The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 2003/11/03• CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2003 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRP~F,~S@h1~JAIU~S VANDERBILT COMMISSIONERS PRESENT; PA~U~.~f~~3~V~iCI~, ~~~I~Y ~FF~A, GAIL EASTMAN, ~,~~Cf~.l~4 ~LO~~, ~f~RY~E~~CC3~jVt~LL, DAVID ROMERO COMMISSIONERS ABSE .~ ~~~a'~ ~~a~~'~~ ~ ~~~ ~, ~~ ,a. ~ ~A~tc~r~ey ~,~ e Alfred Yalda,RF~rin~ipa~'~f~r~~~por~ation Planner ~~~n~~an~~e~f James Lmg, As~bct~te~~~vi~~~~~~~_eer Plar~'~e,~~~~ Elly Morris, Senio~~Se~~et~~~ ~~~~ /ic~~p~tail ~ _~ ~~, ~.m~->Pa#„~h,andler, Ser~ioi~~y, . ecr~tary~ ff q~ ~~~~ STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann, Assistant Greg Hastings, Zoning~~ Greg McCafferty, Prin~ Sergeant Michael Loz~~ Kerry Kemp, Senior F~r~ II AGENDA POSTIN~ • Thursday, October the outside display PUBLISHED: Ar CALL TO ORDER 1:30 p.m. on nbers. and also in ~~ ~ ~E ti ~~ a~€„ ~ a ~~~ a y~ "` ~~Er ~ r"'~~"r PLANNING Cp~I~IIM~~SI~N;~,MO . N~N~ SESSION ~~1 OQ~~fi~ M.•=~~~ ~€:F • STAFF UPD~~TE T~~~~1l~t~SION O~~VA~U~CIT~~'~, ~~ DEVELOPMENT~'~A~1[J~I~~IJ~ (~°~R~~`JES~EB~FE~Y'~ k~~,€~ PLANNING COMI~I~~S~`tC)'N)~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~. ~~'~~ • PRELIMINARY PLAI~~F~ VIE~I ~O`R~~'E ~ S Q,~1~,~. ~NOVEMBER 3, 2003 AGENDA • PRESENTATION BY THE CC~~UIIV~C~~,`[~C~~~ IE~MENT DEPARTMENT ON THE CIM GROUP DOWNTOWN MIXED-USE PROJECT AND AN UPDATE ON THE STATE MANDATED IMPLEMENTION PROGRAM FOR THE HOUSING ELEMENT • DISCUSSION REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES AND MEETING TIME ~ RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish fo make a stafement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Flores PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT - - - - - - - - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H:~DOCS~CLERICAUMINUTESWC110303.DOC ~lanntnqcommission(a~anaheim.net NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:30 P.M. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance: New Planning Commissioner - Keily Buffa. Kelly Buffa was sworn in as Planning Commissioner by Sheryll Schroeder, Cify Clerk. 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. CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 1-A on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Romero and Buffa abstained), for approval of Consent Calendar Item (1-A) as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED ~ 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of October 20, 2003. (Motion) ACT10N: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Romero and Buffa abstained), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of October 20, 2003. \ J Approved (Vote: 5-0, Commissioners Romero and Buffa abstained) 11-03-03 Page 2 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3 (READVERTISED) 2b. VARIANCE NO. 2003-04574 OWNER: Neelam Shewa, 5333 University Drive, Irvine, CA 92616 AGENT: Blash Momeny, 23120 Alicia Parkway, #100, Mission Viejo, CA 92692 LOCATION: 301 and 345 Pennv Lane. Parcel 1: Property is approximately 0.53-acre, having a frontage of 90 feet on the southerly side of Penny Lane, located 70 feet southeast of the centerline of Mohler Drive. Parcel 2: Property is approximately 0.78-acre, having a frontage of 220 feet on the southerly side of Penny Lane, located 160 feet southeast of the centerline of Mohler Drive. Request waivers of: (a) required improvement of right-of-way, (b) maximum structural height, (c) minimum front yard setback, and {d) minimum side yard setback, to construct two single-family homes. Continued from the September 8, October 6 and October 20, 2003, Planning Commission Meetings. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. ~ OPPOSITION: None Continued to November 17, 2003 sr5056jr.doc ACTtON: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the November 17, 2003, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the applicant time to prepare documentation associated with this request as requested by the applicant. VOTE: 7-0 D(SCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 11-03-03 Page 3 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 3. E a C QA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Withdrawn 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04744 OWNER: First Congregational Church of Anaheim, 515 North State CoNege Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Adan Madrid, Trillium Telecommunications, 3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 210, Seal Beach, CA 90740 LOCATION: 515 North State Colleqe Boulevard. Property is approximately 5.6 acres, located at the northwest corner of Sycamore Street and State College Boulevard (First Congregational Church of Anaheim). Request to permit a telecommunications antenna with accessory ground- mounted equipment with waivers of: (a) minimum front yard setback and (b) minimum side yard setback. Continued from the September 8 and October 6, 2003, Planning Commission Meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. sr8638vn.doc • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request for withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04744, as the applicants will be reviewing other possible alternatives for meeting their coverage objectives for this area. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. r 11-03-03 Page 4 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04777 Granted OWNER: John Pedicini, 350 East 17t" Street, #116, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 AGENT: Tim Keeney, Dragon Construction, 14971 Chestnut ~ Street, #7, Westminster, CA 92683 LOCATION: 2820-2822 West Ball Road. Property is approximately 0.94 acres, having a frontage of 210 feet on the south side of Ball Road, located 210 feet west of Dale Avenue (Lemon Twist). Request to establish land use conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for a legal nonconforming commercial retail center and to expand an existing legal nonconforming bar with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-145 sr3047ey.doc Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. i Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. He stated the subject item is a request to expand an existing bar called the Lemon Twist at 2820-2822 W. Ball Road with the waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Staff is recommending approval of the subject request subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report. He informed the Police Department is present if the Commission has any questions. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant or representative come forward to speak. ApplicanYs Statement: Tim Keeney, Dragon Construction, 608 Ambor Drive, Huntington Beach. Stated he is representing Danny Wayne from Lemon Twist. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if he had a chance to review the staff report. Mr. Keeney responded yes. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if he had any questions or comments. Mr. Keeney responded no. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick referred to the staff report and stated there is a modification to Condition No. 1, and asked the applicant if he is aware that it states 11 a.m. - 2 p.m., and clarified it should state 11 a.m. - 2 a.m. i 11-03-03 Page 5 NOVEMBER 3, 20Q3 PI.ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Keeney was in agreement. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04777 (to establish land use conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for a legal nonconforming commercial retail center and to expand an existing legal-nonconforming bar) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated November 3, 2003, with the following modification. Modified Condition No. 1 to read as follows: That the hours of operation shall be limited to 11 a.m. to ~: 2 a.m., daily. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (1:43-1:47) • *****~********~**************~ (This item was reopened for further discussion following Item No. 5[2:25-2:33]) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney. Stated the applicant for Item No. 4 realized there was a condition on the approval that the owner of the commercial center would have a problem which he neglected to mention. Since it is during the same meeting and there was no opposition, if the Commission is amenable to reopening after hearing what the applicant has to say, the Commissioner who offered the resolution may wish to reconsider the resolution for the conditionaf use permit. Chairperson Vanderbilt clarified if they could reopen the hearing and then address the particular condition that is of concern to the applicant. Selma Mann responded yes, it is not always the case but there was no opposition today and no one indicated their presence in wishing to speak on the item, therefore, they don't have a situation were the interested people would have left and then modified the decision after they left. She informed it is the Commission's option. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant to come forward to speak. John Pedicini, 350 17'h Street, #116, Costa Mesa. He referred to the staff report, page 8, Condition No. 13, which requires that the number of tenant spaces shall be limited to 6 units. He stated currently the shopping center has 9 units; other tenants like today's applicant is taking over more than one unit, but he has 9 separate rentai spaces. • Chairperson Vanderbilt asked how many tenants. Mr. Pedicini responded there are 7 tenants. 11-03-03 Page 6 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bostwick clarified today's applicant is going to take one of those, therefore it goes down to 6 as the staff report states. Mr. Pedicini concurred but stated he is not displacing the existing tenant but is relocating him to another space and reducing the cafe that is in the "elbow" of the property. At one time he had 9 separate tenants and sometimes a tenant may use 2 units. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated there might be some confusion because staff is talking about tenants and the owner is talking about spaces. Mr. Pedicini was in agreement. Chairperson Vanderbilt sfated staff created the condition based on what was proposed and the reason they tried to lock it down in the conditional use permit is because if there is any change it may require a new conditional use permit. Mr. McCafferty responded yes. