The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 2003/08/11. • • CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSiON MINUTES MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 2003 Cauncil Chambers, City Hall 2Q0 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRPERS~N ~JANI~~.\/ANDERBILT COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: GA~L:~~~~TI~7CAN, ~E~:~~"`tPi ~~{~ES, JERRY O'CONNELL, .[3AV1I~~R~It~,E~4; (C) ~ VA~AN~"SEAT) COMMISSIONERS STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann, Assistant Greg Hastings, Zoning~ Dave See, Senior Pla "~i Alfred Yalda, Princip~~ David Gottlieb, Rede~~ ~ AGENDA POSTING~ ~~ Thursday, August 7, ~2~ the outside display ki~s Sergeant MiCha Kerry Kemp, SE James Ling, As ~i(y~,Morris~Sen Pat Ghar~dle~ S PUBLISHED: CALL TO ORDER ~~ '~~~ ~ ~:. PLANNING C~?MM • STAF F U P~~T DEVELOPME~ PLANNING CC • PRELIMINARY ~ ~ ;;;;: -:x;. ~' ~~ ~~, ~~ . ,4;,_, '~g . ~t ,~~a SESSION 1~1 OQ~,Nf.°~:k 10~ O~VA~~U.S~ IT`Y ~~~~ ~~ S~E[~ SY ~ ~~ ~ ~.~., ~•~ ~ ~ FOR~TEIt/~S QN ~HE AUGIJ RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION ~ Detail 3:00 p.m. on rers, and also in ST 11, 2003 AGENDA RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P,M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Flores PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENi'CA~ENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT = . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H:~DOCS\CLERICAL\MINUTEStAC081103.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 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. C. McCracken requested Item Nos. 1 through 4 be removed from the Consent Calendar and continued in order to set up a meeting with another party. She believes the mixed use is fine but possibly the wrong area. PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS: REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF POTEN7IAL APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES AND ALTERNATES FOR THE FOLLOWING: • ANAHEIM TRANSPORTATION NETWORK BOARD OF D(RECTORS (Current Representative: Commissioner Bostwick) • PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (Current Representative: Vacant) • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD (CDAB) FOR THE BLOCK GRANT • PROGRAM (Current Representative: Vacant) (Current Alternate: Commissioner Eastman) • UTILITIES UNDERGROUND CONVERSlON SUBCOMMITTEE (Current Representative: Commissioner Bostwick) (Current Alternate: Vacant) • GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (GPAC) (Current Representative: Commissioner Bostwick) (Current Alternate: Vacant) • HISTORIC PRESERVATION AD HOC COMMITTEE (Current Representative: Commissioner Eastman) (Current Alternate: Vacant) • COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT WORKING GROUP (Current Representative: Vacant) Chairperson Vanderbilt stated there is a list of Planning Commission appointments for various representations on committees. He presented the appointments to the Commission and stated there are many vacancies and suggested that appointments not be made today, but for Commission to review the • attached information provided by staff and appointments would be made at the next meeting. 08-11-03 Page 2 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOT10N CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent and with one Commission vacancy), to continue the Appointment of Planning Commission Representatives and Alternates to the September 8, 2003 Planning Commission meeting in order for Commission to review the information provided by staff. • • 08-11-03 Page 3 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • CONSENT CALENDAR: Items 1-A through 1-D on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There wiil be no separate discussion of these ifems 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 Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Flores and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent and with one Commission vacancy), to remove all items from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED . REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) (b) CONDI710NAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04427 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04716) Gary Frazier, Tyrol Plaza LP, 6445 Joshua Tree Avenue, Orange, CA 92867, requests final elevation, landscaping, signage, lighting, mechanical equipment, trash enclosure, fencing and gates and recreational area plan review and a time extension to comply with conditions of approval for a previously-approved 60-unit, 3-story, "affordable" senior citizen's apartment complex with a density bonus and waivers of minimum number of parking spaces, minimum building site area per dwelling unit, maximum structural height and minimum setback abutting single-family residential developments. Property is located at 891 South State College Boulevard. • • (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Approved Approved Final Plans Approved a one-year extension of time to comply with conditions of approval (to expire on August 27, 2004). (Vote: 5-0, Commissioner Bostwick absent and with one Commission vacancy) sr2129ads.doc Dave See, Senior Planner, stated the subject item is a request for Final Plan review and a time extension for a proposed 60-unit, 3-story senior citizen's apartment complex, located at the corner of State College Boulevard and Vermont Avenue. Staff recommends approval of the final plans and time extension subject to the stipulations contained in page 5 of the staff report. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant or representative come forward to speak. ApplicanYs Statement: Jimmy Gaston, Anaheim Supportive Housing, stated they would like to see it go forward. He is concerned that if the project were delayed any longer it would create a financial hardship for the applicant. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if anyone else would like to speak; there was no response. ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent and with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED, (Commissioner Bostwick absent and with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final elevation, landscaping, signage, lighting, mechanical 08-11-03 Page 4 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • equipment, trash enclosure, fencing and gates, and recreational area plan for a previously-approved 3- story, 60-unit affordable (including density bonus) senior citizen's apartment complex for Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04427 (Tracking No. CUP2003-04716) based on Commission's concurrence with staff that the final plans are substantially in compliance with the corresponding conditions of approval as identified in the staff report dated August 11, 2003, with the following stipulations which should be noted on plans submitted to the Building Division: (i) That clinging vines shall be planted adjacent to the trash enclosure walls and perimeter block walls on maximum three (3) foot centers. ~ (ii) That street trees shall be installed in accordance with Public Works Department standards and the State College Boulevard Corridor Master Plan. (iii) That shrubs shall be planted around the electrical transformer to screen the unit from any public . rights-of-way;or adjacent residential uses. (iv) That the wall-mounted air-conditioning grates shall be textured and painted to match the building. (v) That enhanced driveway treatments shall be provided for the driveways on State College Boulevard and Vermont Avenue. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED, (Commissioner Bostwick absent and with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for a one (1) year extension of time to expire on August 27, 2004, based on the following: (i) That the proposed use remains in conformance with the current Zoning Code and General Plan • land use designation, and that there have been no code amendments that directly affect the requested extension, that wouid cause the original approval to be inconsistent with the Zoning Code. (ii) That since the original approval in August of 2001, the petitioner has been working closely with various public agencies to complete the project financing and to comply with conditions of approval and complete the necessary on- and off-site improvements. (iii) That this is the second and final request for an extension of time for this permit, and the extension does not exceed the two permitted extensions of time permitted by Code Section 18.03.090.0301. (iv) That this vacant property is maintained in a clean and safe condition and there are no code violations on the property at this time. DISCUSSION: 4 minutes (1:50-1:54) ~ 08-11-03 Page 5 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • B. (a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3 (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04477 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04733) Richard Jackson, Fairmont Private Schools, 4910 Cam Newport Beach, CA 92660-2119, requests a retroactive to comply with conditions of approval for a temporary m trailer in connection with a previously-approved bus stor private school. Property is located at 1595 West Broad (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for sep discussion.) Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. pus Drive, extension of time odular office age yard for a way. arate Concurred with staff Approved a one (1) year retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval (to expire on December 17, 2003) (Vote: 5-0, Commissioner Bostwick absent and with one Commission vacancy) sr5031 jr.doc Dave See, Senior Planner, stated the subject item is a request for a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for a temporary modular office trailer in connection with a previously- approved bus storage yard for a private school. Staff recommends approval of the time extension request subject to the findings on page 3 of the staff report. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if anyone was present for the subject item; there was no response. ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION . CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent and with one Commission vacancy), 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 of Small Structures), as defined in the California Environmenta! Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED, (Commissioner Bostwick absent and with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for a one (1) year retroactive extension of time to expire on December 17, 2003, based on the following: (i) That this is the first request for an extension of time to comply with conditions of approval. (ii) That the property has been properly maintained and that there are no outstanding complaints or violations on file with the Code Enforcement Division. (iii) That there have been no changes to the Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element or zoning code that would affect this project. No additional information or changed circumstances are present which would contradict the facts used to support the required findings for approval of this conditional use permit. DISCUSSION: 1 minute (1:54-1:55) • 08-11-03 Page 6 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMlSSlON MINUTES • ~ • C. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) (b) VARIANCE NO. 2002-04547 (TRACKING NO. VAR2003-04569) Carla Frakes, Starlight Oaks, LLC, 2 McLaren, Unit B, Irvine, CA 92618, requests review of final site, floor, and elevation plans for a previously- approved 6-lot, 6-unit detached single-family residential subdivision. Property is located at 6161 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) IN SUPPORT: One person spoke in favor of the subject request, but expressed some concerns. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Approved Approved Final Plans (Vote: 5-0, Commissioner Bostwick absent and with one Commission vacancy) sr8632av.doc Dave See, Senior Planner, stated the subject item requests review of final site, floor, and elevation plans for a previously-approved 6-lot, 6-unit detached single-family residential subdivision. The Planning Commission approved the original request in January 13, 2003, and staff recommends approval of the request subject to the findings on page 4 of the staff report. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant or representative come forward to speak. Applicant's Statement: Carla Frakes, Starlight Oaks, LLC, 2 McLaren, Unit B, Irvine. She informed she is present to answer any questions, Public Testimony: Yasmin Fletcher, 131 N. Avenida Cienega, Anaheim. She stated she is in favor of the development and works for Pete's Road Service, a family business. New home construction is a large part of their business, and supports building. However, she explained there are two homes on lots 3 and 4 that are 25 feet tall and only 5 and 6 feet away from their backyard wall, which is a concern since she and most Californians appreciate the sunlight. The current plan has the proposed project very close so that they are going to lose approximately 1'/2 hours of sunlight. Currently, there is a eucalyptus tree that is protected by the City and the home is going to be built next to that, and she believes it would block the sunlight, which may have adverse affects on the landscape and heating in the winter. She referred to their skyline and explained if they were to take a few steps out into their backyard, currently, it is about an 25 degrees angle where they can see, but with a house that is 25 feet tall that would be decreased. Therefore, asked if the home could be moved a significant distance from their backyard wall because the side of the home is against their wall and the wall in lot 4. Most homes in the area are backyard to backyard which is the ideal situation. She explained privacy is an issue since it would be on the side of the house and so close. She felt the proposed home should be farther away and for Commission to consider her comments and the possible effects of having a home that tall and close and what the impacts it would have to their house and lifestyle. She further explained the proposed home is going to be built close to the eucalyptus tree and on Santa Ana Canyon Road there were several trees that fell over this past year. She feels it may be a safety concern for the people who move in. 08-11-03 Page 7 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Carla Frakes stated they meet the minimum setbacks and wished they had 10-feet, but they do not. • Those lots are the lowest point of their grading, it does drop it down as opposed to being on the other sides where it is backyard to backyard. She feels they have done everything, staff did contact people who had concerns and no one showed up for the review. They also personally set up a meeting and mailed out letters to all of the buyers for a meeting in May, they had one adjacent homeowner show up to go over concerns. Nobody else was present and she feels they have gone above and beyond to try to work as much as they can within a reasonable plan of development. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, referred to the plan and stated the subdivision has already been approved at a previous meeting. Currently, they have to deal with the existing setback requirements in the RS-5000 zone which is actually 5 feet from the property line. Whether it is a single story or 2-story, the same apply on the subject lot as it does on the surrounding lots. The purpose before the Commission today is basically to look at the approval of final plans, however, the intent was that the Commission would look at whatever is within Code and the project does meet code. He stated he would imagine there could be some changes made in terms of some privacy in regards to the window placement or some type of treatment or landscaping. But, where the building is actually going to be situated according to the plan, it does meet code whether or not the Commission would be reviewing this today. Commissioner Flores asked what is the sale price for the proposed homes. Carla Frakes responded in the mid 500,000; and informed they are going to sell homes and will buffer as much as they can with landscaping. She explained in regards to the windows it is going to be optimum, our buyers are not going to want to buy a home if there is a concern with the placement of windows. They will be very sensitive to their buyers and the neighbors and have tried to do everything they can to be a good neighbor. If it doesn't work when they line up windows, then it is not going to work for them to sell their home or for the people already living there. They definitely will look at window placements, but • as of yet she hasn't taken the exact floor plan to estimate visually where windows are going to be lined up. But, it is something they definitely will do, because they would also have that issue on their end as a seller. Commissioner Flores asked whether the homes are going to be in the five hundreds. Carla Frakes responded yes, based on the market and another development down the street it is a comparable price range, around the high 5's, low 6's for the same square footage. Commissioner O'Connell asked in regards to landscaping is there anything that could be done to satisfy the homeowner. Carla Frakes responded they would like to satisfy their buyers and the neighbors, if that is putting up a screen of trees of some sort or something, but the problem with putting up a screen then you also have more of a shade issue. She agrees something has to be buffered along the wall, and also stated some of the existing fences are not in great shape. Mr. Hastings referred to the plan and informed that it appears there are two (2) windows to be at a second floor level, however it is in the living room area, which is taller than the average person. Therefore, there wouldn't be any direct view from those windows from inside the house, to the outside. Chairperson Vanderbilt verified with Mr. Hastings that he is referring to the windows which are closest to the adjacent property, which are in a vaulted ceiling area and are there to provide light in, but not necessarily for a viewing opportunity from anyone on the inside. Mr. Hastings agreed. ~ Carla Frakes stated they tried to take that into account, but haven't gone out there physically to see where the windows are going to be, but they tried to "flip" the houses so windows wouldn't be looking down into bedroom windows or back yards. 08-11-03 Page 8 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Flores referred to the plans and stated it appears there probably would only be three (3) houses that would have windows in the back, two (2) of them the side yard is minimum so you probably wouldn't have any windows and then the other ones face Santa Ana Canyon Road. Carla Frakes agreed and explained they tried to work very closely with staff and work with the scenic bi- way and wants it to be a nice development. She feels it would be a plus for the existing community and would fit in very nicely. She stated if they have to add some screening with trees that would not be a problem. Commissioner Eastman stated she was pleased to see the view, which was provided to the Commission as it shows what they are going to look like from Santa Ana Canyon Road. She referred to Yasmin Fletcher's concern in regards to the proposed home lining up to her home and asked if there is any kind of room to move the home forward or backward. Carla Frakes responded that is an engineering question, and the engineer is not present as there was a conflict with another meeting. Commissioner Eastman informed her comment is for the applicant to consider and work with the owner, Yasmin Fletcher, as it does appear her home would be impacted. Carla Frakes stated the one homeowner that showed up at their meeting, lives right next to the lot on Santa Ana Canyon Road. They took her around the proposed site and she didn't have any concerns. They gave her information to hand out to all the other neighbors. Chairperson Vanderbilt verified with the applicant, for the record she is stating they have made an attempt to work with the neighbors and are open to a certain extent. ~ Carla Frakes responded a reasonable extent, if the homes get too cost prohibitive they are not going to work, the neighborhood itself is an older neighborhood and they have to be very sensitive to what is done as far as pricing. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated perhaps they could direct any further discussions that occur with staff, to also take into account what was stated today. If there is a compromise available of some sort, but it is sort of an engineering compromise. Commissioner Romero stated he has seen the development and they have definitely worked with staff. It is tight, there is no way around it, however this has been previously-approved and he feels it would be a benefit to the neighborhood. Carla Frakes was in agreement. ACTION: Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent and with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent and with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Final Plan Nos. 1 through 15, based on the following: (i) That the proposed site plan complies with all setback and lot coverage requirements of the RS- • 5000(SC) Code. (ii) That the proposed final plans comply with the conditions of approval for Variance No. 2002-04547. 08-11-03 Page 9 AUGUST 71, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ (iii) That the final site and floor plans comply with Code and elevations that are architecturally enhanced to provide a quality single-family tract that is compatible with the existing neighborhood. DISCUSSION: 17 minutes (1:55-2:12) ~ ~ 08-11-03 Page 10 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • ~ D. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Continued to Meeting of July 28, 2003. (Motion) September 8, 2003 ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by (Modifications to pages 28, Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED, (Commissioner Bostwick 30 and 37 were made at absent and with one Commission vacancy) that the Anaheim City Planning today's meeting.) Commission does hereby continue the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of Jufy 28, 2003, with the following modifications: Vote: 5-0 (Commissioner (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate Bostwick absent and with discussion.) one Commission vacancy) Corrected page 28, the 4th paragraph as follows: "Ivett Campos 12592 Glen Street, Garden Grove, 92840. Location is a general partnership that consists of family members. They are referring to the resolution of conditional use permit PC2001-134 dated September 24, 2001 and requesting to amend item 6 to allow window signage that is given by right to other businesses. They also want to have import and domestic beers to meet the needs of the surrounding communities. They have e~e~si~re extensive wines and beers, not just the common brands." Corrected page 30, the 2"d to last paragraph as follows: "Commissioner Eastman stated she is pointing that out because Ms. Campos stated she abides by codes. She was there the night before around 7 o'clock and noticed JC Fandango took up all the parking and she discussed it with some of the owners that were there. There is no visible, easy, identifiable place to park in front of the market. She observed three cars parked in the red zone and that is the fire lane. There have been problems in the ~a~rait#~ past with JC Fandango exceeding permitted numbers of people and being a fire danger, they are dealing with two uses that have to figure out a way to get along." Corrected page 37 as follows: ~ "VOTE ON CUP: 4-2 (Commissioners Flores and O'Connell voted no; with one Commission vacancy) VOTE ON PCN: , 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy)" DISCUSSION: 5 minutes (2:12-2:17) 08-11-03 Page 11 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Continued to 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04720 October 6, 2003 OWNER: Louis P. Smaldino, 13583 East Whittier Boulevard, Whittier, CA 90605 AGENT: Nabil Houri, 12 Longstreet, Irvine, CA 92620 LOCATION: 804 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.43-acre, located at the southeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and South Street. To permit a W.I.C (Women, Infant and Children) store and to establish land use conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing legal nonconforming liquor store. Continued from the July 14, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. sr3032a_ey.doc Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Dave See, Senior Planner, stated the subject item is a request to permit a Women, Infant and Children (W IC) store and to establish land use conformity requirements with the existing zoning code, a letter was • received requesting a continuance for eight (8) weeks, to the October 6, 2003, Planning Commission meeting in order to work with the property owner and resolve the legal nonconforming land use issues. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent and with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to the October 6, 2003, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to continue to work with the property owner regarding issues pertaining to land use conformity for the liquor store. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent and with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 08-11-03 Page 12 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Concurred with staff 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4085 Approved amendment (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04730) to the conditions of approval OWNER: Raulston, Donald Trust, 18818 7eller Avenue #277, Irvine, CA 92612 AGENTS: Jacquie Check, Donahue Schriber Property Management, 200 East Baker Street, Suite 100, Costa Mesa, CA 92629 Neil Alcantara, Lamppost Pizza, 2350 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 2350 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 4.8 acres, located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert Street (Lamppost Pizza). To amend or delete a condition of approval to increase the number of amusement devices from 10 to 20 for a previously-approved amusement device arcade within an existing restaurant with previously-approved sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-117 sr8631vn.doc Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. . Dave See, Senior Planner, stated the subject item is a request to amend or delete a condition of approval to increase the number of amusement devices from 10 to 20 for a previously-approved amusement device arcade within the existing restaurant. Staff is supportive of the subject request and included a condition of approval for a maximum of twenty (20) such devices. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked that the applicant or representative to come forward to speak. ApplicanYs Statement: Neil Alcantara, 2350 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, introduced himself. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if he has reviewed the staff report, and if he has any questions or comments. Mr. Alcantara responded he has reviewed the staff report and does not have any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Flores asked if the proposed additional machines are going to extend into the aisles, where are they going to be placed, and if the Fire Department has been out to the subject site to ensure safety. Mr. Alcantara responded they would be in the game room that has been recently remodeled and built Just for the games, there won't be games in the hallways or access ways. The Fire Department does visit regularly. Commissioner Flores asked if the Fire Department has reviewed the current plans. ~ Mr. Alcantara responded they have not seen the plans, but he is not planning to move any games in any areas where they do not already exist. 08-11-03 Page 13 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Flores verified they would be in the same locations. Mr. Alcantara was in agreement. Commissioner Flores asked for clarification since he is adding more games. Mr. Alcantara responded they actually have seventeen (17), which is why it resulted in getting the necessary permit and explained he was under the assumption they could put more games and have had seventeen (17) even before the prior owner. Since he purchased the business, the Fire Department has been there quite a few times and has seen the existing layout, as well as the proposed layout. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated there are seventeen (17) machines there now, but the future is twenty (20). Mr. Alcantara was in agreement. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked how did the Fire Department have a chance to see what it would look like in the future. Mr. Alcantara responded currently, they are not planning on adding anymore but had just picked a number being twenty (20), and explained from a number standpoint the small candy machine, bouncy ball machine and sticker machine are all counted as arcade machines, therefore you may not necessarily have twenty (20) games. Commissioner Flores asked if the candy machines would be in the restaurant area. Mr. Alcantara stated no, those are also inside the game room. ~ Chairperson Vanderbilt stated in the discussion at the morning session, staff had suggested adding a condition of approval, to ensure fire safety oversight, and asked if there are any suggestions that is least intrusive on the applicant but also addresses the concerns of Commissioner Flores. Mr. Hastings responded perhaps the condition could be that the applicant shall submit a floor plan of the area to be used for the amusement devices, and for it to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and it would be kept as part of our files. Mr. Alcantara stated he submitted an application, along with floor plans and location of the games. Mr. Hastings informed the floor plans just show the room with the indication of seventeen (17) machines; and it's his understanding that the Commission is interested in having the Fire Department review the placement of the machines in order to ensure there is adequate exiting from the room, for safety purposes. Mr. Alcantara was in agreement. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent and with one Commission vacancy), 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. 08-11-03 Page 14 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Approved the request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 4085 (Tracking No. CUP2003-04730) pertaining to an increase in the number of amusement devices from 10 to 20 for a previously-approved amusement device arcade within an existing restaurant with previously-approved sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption, as conditioned and based on the following: 1. That an amusement device arcade is a conditionally permitted use authorized by the Zoning Code. 2. That an increase from ten (10) to finrenty (20) arcade games within the existing amusement device arcade use would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is located. 3. That the modification is necessary to permit the reasonable operation of the restaurant and accessory amusement device arcade. 4. That the modification to the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed would not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Incorporated conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. PC98-207 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition Nos. 1, 4 and 9 have been modified; a new condition of approval was added at today's meeting): 1. That the maximum number of amusement devices allowed shafl be limited to a total of twenty (20} devices and further that the amusement devices are permitted only ~ accessory to, and in conjunction with, the primary restaurant use. 2. That if determined necessary by the Anaheim Police Department, licensed uniformed security guard(s), approved by the Anaheim Police Department, shall be provided on the premises specifically to provide security, and to discourage vandalism, trespass and/or loitering upon or adjacent to this property. The exact number of security guards required shall be determined by the Police Department. Said security guard(s) shall remain on-duty as determined to be appropriate by the Police Department. 3. That there shall be no advertisement for video games visible from the exterior of the business. 4. That a valid business license and arcade permit shall be maintained with the Planning Department, Business License Division. 5. That there shall be no pool tables permitted. 6. That the hours of operation shall be limited to Sunday through Thursday, 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. and Friday and Saturday 11:00 a.m. to 12 midnight as stipulated by the petitioner. 7. That window signage shall be prohibited except for that window signage on the corner window which surrounds the back of the large screen television. 8. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1 and Revision 1 of ~ Exhibit No. 2 and as conditioned herein. 08-11-03 Page 15 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 9. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution Condition No. 8, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 10. 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. Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That within sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution, the applicant shall submit a floor plan of the area that is going to be used for the amusement devices, for review and approval by the Fire Department. Said approved plan shall be kept on file in the Planning Department. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent and with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (2:17-2:24) ~ ~ 08-11-03 Page 16 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. ADDENDUM TO KOLL ANAHEIM CENTER ENVIRONMENTAL Approved IMPACT REPORT NO. 189 (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED) 4b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00108 Granted OWNERS: Anaheim Savings and Loan, 135 Main Street, 7th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105 Arden Realty Finance, P.O. Box 131071, Carlsbad, CA 92013 Disney Goals inc., P.O. Box 4741, Glendale, CA 91222 North American Resort, 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 4500, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Pete Valenti Trust, 1940 North Tustin, Suite 100, Orange, CA 92865 Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, P.O. Box 3222, Anaheim, CA 92803 Safeway Stores, Inc., 1850 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. Savon Realty Inc., P.O. Box 20, Boise ID, 83726 Watt Commercial, 2716 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 3040, ~ Santa Monica, CA 90405 AGENT: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: The site consists of multiple properties with a combined area of approximately 36 acres bounded by Lincoln Avenue to the north, Broadway to the south, Anaheim Boulevard to the east and Harbor Boulevard to the west. City-initiated (Community Development Department) request for reclassification of the properties from the CL, CG, and CO Zones to the CL (DMU) (Commercial Limited; Downtown Mixed Use Overlay), CG (DMU) (Commercial General; Downtown Mixed Use Overlay), and CO (DMU) (Commercial Office and Professional; Downtown Mixed Use Overlay) zones. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-118 sr2134ds.doc Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Dave See, Senior Planner, stated the subject item is a request from the Community Development Department for a reclassification to establish a new Downtown Mixed Use Overlay zone. This is an area of all properties contained between Lincoln Avenue to the north, Broadway to the south, and Anaheim Boulevard to the east and Harbor Boulevard to the west. The subject request is for a zone change only, there will be a final plan review by the Planning Commission at a future hearing as a Reports and ~ Recommendations item. He informed Community Development Department staff is present to answer any questions. 08-11-03 Page 17 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Vanderbilt referred to the attached ordinance, page 6, the first item listed under the Permitted Non-Residential Uses, and asked the meaning of a"temporary CPA firm". Dave See stated he believes that would be a firm for tax purposes during tax season where the accountants would open up an office perhaps between January and April, which would be considered temporary. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated currently in California, for tax preparation purposes you don't need to be a certified public accountant, but need to be authorized appropriately, therefore he asked if the language could be modified to include that. Selma Mann informed the language is already in the ordinance and has already had a first reading with City Council and is scheduled for a second reading, if modified they would have to have a re-reading of the first reading in order to amend the substance of the ordinance. Chairperson Vanderbilt explained following Selma Mann's statement he understands his question might not capture what was intended. Commissioner Eastman referred to page 2 of the staff report, pertaining to parking in the area and stated she is not sure if that woufd affect the overlay. She indicated she wants to ensure that enough parking is allowed for all the different uses that would exist. She suggested considering adding on-street parking as areas are developed. Chairperson Vanderbilt suggested taking into account that people are now purchasing much larger vehicles and it is difficult to get them into most parking spaces that currently exist. Therefore, he is also in ~ agreement, not only just to the number of parking but also the type of circulation that is proposed for these projects. Kerry Kemp, Senior Project Manager, Community Development. He stated with respect to final plan review for the CIM California Urban Real Estate Fund, LP (CIM) project, the parking is being analyzed under a shared mixed-use analysis, which will include evaluating all the potential developments that will occur and to assure that there would be adequate parking both during peak and off peak hours. That report will be part of the Final Plan review for the project and Commission will have a chance to evaluate as each parcel comes in to make sure there is adequate parking, on-street parking might be something that could be researched with the Transportation Management staff. They are working closely with traffic and planning staff and the developer to ensure there will be adequate parking. During Final Plan review, that would be a chance for Commission to evaluate. Commissioner Eastman stated she has had an opportunity to be in several community meetings where the parking issue has been brought up, the community has raised this concern repeatedly, therefore she would encourage City traffic staff to look at the possibilities of on-street parking. Mr. Kemp referred to the spaces and stated they are being engineered and programmed to accommodate pursuant to our Public Work's standards as far as size, location and circulation, and this information will be provided along with the submitted floor plans. Commissioner Flores stated she supports bringing in more housing into Anaheim because of the shortage of homes, but wanted to be sure that when the homes are built overcrowding does not become a problem in the downtown area. As too many homes could possibly turn the downtown area into a "slum" area. She suggested taking into consideration first-time homebuyers and low-income housing, and also to consider what type of apartments are going in and stated she is not in favor of small bachelor, one-bedroom units. , Mr. Kemp stated they have a disposition and development agreement with the developer that has guidelines and requirements on the quality of the development. There will be approximately 450 units in 08-11-03 Page 18 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • total, including loft-style apartments, which are higher ceiling, larger floor plans and may not have separated bedrooms. Part of the scope also includes what is on the corner of Harbor Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue, approximately 125 condominium units and a portion of those, about 40 units, will be available for Affordable First-time Homebuyer's Down Payment Assistance Program. The units throughout the project are generously sized and are not real small. As well as it providing amenities downtown for people to walk and shop and be able to stay in the downtown area, there are also restrictions in the agreement and there will be CC&R's that cover the occupancy standards and how many people maximum coufd be in the units. There are appropriate restrictions and agreements in place that will cover and help handle the concerns raised. Commissioner Romero stated he is excited a6out the project and is glad to see it moving forward. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he feels the project is something a lot of people are looking forward to, there is a lot of excitement. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None AC710N: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent and with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified Addendum to EIR No. 189 for the Koll Anaheim Center is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the project. Granted Reclassification No. 2003-00108 (to rezone Downtown Anaheim (bounded by • Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim Boulevard, Broadway and Harbor Boulevard) from the CL (Commercial, Limited), CG (Commercial, General), and CO (Commercial, Office and Professional) zones to the CL (DMU) (Commerciaf, Limited; Downtown Mixed-Use Overlay), CG (DMU) (Commercial, General; Downtown Mixed-Use Overlay), and CO (DMU) (Commercial, Office and Professional; Downtown Mixed-Use Overlay) zones, subject to City Council adoption of an ordinance and approval of a resolution to establish a new Downtown Mixed Use Overlay zone. VOTE: Vote: 5-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent and with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 12 minutes (2:24-2:36) ~ 08-11-03 Page 19 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 5a. CEQQ CATEGORICAl. EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Concurred with staff 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04555 Approved amendment, (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04731 j in part, with deletion of time limitation. OWNER: Carlos and Lina Patti, 847 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Carlos Patti, EI Gaucho Meat Market II, 4706 West 191St Street, Torrance, CA 90503 LOCATION: 847 South State Colleqe Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.33-acre, having a frontage of 100 feet on the west side of State Coilege Bouievard, iocated approximately 170 feet north of the centerline of Morava Avenue (EI Gaucho Market). Request reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on July 1, 2002 to expire July 1, 2003) to retain retail sales of beer and wine for both on- premises and off-premises consumption in conjunction with a previously- approved convenience market and delicatessen and to modify conditions of approval to allow window signage and the sale of single bottles and cans of beer. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-119 sr1024cw.doc ~ Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Dave See, Senior Planner, stated the subject item is a request for a reinstatement by the deletion of the time limitation to retain retail sales of beer and wine for both on premises and off premises consumption in conjunction with the convenience market and delicatessen. The appiicant is also requesting a deletion of conditions prohibiting window signage and the sale of single bottles and cans of beer. Staff recommends approval of the reinstatement request without a time limitation; however, Planning and Police Department's staff does not recommend approval of the deletion of the window signage and the sale of single bottles and cans of beer. ApplicanYs Statement: Carlos Patti, stated he is one of the owners of EI Gaucho Meat Market II, located at 847 S. State College in Anaheim. He explained that a year ago they received a conditional use permit and one of the requirements was to come back in a year, to review the permit. They are requesting to waive the time limitation and also would like to have some leeway in the window signage. He understands the code requirements and statsd they are not going to put 20% of signage, they have taken a lot of time and effort to preserve the glass they have. They would like to put some signage maybe 5% or 3%, and understands they are not allowed to put any beer or wine type of signage. The signage would reference some of the merchandise they may have or portray views of different countries. As far as the singles, he is aware iYs a sensitive subject for the Police, the City and for themselves. He explained they have taken a lot of time to come up with a really nice place and they don't want to create a situation where people start buying singles and drink in the parking lot. He stated some of the beers that they sell only come in liters or 3/< liters as they specialize in Southern ~ and Centra! American products, therefore, they are limited on that. The Police Department submitted a report, which states they haven't had any problems in two (2) years. He feels staff could revisit it if problems become an issue. 08-11-03 Page 20 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Eastman asked the applicant if he would be able to specify the certain "specialty" brands of beer to be sold. Mr. Patti explained the "specialty' beers they receive vary from day to day; therefore it would be difficult for them to say what brands they woufd sell. He further explained if any problems were created for the neighborhood or community, they would stop selling singles. They would like to work with the Police Department. Commissioner Eastman informed the recommendation is standard for the subject type of request, and she feels staff would like to work with the applicant being proposed is "speciafty' type products. Commissioner Flores asked in regards to liters, would you be selling beer such as "Miller" etc, or just exported beer. Mr. Patti responded they could eliminate the 24-ounce cans and just strictly sell bottles. Commissioner Flores asked if they would be refrigerated. Mr. Patti responded yes, all the beer is refrigerated. Commissioner O'Connell asked if they only come in 40 ounce. Mr. Patti responded there are 34 ounces, a liter, but some of the German and Italian beers come in 3/4 liters or liters. The 40 ounce is standard for Budweiser and all the other national brands. He stated they • could exclude the 24-ounce cans and just have the bottles. Sergeant Michael Lozeau, Anaheim Police Department, Vice Detail. Ne referred to the Police DepartmenYs recommendation and stated he feels they should not deviate from their standards, which have been imposed on other businesses. Commissioner Romero informed the Commission has been very consistent in not allowing the sale of single bottles and cans, and the Police Department is recommending denial, therefore he is also in support of not allowing sale of single bottles and cans at the subject location. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if there are any questions in regards to the window signage. Commissioner O'Connell asked if there is a standard policy in regards to the window signage. Sergeant Michael Lozeau responded yes, it is a standard policy in order to allow them to see through the windows in case of any emergency. Commissioner O'Connell asked if there is a percentage of signage that would be acceptable. Sergeant Michael Lozeau stated their policy is that it doesn't exceed 25%. