everyone has learned that over a period of several months the problems do not necessarily occur inside the business, it is what occurs 10-21-02 Page 35 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . outside in terms of the loitering and some of the gang activity that has resulted from being outside of the business. Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt asked if there have been any problems outside the business Don Yourstone, Code Enforcement, responded yes, there has been some problems with the shopping center itself with relations to flags, banners and trash but is not aware of any criminal activity. Commissioner Koos feels Commission does not need to attribute the owner with anything going on at the center and feel they have been looking at what they have been approving in terms of what has been acceptable to build upon that as a base line in a way of attacking the hours of operation. Of the six CUP's that came before Commission in the last year, the first two were approved under a different understanding of what the businesses were and should not be considered as part of the mix. Considering the last four, Commission denied two primarily due to the proximity to residential. The third one, on Lemon Street, is in a complete commercial and industrial nature of the neighborhood and therefore is not rea{{y applicable in his opinion. A recent Planning Commission decision approved a project until midnight that was only approximately 100 feet away from residential in Anaheim Hills, which is scheduled for a City Council hearing in approximately two weeks. Given the applicant does not have any calls for service, he is comfortable with a short leash approach as Commission has done in the past of maintaining the one- year time limitation but staying with the midnight limitation on Friday and Saturday. Commissioner Boydstun asked why the applicant would like to stay until 2 a.m. Mr. Rianda responded there is a demand for the proposed-type business all the way up until 2 a.m. They are not full at that time of night, but there are at least 10 people out there who would like to be able to access their e-mail, etc., up until 2 a.m., and his client has had a consistent amount of people that have utilized the facilities for that purpose. Given the fow number of people who use it at that time and • considering the security guard would also be there along with two employees makes it manageable to take care that many patrons at that hour. Mr. McCafferty clarified for the records that a business at that location has occupied that space since March 20, 2000, and the earliest staff could tell that the subject business changed over to a cyber caf~ was on April 2, 2002. Commissioner Boydstun feels it was likely operating as a cyber caf~ before the applicant came. Mr. McCafferty responded in March of 2000, when the applicants came in they were not asking for a cyber caf~ therefore, sometime between March 2000 and April 2, 2002 when Code Enforcement investigated it turned into a cyber cafe. He asked from staff's perspective if something is staying open until 2 a.m. if the City of Anaheim would want the activity that occurs that late at night that requires a security guard to be next to a residential area. Commissioner Koos states at this point it is a fittle hary on exactly what happened in the past and suggested Commission see how it would go within a year. Commissioner Bristol states he was present at the site a day prior to the current meeting and there was no one at the counter to greet him at approximately 3:30 p.m. but as he walked in two of the rooms patrons stopped to check him out and then proceeded with their games. After looking at the neighborhood and driving the streets in the area he determined it is a neighborhood that Commission would be saying it is okay to have a security guard within 50 feet of residents. Mr. Rianda responded it is an unfair perception of the community that the proposed type places would all have problems and issues with gangs, etc. He admits he has been involved in cases in other cities where there have been issues regarding gangs and people going to the caf~s but feels Commission has to look ~ at each business individually. The proposed facility is a family-run business; it is their only cafe. It is public perception that in order to request approval, his client almost thinks he needs to come to Commission and state, " This is my business, this is the way it operates and I am going to get a security 10-21-02 Page 36 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ guard to allay any fears that you may have that there are any issues. There are not any issues regarding security or crime but I will get one anyway just to make doubly sure that everything is taken care oP'. Commissioner Bristol asked how long the applicant has been running the operation illegally. Mr. Rianda responded it has been an internet cafe since his client bought it in August 2001. Don Yourstone feels mixing the clients leaving the restaurant/nightclub and the proposed business at 2:00 a.m., would be of concern to staff. Commissioner Eastman states when she visited the site she did not see a security guard-type person and being a female alone, she was uncomfortable getting out and going in because of the number of young men hanging around outside. Commissioner Koos feels staff could have stated in the code that 300 feet from residential is not acceptable. Commissioner Romero states Commission approved the previous one, which was close to residential. Commissioner Bristol states the last one was restricted to not using any of the access to the back on that road. And the subject one is closer. When he visited it was hard getting in and out of not only the parking lot but also maneuvering around the street because there are a lot of cars and a lot of activity on the street. So, he wondered, if the applicant has been operating illegally for the last 13-14 months, how he would now comply with all of the conditions. Mr. Rianda responded his client has been complying with most of the conditions. He agrees that the lack of attention to the Conditional Use Permit previously is not a good thing but feels it is more ignorance of ~ the system and not knowing that he had to do it. When his client was cited he went forward and tried comply. tt is somewhat of an intimidating system for his client because it is difficult trying to utilize the system and get through it and that is why he is representing him. Don Yourstone states after he issued a notice of violation to Mr. Park it took quite sometime before he came forward. OPPOSITION: None IN SUPPORT: Two letters were received in favor, and a petition was submitted with 52 signatures in favor of the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick 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. 2002-04612 (to permit and retain a computer rental and internet amusement [arcadej business) for a period of one (1) year, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated October 21, 2002. ~ VOTE: 4-2 (Commissioners Bristol and Eastman voted no and Commissioner Bostwick absent) 10-21-02 Page 37 OCTOBER 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 26 minutes (4:39-5:05) An update was given to the Planning Commission by Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, pertaining to City Council actions from the October 15, 2002 City Council meeting. Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt indicated staff may want to explore a possible break (possibly Planning Commission meeting of December 30, 2002) due to the Holidays; and asked staff to provide to the Planning Commission information regarding items scheduled on the December agendas. ~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:07 P.M. TO MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2002 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2001. ~ Res ectfully submitted: ~~~ ~Q1~./ ~, 10-21-02 Page 38