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated it is important that they establish how many tenants you are going to have at the subject facility, not the number of spaces. Commissioner Bostwick asked if he is going to have 7 units. Mr. Pedicini responded yes. Commissioners and Mr. Pedicini further discussed the number of units desired by Mr. Pedicini; Mr. Pedicini concurred he would like to request 8 units, but if that is not acceptable, 7 units would be • sufficient. Following discussion, Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Commission if it would be appropriafe fo explore the matter further; Commissioner Bostwick acknowledged his support in re-opening the public hearing. Chairperson Vanderbilt re-opened the public hearing for the subject item and asked staff for any suggestions based on the testimony presenfed by the applicant. Selma Mann stated she would suggest that there be some kind of action taken since the Commissioner who offered the resofution has indicated that they have no objection, therefore she would suggest a motion and second be made to re-open the subject item; then it would be appropriate to act on the reso(ution again. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion to re-open the subject item; Commissioner Flores seconded the motion, motion passed. Mr. McCafferty stated staff is agreeable to 7 units. Commissioner Buffa asked where would you put an 8th tenant if it were approved. Mr. Pedicini explained if the Lemon Twist were brought back to its original space, he would have that space and then there are 3 spaces where the Desert Cafe is and as of today it is vacated, which is why it was important that he expressed this matter. Further discussion took place regarding the number of units; the applicant indicated he would not go back to 9 units. • Mr. McCafferty stated staff would be agreeable to 8 units. Commissioner Flores asked if the parking woufd change. 11-03-03 Page 7 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINU7ES ~ Mr. McCafferty stated it depends on what is put into the spaces; if he puts in a straight retail use and not a food or medical use then it would be fine. If something is put in that requires higher than the standard retail count then, yes, it would change. Commissioner Flores asked if he would have to come back before the Commission. Mr. McCafferty responded yes, since the assumptions wouid be different. After action was taken, Selma Mann stated the Planning Commission has reconsidered its resolution on Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04777 and it has approved the conditional use permit with the modifications to Condition Nos. 1 and 13. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Commissioner Bostwick re-offered the resolution, seconded by Commissioner Eastman, to grant approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04777 (to establish land use conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for a legal nonconforming commercial retail center and to expand an existing legal-nonconforming bar) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated November 3, 2003, with the • following modifications. Modified Condition Nos. 1 and 13 to read as follows: 1. That the hours of operation shall be limited to 11 a.m. to ~ 2 a.m., daily. 13. That the number of tenant spaces shall be limited to a total of ~&~ eight (8) units. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 8 minutes (2:25-2:33) ~ 11-03-03 Page 8 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATfON (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Continued to 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4113 December 1, 2003 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04781) OWNER: Andrew Y. Lui, 1730 Sunny Knoll, Fullerton, CA 92835 AGENT: Mike Helguero, 500 North Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 500 North Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 1.2 acres, located at the northeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Alameda Avenue (Plaza Garibaldi Restaurant). Request reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on July 13, 1999 to expire July 13, 2003) to retain the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption within an existing restaurant with a bar, entertainment, dancing and banquet facilities. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. sr5057jr.doc Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. He stated the subject item is The Plaza Garibaldi Restaurant and the request is to retain the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption in conjunction • with the restaurant, bar, entertainment, dancing and banquet facilities. Also, the applicant is requesting to amend the hours of operation to stay open an additional hour untif 1:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. Staff is recommending approval of the reinstatement portion of the request for a period of two (2) years, but are recommending that the Commission not approve the additional hours of operation. There have been cover charges at the subject location on certain days that the restaurant is open. This is a violation of the dinner dance permit that has been approved and would also be a violation of the conditional use perm it. He referred to a similar request that was before the Commission at the last meeting, "The EI Patio Restaurant" and stated a similar condition was placed on the operation of the use and they were in violation of that and the Commission did limit the reinstatement of that for two (2) years, therefore staff's recommendation is consistent with that. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant or representative come forward to speak. Applicant's Statement: Chris Howard. He introduced Mike Helguero and stated they are the owners of Plaza Garibaldi Restaurant, 500 N. Brookhurst Street, Anaheim. He referred to the staff report, page 9, Condition No. 31 and informed that they have a major crisis in the understanding the subject business. Chairperson Vanderbilt clarified with regard to conditions in staff reports, it is the general purpose that they are simply to reinforce existing laws and he believes that all businesses with an entertainment element would include such a condition. Mr. McCafferty was in agreement and stated staff is not indicating that Plaza Garibaldi Restaurant operates in such a manner, but since the subject entitlement runs with the land the Police Department ~ wants to ensure that they have the protection and entitlement that are needed to enforce the provisions of the Municipal Code. 11-03-03 Page 9 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Howard stated he understands, and explained the Plaza Garibaldi Restaurant is a mariachi dinner theatre with authentic Mexican food, great drinks, warm hospitality and service, a great atmosphere and a place where you would want to bring your entire family. They have one of the best mariachi groups in the United States, the group has played with Vicki Carr on the Jerry Lewis telethon and they have performed at the Greek Theatre and the Hollywood Bowl, therefore, they push Latino music. He explained the variety of Latino entertainment they have being a cowboy roper, youngsters from a local folkloric dancing school, "flamenco" and "tango" dancers. The problem is when the initial conditional use permit was granted, it was granted for only a year because it was so bad. He understands they came into a place where a body was previously found in the parking lot and they were running drugs and women, and in essence it was a bar and dance hall and were masquerading in whatever fashion in order to get a permit to operate. They are actually revisiting the punishments and permit that was granted to a place that is "night and da~' from the previous business to the current business; and have had to educate people coming into the business that they are not a bar or dance hall, and it is a legitimate restaurant. He submitted materiaf (handout, a menu, The Group Travel Leader of America Magazine; and Where Orange Gounty Magazine [ad inside of subject facility]) to the Commission. He informed they would be hosting the Juanita's Foods Christmas party for the second year in a row. This coming Friday they are hosting the only Southern California Glamour Exposition which is the Group Leaders of America and have hosted hundreds of senior groups. He emphasized they are not a bar masquerading as a restaurant. He stated at one of the City Council's session it was mentioned that Plaza Garibaldi Restaurant was used as an example of the kind of business they would like to have more of in the City of Anaheim. They are Anaheim's only dinner theatre and have been called the Latino version of "Wild Bills" and are friends with "Wild Bills". He asked the Commission to eliminate any time restrictions, as he doesn't believe anyone • would complain about the business since there haven't been any police complaints. He doesn't feel they should continue under the limitations of a prior business when they haven't committed the violations. He referred to the $10 charge, and stated the charge is for the people who are coming in just to drink because they want to ensure the business is a family restaurant, and not a restaurant where people just come in to drink. The charge is an entertainment charge since their entertainment is so expensive. They have more live entertainers than "Wild Bills" and the cover charge is not intended as a cover charge for people walking in the door. It did what they wanted it to do; to discourage people who only came in to drink and at this point it is pretty much eliminated since most people are now aware, therefore, they can cease the charge. They didn't understand that having two or three people per night or per weekend would be a violation of the conditional use permit. He stated they were previously presented with a plaque in the Council Chambers which states "In recognition of Arts in Public Places - Plaza Garibaldi Restaurant presented by Anaheim Arts Council 13tn Anniversary, October, 2001 (he held the plaque to show Commission). He informed their slogan is "Visit Mexico in Anaheim" as they provide the music, food, entertainment, art and they are totally a family restaurant. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Flores asked staff to clarify the cover charge issue. Mr. McCafferty stated it's his understanding that entertainment theatres such as "Wild Bills" have fixed shows nightly and you could purchase tickets for the show and dinner. It is a one package deal as opposed to a restaurant where you could go in and have something to eat and not necessarily avail yourself of the entertainment unless you want to. He feels that is the distinction, there isn't really any fixed amount of times for Plaza Garibaldi Restaurant. It is a restaurant that provides entertainment which ~ is the way the Municipal Code addresses the issue. It is reinforced by the fact that they have a dinner/dance permit, which by definition is something where you cannot charge a cover charge for the 11-03-03 Page 10 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • entertainment. Staff is not opposed, but it is not what is before the Commission today, it is basically a restaurant that happens to have some entertainment. Commissioner Flores asked if they wanted to change, the applicant would need to come back and reapply for a different type of variance. Mr. McCafferty responded he would need a minute to review the code because the subject site is in a special overlay zone. Commissioner Bostwick informed the applicant whatever Commission does today applies to the land and if the owner sells the property the action today would be on the new owner. He indicated he is tremendously impressed by the menu as it is not just a one-page menu or a buffet and he feels it is really a restaurant, but the property may be sold to someone else who might take it back to what it was previously. Therefore, he hopes the applicant understands the Commission's dilemma in making sure what they do today would protect the community and the City. He stated there are a number of signs that were put up and he doesn't know if they were by the previous owner or present owner, but a lot of them need to be removed. Mr. Howard responded they did remove them, and he believes they are now down fo fhe 10% level. Commissioner Bostwick asked about the monument sign on the corner. Mike Helguero indicated that sign would be removed. Mr. Howard asked for clarification if he is pertaining to the sign on the corner regarding construction. • Commissioner Bostwick responded yes. Mr. Howard stated they understand they need to remove all wording from the construction that is on the corner. Commissioner Bostwick stated yes because it is in the setback. Mr. Helguero asked regarding the one in the corner, if they could apply for it because they would really like to keep it. Commissioner Bostwick responded it would have to be back further out of the setback and they would have to get a building permit. If it is going to be somewhere else, they would have to have a variance. Mr. Howard stated it is less than 8 feet high and is keeping with the architecture and people photograph themselves in front of it. He asked if they could apply for a variance would it be recommended. Commissioner Bostwick stated they would need to submit drawings and have it go through staff for their recommendation before Commission could judge it. Commissioner Bostwick asked Sergeant Michael Lozeau if there have been any calls for service at the subject location. Sergeant Michael Lozeau responded no, but there were nine reports taken and seven of those were for impounds; there was a suspicious vehicle report and a petty theft report. No serious complaints have been made. Commissioner O'Connell asked the applicant for clarification regarding the $10 cover charge. ~ Mr. Howard explained on one side they have a 340-seat dinner theatre which everybody knows it is for the mariachis. When they come there for dinner, they know they are coming for entertainment and the 11-03-03 Page 11 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ entertainment is included with their dinner. On the other side they have a 120-seat restaurant where they have the lunch and buffet. People who come in there know they are just going to eat and there is no entertainment and the pricing is different. Therefore, towards the end of a Friday or Saturday night, people who may have been drinking somewhere else and want to come in and see mariachis and they don't eat dinner, we lost a portion of the money that goes to cover the mariachis and entertainer expense. They figured this would serve two purposes, it would give them money towards paying for the entertainers and secondly, if people are only coming in to drink and maybe cause trouble, they are not going to pay the $90 fee. Most of them leave when we say it is a$10 charge if they are not going to eat which serves our purpose because we don't want people there who are just drinking. Commission O'Connell clarified since they only deal with about two or three people regarding the cover charge that may want to go in and just drink, then there is no problem eliminating the cover charge. Mr. Howard concurred and stated it is not a serious problem for them. Commissioner Romero asked what time the kitchen closes. Mr. Hefguero