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant if he would prefer more than 20%. Mr. Patti responded no, and stated there is about 100 feet of glass, at 9 feet high; there is a lot of glass out front. Commissioner Eastman clarified the whole front of the subject building is glass. a Mr. Patti was in agreement, 08-11-03 Page 21 AUGUST 41, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Eastman referred to a previous staff report, when they were first approved one year ago, and stated the old business had large letters but assumes the sign didn't help since they are out of business. She feels covering the windows with signs doesn't draw more people into the business. Mr. Patti stated they would like something on the window such as a poster that may announce a soccer game, or a sign to indicate they do have certain "exclusive" products. He would prefer some type of exposure for people walking or driving by. Commissioner Romero clarified with the applicant if 5°/a was acceptable. Mr. Patti agreed, and reiterated he has a lot of glass, therefore they would like to keep the view open because it is a great exposure, if you drive by you see the meat market, deli and you see everything from the outside. Commissioner Flores asked if there is a restriction on signage in the subject area. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated the zoning code allows 10% of the building face to be covered with signage, and then there is a separate provision that allows 20% of the glass "window" area to be covered. Routinely, for aesthetic purposes, where there is a convenience market and liquor store they have been applying conditions to these types of business, that there be no window signage. Commissioner Eastman explained there has been a tremendous improvement at the subject site and asked if the applicant could work with the Police and Planning Department for approval of a limited amount of signage. Mr. Hastings stated if the Commission establishes a reasonable percentage, staff could work wifh the applicant, and suggested that the signs be aestheticaNy pleasing rather than poster boards perhaps • something more professional. Mr. Patti was in agreement, and stated some of the signage would not be permanent because some may be for a period of time, it would be something changed periodically. Commissioner Eastman asked if he would be able to show Police and Planning staff an example of the signage and the location of the signage. Mr. Patti responded yes. Commissioner Romero stated the store has had many improvements and looks very nice. Commissioner Flores asked for clarification in regards to the shipment of "specialty' beer. Mr. Patti stated sometimes they import things themselves, but for example, there is a beer from EI Salvador and it only comes in liters. Commissioner Flores asked if you could sell the liters in six packs. Mr. Patti explained the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) doesn't have an issue with it, they discussed it with ABC when they first got their license. But, they didn't want them to break up a six pack and sell it individually, or break up a four pack of wine coolers. He stated they are willing to stop selling the 24-ounce cans, and just sell bottles; you can buy the bottles anywhere such as Albertson's, etc. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated the business is closer to a convenience store rather than a grocery store. ! Commissioner Eastman stated she has been in the establishment and feels iYs more like a mini- supermarket than a convenience store. 08-11-03 Page 22 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Patti concurred and stated he feels the store is not in a category, as of yet. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated the current request doesn't have a time limit, but has limitations on the signage and alcohol sales and asked the applicant what is more important. Mr. Patti stated he feels the time limitation is important; and stated the Police Department could revisit the conditional use permit if they create an issue. Chairperson Vanderbilt explained he wanted to ensure Commission and staff understand the applicanYs wishes in order to be able to work with him. Commissioner Romero stated the applicant owns the property, and he is in favor of not having a time limit on the subject facility. He recalled at the previous Planning Commission meeting there was a similar type market and they were not allowed to sell singles. ~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING G~MM15510N AG I IUN. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent and with one Commission vacancy}, that the Anaheim Gity 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. Approved, in part, modifications to Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04555 (Tracking No. CUP2003-04731) to retain retail sales of beer and wine for both on-premises and off- premises consumption and approved the request to modify conditions of approval to allow a limited amount of window signage and denied tf~e request for the sale of single bottles and cans of beer in 24 and 40-ounce quantities, without a time limitation, based on the testimony presented at today's meeting and based on the following: (i) 7hat with regard to reinstating the retail sales of beer and wine for both on-premises and off-premises consumption, this permit has been operated substantialiy in the same manner as originally approved by the Commission. Code Enforcement Division has inspected the premises and has determined that the facility is in compliance with all applicable conditions of approval. (ii) That the permit is being exercised in a manner not detrimental to the particular area and surrounding land uses, as evidenced by the absence of Code Enforcement Division complaints for this property. (iii) That there have been no changes to the applicable zone standards that would invalidate the findings that were the basis for the original approval of this permit. (iv) That the request to permit window signage in excess of ten percent (10%) of the window area would be detrimental because it would decrease the visibility into the market potentially creating a dangerous situation for police officers responding to a request for police service to the business and would increase the clutter of signage • along State College Boulevard. The City is currently investing substantial resources in the beautification of State College Boulevard. 08-11-03 Page 23 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (v) That the request to permit the sale of individual cans/bottles of beer could • encourage negative secondary effects such as public drunkenness and loitering. Amended Resolufion No. 2002-103 in its entirety and replaced it with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition No. 21 was modified at today's meeting): 1. That the hours of operation shall be limited to the following: Monday through Saturday: 8:30 a.m. to 8 p.m. Sunday: 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Z. That the sale of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only between the hours of 9 a.m. to 8 p.m., daily. 3. That the gross sale of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed the gross sales of all retail items during any twelve (12) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be made available for inspection by any City of Anaheim official when requested. 4. That sales of single bottles of beer shall be prohibited. Beer shall not be sold for off- premises consumption in packages containing less than a six (6) pack; and that wine coofers shall not be sold for off-premises consumption in packages containing less than a four (4) pack. 5. That no advertising of alcoholic beverages shall be located, placed or attached to • any location outside the building; and that any such advertising shall not be audible (inside or outside the building); and that any indoor advertising shall not be visible to anyone outside the building. 6. That no display of alcoholic beverages shall be located outside the building or within five (5) feet of any public entrance to the building. 7. That no afcoholic beverage containers shall be permitted outside the enclosed restaurant (delicatessen) area. 8. That there shall be no bar or lounge maintained on the property unless licensed by the Alcoholic Beverage Control ("ABC") and approved by the City of Anaheim. 9. That the areas of alcoholic beverages display shall not exceed twenty five percent (25%) of the total display areas in the convenience market. 10. That the sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made to customers only when the customer is inside the building. 11. That full and complete meals shall be served whenever the on premises sale and consumption privileges of the ABC license are being exercised. 12. That no amplified music shall be allowed on the premises at any time. 13. That no dancing shall be allowed on the premises at any time. ~ 14. That there shall be no live entertainment of any type, including but not limited to live music, disc jockey, karaoke, topless entertainment, male or female performers, or fashion shows. 08-11-03 Page 24 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 15. That no person under twenty one (21) years of age shall be permitted to sell alcoholic beverages. 16. That no exterior vending machines (that is, vending machines located outside the building) shall be permitted. 17. That no video, electronic or other amusement devices or games shall be permitted on the premises. 18. That no pool tables or coin-operated games shall be maintained upon the premises at any time. 19. That roof-mounted ba(foons or other inflated devices shall not be permitted. 20. That shopping carts shall be stored inside the building and there shall be no outdoor storage or stacking of shopping carts. 21. . That window signage shalt be permitted provided that such signage shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of the surface of the window and further provided that the Planning Department and the Police Department review and approve the actua! placement of the signage to ensure adequate visibility into the business and to ensure maximum preservation of aesthetics of the building. 22. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be maintained with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernable the appearance and • conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as nof to unreasonably illuminate adjacent properties. 23. That lighting in the parking area of the premises shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner as not to unreasonably illuminate the window area of nearby residents. 24. That there shall be no public telephones maintained on the property which are iocated outside the building and within the control of the applicant. 25. That the property shall be maintained in conformance with Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations as approved by the Traffic and Transportation Manager. 26. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of "graffiti" within twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 27. That a(I fixtures, dispfays, merchandise and other materials shall be set back a minimum of three (3) feet from all window areas. 28. That four (4) foot high street address numbers shall be maintained on the roof of the building in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible to the street or adjacent properties. ~ 29. That on-premises tables or seating areas for the consumption of food shall be . limited to fifteen (15) seats. 08-1 'I -03 Page 25 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 30. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance wifh plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and as conditioned herein. 31. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent tf~at 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: 3-Z (Commissioners Flores and O'Connell voted no, Commissioner Bostwick absent and with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME; 24 minutes (2:36-3:00) i • 08-11-03 Page 26 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04347 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04732) OWNER: White Star Business Park, 1020 North Batavia Street, Unit B, Orange, CA 92867 AGENT: Richard Johnson, AAA Electra 99, 2821 East White Star Avenue, Unit D, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 2821 East White Star Avenue - Unit D. Property is approximately 2.1 acres, located at the northeast corner of Blue Gum Street and White Star Avenue. Request reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on June 19, 2001 to expire June 19, 2003) to retain a cooperative arts museum, gallery and meeting hall. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-120 Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Approved Approved reinstatement for 2 years (to expire on June 19, 2005) sr1923cw.doc David See, Senior Planner, stated it is a request for reinstatement of conditional use permit by • modification or deletion of condition of approval pertaining to time limitation to retain a cooperative arts museum, gallery and meeting hall. There have been no problems of code violations or crimes over the past year. Staff is recommending a two-year time limit due to nature of public assembly and commercialized type business in the middle of an industrial area. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Richard Johnson, applicant, if he had any quesfions or concerns after reviewing the staff report. ApplicanYs Statement: Richard Johnson, 2821 E. White Star Avenue, Unit D, responded no. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Flores asked what kind of business it was, when was it open, how many people, and is there an age group. Mr. Johnson stated it is an open forum artist cooperative for art, poetry readings and musicians. It is a big warehouse with pictures on the wall with a stage at the end. They are limited to 50 people but there are usually only 15 - 20. There is no age group, it is from 15 to 60, depending on who is there. Commissioner Eastman asked if he was in agreement with the two years and the lease. Mr. Johnson was in agreement. L ~ 08-11-03 Page 27 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent and with one Commission vacancy), 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 the request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04347 (Tracking No. CUP2003-04732) to retain a cooperative arts museum, gallery and meeting hall, for a period of two (2) years to expire on June 19, 2005. Amended Resolution No. 2001-166 in its entirety and replaced it with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: 1. That this permit shall expire in two (2) years on June 19, 2005. 2. That the facility shall be used and operated in compliance with "A3" Uniform Building Code occupancy requirements. 3. That trash storage areas shall be maintained in compliance with approved plans on file with the Public Works Department. • 4. That no outdoor events (including car shows, concerts, barbeques, live art performances, etc.) shall be permitted. All business shall be conducted wholly within the existing building. 5. That the maximum occupancy of this facility shall be limited to fifty (50) persons. 6. That no Special Event Permits for outdoor events or temporary advertising shall be permitted at this location. 7. That signs shall be limited to the one (1) existing wall sign identifying the name of the facility and suite number in conformance with Code requirements. 8. That the petitioner shall obtain an Entertainment Permit for any live art performances. 9. That the hours of operation shall be limited to 6 p.m. to 1 a.m., daily. 90. That the sale, dispensing and/or consumption of alcohol beverages shall not be permitted on the premises; except for not to exceed five (5) special events per calendar year and provided that any necessary permits and/or licenses are obtained from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for such events. 11. That no food that is cooked, heated, reheated, assembled or altered on-site shall be permitted without approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a restaurant. 12. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing ~ regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash and debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from the time of occurrence. 08-11-03 Page 28 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 13. That a licensed uniformed security guard, approved by the Anaheim Police Department, shall be provided on the premises specifically to provide security and to discourage vandalism, trespass, and/or loitering upon or adjacent to the subject property. Said security guard shall be provided at events and remain on duty as determined to be appropriate by the Anaheim Police Department. 14. That no required parking areas shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage. 15. That subject property shall be development substantia!!y in accordance with plans and specification submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, and as conditioned herein. 16. That the approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only 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 requirements. • ~ VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent and with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (3:00-3:05) 08-11-03 Page 29 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 7b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2003-00411 Recommended adoption of 7c. RECLASSIFICATION NU. 2003-00107 Exhibit °A" to City Councii Granted 7d. VARIANCE NO. 2003-04570 Granted, in part 7e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16557 Approved 7f. WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 542 Approved OWNER: Roger J. Work, 2010 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 AGENT: Y S Virk, 9017 Harvard Avenue, Buena Park, CA 90620 LOCATION: 3601 West Ball Road. Property is approximately 0.85- acre, having a frontage of 167 feet on the north side of Ball Road, located 653 feet west of the centerline of Knott Avenue. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2003-00411 - Requesf to amend the Land Use Element Map of the General Plan redesignating the property from the General Commercial designation to the Low-Medium Density residential designation. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00107 - Request reclassification of the property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone to the RM- 3000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) zone, or a less intense zone. ~ VARIANCE NO. 2003-04570 - Request waivers of: (a) minimum private street standards, (b) minimum structural setback adjacent to interior lot lines, (c) minimum recreational leisure area, and (d) minimum distance between buildings to construct a 10-unit attached and detached residential condominium subdivision. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16557 - To establish a 1-lot, 10-unit airspace attached and detached residential condominium subdivision. COUNCIL POLICY NO. 542 - Waiver of Council Policy pertaining to residential projects within 100 feet of a railroad right-of-way. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMEN7 RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-121 RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-122 VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-123 sr8629av.doc Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. David See, Senior Planner stated the subject request if for General Plan Amendment, Reclassification, Variance and Tentative Tract Map to construct a 10-unit attached and detached residential condominium subdivision. He informed subsequent to advertisement, the applicant submitted revised plans and deleted waivers (a) and (c) which leaves waivers (b) and (d) pertaining to interior setback and minimum distance between buildings. Staff recommends approval. ~ Applicant's Statement: Sean Nourani, architect, 3920 East Coronado Street, Suite 205, Anaheim, 92807, represents applicant. 08-11-03 Page 30 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if he had questions or concerns about the staff report. Mr. Nourani responded no and they are in agreement with the recommendations. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Flores asked if ten (10) open parking spaces included visitor parking and would two (2) vehicles fit in the garage, and if that is sufficient? Mr. Nourani responded yes, there are adequate sidewalks for visitors to walk from parking area to units. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, stated they are complying with the parking requirement of City standards. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if two nearby businesses provided competition for street side parking even though they are not supposed to take street side parking into account. Mr. Yalda stated they meet the requirements on site. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated at least other options exist although it isn't something you can rely on in making the decision. Commissioner Flores stated she doesn't want to see future parking problems with them parking in the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Yalda stated some parking problems go back to the 60's and 70's when there was one parking stall • per unit regardless of how many bedrooms there were. Today's code is adequate if cars are parked inside their garage. Commissioner Eastman asked about the length of the driveway, is there some edging to take away from the big, long concrete slab. She didn't see landscape provisions for something around the garages to soften the effect. Mr. Nourani responded they have landscape in between the units and the entrances. Commissioner Flores stated only the tree would be visible. Previous projects have stamped concrete to divide and give a relief from a concrete alley. Mr. Nourani responded they could incorporate that. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager stated that is a good idea and it could be a condition. Commissioner Flores suggested concrete cofor because there is no room for shrubbery. Mr. Hastings stated they can work with the applicant and Commission can compose a condition that would require the applicant to work with staff. Commissioner O'Connell asked for clarification if on the concrete at the entry way off of Ball Road, or all the way down. Commissioner Eastman stated a couple of divisions at the area where there is an entrance and stated the applicant would need to come up with where they would want to do it and bring it back to staff. ~ Commissioner O'Connell stated his concern is if you try to do a lot of work down this alley way, you are adding a lot of cost and he doesn't want to put the burden on the developer to do a whole lot when you 08-11-03 Page 31 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES are looking at garages. Who is really going to see them since there is nothing to the back. Ball Road • entrance is the only place and there is really no other location, the public can't really see it. Chairperson Vanderbilt clarified that Commissioner Eastman's concern is the length. Commissioner Eastman responded she wasn't thinking of the whole length. Commissioner O'Connell clarified the entryway. Commissioner Eastman agreed, and stated she was not certain if there is another area, she would like to have them look at it to see if there may be an area that would look good, perhaps they could have two more breaks for more appeal. Mr. Nourani stated they could consider a mix of concrete, plain, smooth and stamped as you are driving in to break it up. Commissioner Eastman stated it makes for a better project and staff may have ideas. Mr. Nourani thanked staff, it has been positive. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked what type of trees would be in the walkways. Mr. Nourani responded flowering cherries. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated they will have a canopy and it will be visible as you drive down and will provide some of the softening, itjust might not be apparent by looking at the plans themselves. • Commissioner Flores asked how much the homes are going for. Mr. Nourani stated the high 200,000's. Mr. Hastings informed Public Works staff has an amendment to one of the conditions. James Ling, Associate Civil Engineer referred to Condition No. 2 of Tentative Tract Map No. 16557, page 11. He gave clarification and read the current condition, and stated the City of Anaheim is currently undergoing capital improvement projects to widen Ball Road so they are already preparing the street improvement plans. The developer and applicant is only required to submit landscape and irrigation plans for public parkway between the curb of Ball Road and sidewalk. He informed the applicant is already aware of this, but wanted it read info fhe record. Mr. Nourani stated it was clear and he was in agreement. Following Action: Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney asked if staff was going to request City Council to consider all of the items. Mr. Hastings stated staff is suggesting that only the General Plan Amendment go forward and the project remain separate as approved by the Commission. Selma Mann asked if all of it has been made conditioned upon approval of the General Plan Amendment. Mr. Hastings responded yes. • ~ ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • ~ OPPOSITION: An e-mail was received prior to the meeting, expressing a concern. 08-11-03 Page 32 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Recommended City Council approva! of General Plan Amendment No. 2003-00411 (to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan from the General Commercial land use designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation) by adopting Exhibit "A". Granted Reclassification No. 2003-00107 (to reclassify the property from the RS-A- 43,000 zone to the RM-3000 zone) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated August 11, 2003. Granted Variance No. 2003-04570, in part, denying waivers pertaining to (a) minimum private street standards and (c) minimum recreational leisure area since they have been deleted; and approving waivers pertaining to (b) minimum structural setback adjacent to interior lot lines and (d) minimum distance between buildings, to construct a 10-unit attached and detached residential condominium subdivision subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated August 11, 2003 with the following modifications: Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: 26. That the applicant shall provide a plan to Zoning Division staff for enhancements to the driveway, including treatments such as stamped and colored concrete and planters. Said plan shall be reviewed and approved by staff. Said decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 16557 (to establish a 1-lot, 10-unit airspace ~ attached and detached residential condominium subdivision) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated August 11, 2003, with the following modifications: Modified Condition No. 2 to read as follows: 2. That the developer shall install landscape and irrigation between the sidewalk and curb along Ball Road, as approved by the Public Works Department. The developer shall obtain a Right-Of-Way Construction Permit from the Development Services Division for a!I work performed in the right-of-way. A bond shall be posted in an amount approved by the City Engineer and in a form approved by the City Attorney prior to approval of the final map. The improvements shall be constructed prior to final building and zoning inspection. Approved Council Policy No. 542 (to allow residential dwellings to be located near a railroad right-of-way) since sound mitigation measures will be implemented in the construction of the project. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent, with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the Planning Commission's recommendation on the General Plan Amendment would be scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council. The decision on the Tentative Tract Map will be considered final in 10 days unless an appeal to or by the City Council is filed within that time. The balance of the items, except the General Plan Amendment will be considered final in 22 days un(ess an appeal to or by the City Council is filed within that time. The final decision on the General Plan Amendment will be made by the City Council and all of the other approvals are • conditioned upon approval of that General Plan Amendment. DISCUSSION TIME: 31 minutes (3:05-3:36) 08-11-03 Page 33 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMlSSION MlNUTES • 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04736 September 8, 2003 OWNER: Cal Asia Property Development Company, 1517 South Sepulveda Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90025 AGENT: TW Layman Associates, Attn: Tim Saivar, 16633 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1320, Encino, CA 91436 LOCATION: 101 South Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 0.40-acre, located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Brookhurst Street. Request to construct a 3-unit commercial retail center. CONDITIONAL USE PERM17 RESOLUTION NO. sr5030jr.doc Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. David See, Senior Planner stated it is a request for a conditional use permit to construct a 3-unit commercial retail center af southwest corner of Brookhurst Street and Lincoln Avenue. Staff is not supportive of this request due to small size of property and potential for problems occurring within the parking lot area in front of each tenant space because there is no rear-loading area and no driveway or alley behind the building. In addition, Redevelopment Agency staff does not support request based on . conflicts with the goals of the West Anaheim Commercial Corridor's Redevelopment Project Plan and the West Anaheim Vision Plan that was approved by the Planning Commission and City Councii. (Statements made at the podium by the applicant were not audible by tape; the following comments were creafed by staff notes.) Applicant's Statement: Tim Saivar, represents Cal Asia, is with TW Layman Associates, 16633 Ventura Boulevard in Encino. Mr. Saivar stated it is easier for them to lease a 3-unit space than a 2-unit space, as it allows them to be more flexible in the type of tenants that can lease out spaces. They have been working with the neighboring properties to the west, the tire shop and billiards hall; and also the property to the south the bowling alley. Currently, they do not have any lease agreements. They are not purchasing any markets that have heavy uses like large trucks to come onto the building. Chairperson Vanderbilt thanked him for clarifying his perspective THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner O'Connell asked about food items Mr. Saivar stated we have twenty-four (24) parking spaces. The building is only 2400 square feet. We are required to have a Conditional Use Permit. The reason we are asking for the CUP is so that we are able to have more flexibility. This gives us an opportunity to be able to subdivide into the third unit. • Commissioner O'Connell asked staff if they were just doing two units. 08-11-03 Page 34 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. See stated that is correct. It is actually one or two units they are permitted to construct by right provided they comply with development standards of parking, landscaping, building heights and signage. Three units or more triggers the conditional use permit. Commissioner O'Connell clarified it wasn't square footage, it is just three units. Mr. Saivar stated they would like to work with staff on the development being three or two units. Commissioner O'Connell stated he understands the applicant, but why wouldn't he pursue the two units, make them a little bigger or get one single user in there. Mr. Saivar, illegible response. Commissioner O'Connell asked if staff's feeling was the rear access delivery was the biggest problem because of the parking situation. David See, Senior Planner stated that is correct. There is no rear-delivery and staff feels that too much activity cou(d potentially occur in front of the tenant spaces and be double used for loading/unloading and parking and cause circulation problems. Mr. Saivar, illegible response. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager stated according to the planner who is working on tf~is, it was pedestrian access, not vehicular access. The trucks/deliver vans would have to park in the parking lot and wheel it around the back. If there is a plan where there can be rear delivery by way of a vehicle whether it is on this property or by way of an access easement from an adjacent property, that is something that would be beneficial to the project. • Commissioner Flores stated as a code enforcement inspector she could see the problem the City is coming from. Even though you have a small business, when you have delivery in the front, it is a hazard to vehicles that are parked there. It causes accidents and jams the streets. Would it be possible to build a smaller building? Mr. Saivar indicated he has been working with staff regarding the sife design and loading concerns. The site complies with all provisions of the code and a loading area is not required. Mr. Hastings stated that is the same challenge staff has seen. This lot is definitely small, smaller than the standard service station lot, which is typically 950 x 150 and they have had issues with trying to redevelop the subject lot into commercial retail center. It is difficult unless you have the adjacent properties to work with. Commissioner Eastman is concerned about this corner for the same reasons that Commissioner Flores has mentioned. It is a busy intersection and the circulation appears to be difficult if you involve any kind of delivery. Commissioner Romero asked if Mr. Gottlieb from Redevelopment could speak on this item. David Gottlieb, Redevelopment Manager, (spoke at the podium and was not audible hy tape, the following comments were created by staff notes.) Mr. Gottlieb stated that Redevelopment does not support a small commercial strip center, as there is an abundance in West Anaheim, having 350% more commercial land uses than the population could sustain. They have been buying mid-block commercial sites, and are in the process of converting them into homes. They do support staff's recommendation. ~ Chairperson Vanderbilt stated if applicant is given due diligence to consolidate with adjacent lots and there is no interest at this time for that, then if there was a use place there, it wouldn't be diluting the value 08-11-03 Page 35 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • of retail property. It is as though other economic factors are going to happen whether it is there or not, if those economic factors happen based on the model, the value will increase and there might be another opportunity down the road to do something. He wonders how long we can ask somebody with a piece of property on the corner to wait for everything else to fall into place before they can develop. Mr. Gottlieb, illegible response. Commissioner O'Connell stated he feels they are holding out for the "big bucks" and asked if the bowling alley would like to be residential area also, and did they acquire that property at all. Mr. Gottlieb responded it is planned for commercial. Commissioner O'Connell stated that could be years. He doesn't understand; he can build two units, but can't build three and that doesn't make any sense. If market dictates he needs three smaller units instead of two bigger ones, it would make a lot of sense. You'd want the success of this corner, you don't want it vacant. His point is if you can build two, let him build three and go from there. Commissioner Flores asked if the parking would be different. Alfred Yaida, Principal Transportation Planner stated it would not make any difference because it is calculated by square footage. Commissioner Eastman asked if there were three separate businesses vs. two businesses, would it tend to generate more frequent turnover in parking. Mr. Yalda stated no, they don't have any area that they could say if you have more units, you require more parking. Generally speaking, this is such a small site, if it were a bigger shopping center with more • users, you'd use less parking because one individual comes with the car and can do three or four things that they need to do. This is a small area and it will not really make that much difference. Commissioner O'Connell asked Mr. Gottlieb what would they want on the site if it were there for the next 10 years. Mr. Gottlieb responded they don't go parcel by parcel; and they have an overabundance of nails and video establishments. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked there was an overlay zone that limits the types of businesses that can be established on this corner. Mr. See asked if he was referring to item 4, the Downtown Mixed Use Overlay. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if there was a Brookhurst Overlay Zone and believes it is included '+n that zone, are there provisions for types of businesses that can be operated. Mr. See responded that is correct. Mr. Hastings stated there are some exclusions of what can't operate in that area. He thinks convenience markets is one of them because they are trying to encourage regular supermarkets rather than convenience markets. There is already an overabundance in the area. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated there are probably restrictions on tattoo parlors and the like too. Mr. Hastings responded tattoo parlors require a CUP and they haven't had one of those in ages. The ones they do have are in that area of town. ~ 08-11-03 Page 36 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. See stated examples of prohibited uses in the Brookhurst Overlay are amusement device arcades, • bars and cocktails lounges unless integrated with full service restaurant, hotels/motels/motor inns, liquor stores, massage parlors, nightclubs and pawn shops. Chairperson Vanderbilt clarified convenience markets isn't included in there. Mr. See responded yes. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked yes it is not or yes it is. Mr. Gottlieb, illegible response. Commissioner Eastman asked if they develop the same square footage with two uses, which is by right, would they be held by the same kind of standards as far as their signage and landscaping. Commission sees a very nice rendering of what this center is going to look like. Would that be required according to our code, or are we getting some benefit by having a CUP. Mr. Hastings stated we definitely have benefited by having a CUP if you are looking for enhancements beyond what the minimum code requirements are. If Commission is leaning towards that, he requests they put a very specific condition or intent in the approval that the enhancements which are seen in this rendering wil! be carried out. Commissioner Eastman stated there isn't a great looking use to the west. When she was on Lincoln coming from the west to the east and trying to envision what she saw on the plan, she saw the trash enclosure. That is what people traveling on Lincoln are going to see. She would like to see more enhancements to something like that. Seems that would be one way to work with the applicant, get most attractive, nicest development of that corner. She concurs with Commissioner O'Connell in the fact that if • you are telling us the market conditions are indicating you can rent three versus two, you already have a vacant corner that is not doing anything for our city and enhancing it. Maybe we can come to a compromise and every body gets the most that they can get out of it. Mr. Gottlieb, illegible response. Commissioner O'Connell asked staff what the biggest argument is in doing the three unit. Is it the lack of the loading zone? is there any other compelling reason not to do this? Mr. Hastings stated in terms of the number of units, it is purely a matter when this ordinance was created. The intent was to not have a mini-mafl on service station corners. In the early 80's a lot of service stations were going down and in iYs place they were seeing these. That was the number that was chosen at the time to be where a mini-mall was three or more. Our concern at this place isn't the fact that it is three units or two units, as much as it is that staff wants to make sure the sife functions well so they don't see repeated issues that they are constantly working with daily in the office with these types of centers that don't have the rear access. That includes for trash purposes too. They would rather see trash trucks in the back of the property if there is a way to design it, not on Lincoln Avenue. In this case, there really isn't with the size of the building and the way it was designed. Commissioner O'Connell asked if the parking was fine. Mr. Hastings responded yes. Mr. See pointed out for clarification. As far as convenience markets, they looked at the code and Brookhurst Overlay Zone and the convenience markets are not prohibited, just liquor stores or off premises sales of alcoholic beverages unless in a market more than 30,000 square feet. It has also been staff's experience when there is an intensification of more units, the parking could potentially go up ~ because it is based on the type of business. For example, a martial arts studio or restaurant could drive up the parking count and it could also occur when you have more tenant spaces. 08-11-03 Page 37 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • ~ Chairperson Vanderbilt stated the applicant mentioned in the conditions, in this particular CUP, there is a stipulation of no convenience markets so we could rely on that if it was a concern for staff. Commissioner Eastman asked if there was ever consideration to move the building closer to Lincoin and putting trash at the other end. There is a fair size parking lot righf next to the parcel, shared usage possibility was mentioned. Something could be worked out to eliminate a driveway somewhere. Mr. Gottlieb, illegible response. Commissioner Romero stated there are some issues with the site, specifically the circulation and loading and he would like to give him more time to work with staff to see if some of these issues could be worked ouf before voting. Chairperson Vanderbilt concurred with Commissioners Eastman and Romero Mr. Saivar agreed with continuing the item in order to work with staff more closely. Chairperson Vanderbilt if it sounds agreeable to everyone here, we can move in that direction and asked staff if there were any concerns about that kind of proposal. Mr. See stated one concern is there is a 35-foot setback requirement next to Lincoln. If the building gets moved closer or more north it could trigger a waiver and a readvertisement. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated earlier at the preliminary hearing Mr. Hastings mentioned that the 35-foot setback is antiquated and there is belief that this is the kind of thing the City should be looking at removing some time in the future. Is there some other action the Planning Commission could make to nullify it? Cfarified there was some consideration of eliminating the 35-foot setback because it applied to arterial highways and iYs a different era now. Mr. Hastings stated that is one of the items they are looking at with the Zoning Code Update which is still a few months off. A code amendment could be initiated, however, timing would end up being about the same. It is the intenf to look at that since it is one area of the City where 35 feet no longer appears to be effective since it is no longer a state highway. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated, adding that to the equation, if a continuance were granted for 4 or 6 weeks, is it possible to clarify some of these things that may work out for all parties. Mr. Hastings stated he wasn't sure what they could accomplish because it is such a tight sight. If the applicant has some other ideas, staff can look at it. One thing is to ask for a waiver on that front setback on Lincoln Avenue. They'd have to look to see if other variances have been granted in that area. This site is impacted by just the size and shape of it. It may not be suitable for this under a conditional use permit, but it may be such a odd size or shape that it is deserving of a variance. Chairperson Vanderbilt added if it is possible that the list be proposed for the nature of the businesses. A bank would probably not be proposed for that location, maybe a check cashing facility. He feels there is an interest on the part of the Planning Commission to work to get this in place if it can be demonstrated that it meets all of the criteria that everybody is looking for. Mr. Saivar stated they could provide a drawing for Commission's review. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated there is no meeting in 2 weeks, but one in 4 weeks. Mr. Hastings stated they could manage 4 weeks. If there is any indication that they are going to ask for a variance it will be tight, but if they know right away that that request is coming through, they can readvertise it. Commissioner O'Connell asked if a variance was because of the trash. 08-11-03 Page 38 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Hastings stated this has a strange code section that says the buildings have to be setback 35 feet, otherwise other encroachments are allowed. Commissioner O'Connell asked if the trash is why they are looking at moving the building. Commissioner Eastman informed that the applicant stated he had a different plan. Illegible response. Commissioner Eastman stated he has less flexibility because of this extremely large setback that he had to deal with. Mr. Hastings stated they have a copy of the original plan which shows behind retail Unit A, there is a 6'9" area just for walking. Commissioner O'Connell asked if they planned a walkway for deliveries in the back. Illegible response. Mr. Hastings stated the issue with that is the Police Department doesn't usually endorse those narrow passageways between buildings because they are unobservable. Following Action: Mr. Hastings verified the reason for continuance would be to relocate the trash enclosure out of primary view and find a way to solve the issue pertaining to the loading/unloading area. ~ • ~ ~- • ~ • ~ ~ • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent and with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to the September 8, 2003, Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to work with the Planning Department and consider a more appropriate site design for the proposed project. VOTE: 5-0 (Bostwick absent and with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: 32 minutes (3:36-4:08) The podium microphone was not working; therefore the handheld microphone was used. There were difficulties with the operation of the handheld microphone, therefore comments were created by staff notes. ~ 08-11-03 Page 39 AUGUST 11, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:10 P.M. TO MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 AT 10:30 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW AND FOR A PRESENTATION BY THE ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT ON THE GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM PROJECT. (DUE TO LACK OF QUORUM THE AUGUST 25, 2003 MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELLED). Respectfully submitted: ~~~~~ ~.~~ • Eliy Morris Senior Secretary ~ Received and approved bythe Pianning Commission on Se Q 6 g2003. 08-11-03 Page 40