responded at 11:30 p.m. Mr. Howard stated that is the full kitchen. Commissioner O'Connell referred to the 340-seat theatre and clarified when peopfe go in to have dinner and a show there is no extra charge. Mr. Howard concurred. Commissioner O'Connell asked if the shows are continuous throughout the evening. ~ Mr. Helguero responded sometimes they have three shows, depending on the number of people. He explained the $10 charge is more for the first-time people who don't know the rules and intend to just walk in. We explain to them you have to eat since it is a dinner show and if you decide not to eat, they would then apply a cover charge. Most of the people understand and when they come back they do have dinner. He concurred with Mr. Howard, the reason they did that is because a lot of people just want to have drinks and as soon as we say we have a cover charge, they leave. We don't want to turn the place into a nightclub because it is a restaurant, such as "Wild Bills" but Latino type. Mr. Howard stated they have been approved by all major Japanese tour groups and have had many large groups; a group of 980 people from back East because of their membership in the Visitor's & Convention Sureau and membership in the Chamber of Commerce and this is a legitimate part of Anaheim's cultural art scene. Commissioner O'Connell stated he has no problem with the establishment and has heard great things about it and is just trying to understand the cover charge issue and the permits allowed. Mr. Howard stated if that continues to be a problem with the way it is administered, they have no problem to eliminate it. Commissioner O'Connefl responded according to City Code it has to be eliminated since it is not allowable. Mr. McCafferty stated under their current approval, that is correct. He would like to read into the record what might fit according to what the applicant is saying he does operationally. If the item is continued and advertised appropriately, and stated "a restaurant with public entertainment, restaurant with or without on- premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages where music and/or live entertainment is provided ~ for patrons to dance or otherwise be entertained which is regularly opened to the public upon the payment of a cover charge or admittance fee and is not a sex-oriented business as defined in Section 18.89.02 of the Code. Public entertainment is and shall at all times be accessory to the primary 11-03-03 Page 12 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • restaurant use." If that is operationally to what the applicant is doing in his establishment then it could be readvertised to be before the Commission as that kind of restaurant. First and foremost the restaurant with accessory public entertainment which would allow them to recoup their expenses through the cover charge. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Mr. Howard if he would like to continue today's request and consider what is now before the Commission or have it readvertised under a different section of the municipal code to accommodate the cover charge. Mr. Howard stated he'd rather not put them in a position of doing a cover charge, and would prefer to be known as the best mariachi restaurant dinner theatre in the country which is the reputation that they have developed. He asked Commission if they are still being looked at as the previous business, La Estrella Restaurant, or are they being fooked at as what they are today. These past 4 years, they should have shown what Plaza Garibaldi Restaurant is and what it adds to the community. He would support what Mr. McCafferty stated if iYs what they need in order to continue how they are currently operating. Commissioner Eastman asked staff if this would be a good way for the applicant to go since Commission needs to consider the hours of operation, staying open until 1:00 a.m., and it would put them in another category. Mr. McCafferty stated based on the Municipa! Code, if they went this route they wouldn't be considered a bar, but would be considered a restaurant, first and foremost, that happens to have entertainment. Commissioner Bostwick referred to Condition No. 11, and asked if fhey readvertised the item would said condition still remain. Mr. McCafferty responded no because that condition is meant for the restrictions on the dinner dance • permit. If they came back and readvertised it for public entertainment they could charge a cover charge, but they would still need to comply with the Municipal Code in terms of getting an entertainment permit. Commissioner Eastman asked if it alleviates some of the concerns regarding the land use issues that Commissioner Bostwick mentioned, and if it would be put in a different category with its own limitations. Mr. McCafferty concurred. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Mr. Howard if he has a preference. Mr. Howard stated if you could see their dancing it usually is on the entertainment stage, and when the entertainers leave for a break, approximately 30 minutes, members of the audience may dance; sometimes it may be dads dancing with young daughters, and/or families dancing together, or members who have an anniversary or birthday. Therefore, he doesn't feel this would be considered a dance hall. With regard to Commissioner Bostwick's comment about protecting for the future as it attaches to the property, iYs his understanding that whenever somebody goes in there, they have to abide by what the conditions were at the time. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated the applicant "straddles" between a restaurant and a restaurant with an entertainment element. He feels staff has made a statement that based on the applicanYs testimony and the evidence provided, perhaps there is another definition in the Municipal Code with a restaurant with an entertainment element that might better fit for the CUP to fall under. There might be some advantages in regards to the cover charge no longer being an issue and maybe it is the kind of flexibility the applicant may prefer. He asked if the applicant needs more time to think about what he prefers, or if he would like the Commission to move forward with today's request. Mr. Howard stated what Chairman Vanderbilt is suggesting has some distinct advantages because it ~ would put a period to the prior activities that happened at the location and would reflect what they are today. He stated they are a dinner theatre and they combine great food and great entertainment as a 11-03-03 Page 13 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ package, such as "W ild Bills". There is definitely a charge for the entertainment so if it best fits them from the testimony heard today, and if its staff's recommendation, then they would be happy to look at that, Mr. McCafferty stated regardless of what you call it whether it is a bar, restaurant or restaurant with public entertainment, he feels it all "boils" down to how it is operated. The applicant has been operating inappropriately for the last number of years, and that is staff's concern. Regardless of whether you call it a restaurant with public entertainment or not, it runs with the land. They would need to advertise it to allow the public entertainment, but staff is still undecided if it makes any difference particularly from their recommendation on the hours. They would recommend it be continued to December 1, 2003, in order to advertise it. It makes no particular difference to the applicant as they could still operate during the process and it is just a matter of accommodating the advertising schedule. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Mr. Howard if he agrees with the subject item being continued to December 1, 2003. Mr. Howard was in agreement. Commissioner O'Connell referred to the staff report, page 9, Condition No. 33 and asked staff for clarification on the condition, and also asked the applicant if there are times where you would have more than 10 mariachis. Mr. Howard responded a large mariachi band is 10, which is what you would have in a professional presentation, sometimes there may be a guest mariachi and it might go to 11, but it is very rare. They have a large stage to fit more than 10. Commissioner O'Connell stated he feels 10 mariachis is inappropriate, and asked Mr. McCafferty to address the issue pertaining to the code. • Mr. McCafferty stated when it comes back to Commission they would take a look at it and it would likely be a modified condition. Mr. Howard informed he has a photo today which shows mariachis on stage and with plenty of room left. Chairperson Vanderbilt indicated if the photo is submitted to staff they would need to keep it, therefore, Mr. Howard did not present the photo to staff. Mr. McCafferty stated it seems as though the applicant has a lot of wonderful promotional material and if he has material that he would like to compile and submit to staff we would be more than happy to include the material with Commission's December 1St packet. Mr. Howard suggested that Commissioners access their website which would give a total tour of the restaurant, www.plaza-qaribaldi.com. Mr. McCafferty asked if Commission would like to address the signage issue or wait until the next public hearing meeting. Commissioner Bosfwick suggested that the applicant work with staff on the signage issue. • ~ ~ ~- • • • • ~ ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and ~ MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the December 1, 2003, Planning Commission meeting in order to advertise it as a dinner theatre and restaurant with public entertainmerit. 11-03-03 Page 14 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TtME: 36 minutes (1:48-2:24) (Item No. 4 was reopened for further discussion foliowing this item [2:25=2:33]) C ~ ~ 11-03-03 Page 15 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04782 Granted OWNER: Leedy Ying, Trust, 12550 Whittier Boulevard, Whittier, CA 90602-1019 AGENT: Peter Hahm, Hahm Enterprises, 2400 East Katella Avenue, Suite 970, Anaheim, CA 92806 Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Attn: Elisa Stipkovich, 201 South Anaheim Blvd, 10`h floor, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 101 and 125 East Ball Road, and 1120 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately 4.8 acres, located at the northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Bali Road, (Hahm Motor Sports). Request to establish an outdoor display area for recreational watercraft in conjunction with an existing recreational water craft sales agency with waivers of: (a) maximum fence height, (b) maximum number of signs, (c) permitted location of monument signs, and (d) minimum distance between monument signs. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTiON NO. PC2003-146 sr5054jr.doc r~ ~J Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. Stated the subject item is a request to permit an accessory recreational watercraft sales agency in connection with an existing retail sales, and repair and servicing of watercraft. He explained waivers (b) and (c) has been deleted, staff is recommending approval of the remaining waivers as well as the approval of the subject use as conditioned in the staff report. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant or representative come forward to speak. Appticant's Statement: Kerry Kemp, Senior Project Manager, Redevelopment Agency. Stated Peter Hahm the owner of Hahm Motor Sports is present to answer any questions. He explained the subject site is on the northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Bal( Road and adjacent to Shoe City. Behind it is Hahm Motor Sports, Mr. Hahm's office and a sales repair facility. There is a small piece of vacant land, it is about 12,000 square feet, owned by Shoe City. The Agency has been in a fong-term ground lease from Shoe City. They are assigning that ground lease to Hahm Enterprises in order for them to improve it with an outdoor sales area that would be an accessory use or support his sales at Hahm Motor Sports. A site plan has been prepared and the Redevelopment Agency supports the use as presented in the staff report, as iYs helping to achieve the goals of the South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor Overlay Zone, which designates that general area for regional commercial uses. He referred to the code waiver requested for the 6-foot fence in the setback and indicated the photograph • in the staff report on page 3, where a portion of the wall is circled and states "portion of wall to remain". That portion of the wall is going to be removed. The proposal on the site plan is to put a 6-foot fence, wrought iron with pilasters, along the same face and would essentially be replacing the portion of existing wall. Therefore, there would be a new fence extending about 40 feet. It is within the setback right at the 11-03-03 Page 16 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • corner of the existing building. The design was there because Mr. Hahm wanted it to look as if it was coming out from the existing building, and also iYs 6 feet for security reasons. Mr. Hahm does understand the reason for the recommendation of denial, but wanted to state why the fence was in that location. He would be able to move it back 5 feet, but wanted to have it at the corner of the wall. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick asked if the original building only has a 5-foot setback from the sidewalk. Mr. Kemp responded it appears it is a 5-foot setback, which is why the fence was put there. Commissioner Bostwick asked if the rest of the fence that runs north and south along the property there now wouid be removed back to where the gate is going to be. Mr. Kemp was in agreement, and stated about the first half of that and then the remainder of the rear of the site would still be for Hahm storage behind the wall, the whole wall is not coming down at this time. Commissioner Bostwick asked if they are going to bring out the vehicles (motorcycles, jet ski, etc.) and place them out in the daytime and then put them away in the evening. Peter Hahm, President of Hahm Enterprises, 2400 E. Katella Avenue, Suite 970, Anaheim. Stated they are not going to do that since it would be just for watercraft and a boat display only (water related products), they would not bring out motorcycles or other products they sell. Commissioner Bostwick asked if they could leave them outside. Mr. Hahm responded yes, that is one of the reasons they want to keep the height of the fence at 6 feet, • for security reasons. Commissioner Bostwick asked if they could angle the proposed wall from the corner of the building towards the driveway and take it back 10 feet to the corner where the other sign would be. Therefore, you would start with a 5-foot setback, but ultimately get to a 10-foot setback when you get to the sign and it would give more visibility of the sign. Mr. Hahm stated the reason for a 5-foot setback is because it would line up in front of the building, a 10- foot setback would not line up with the building and feels it would look nicer with a 5 foot setback than a 10 foot setback. Commissioner Eastman stated it seems they could achieve more landscaping and still look correct because it would be connected to the building or right next to the corner, but then it would start to angle in. Commissioner Bostwick stated it would give a better line of sight on the sign, and you could see it more going westbound on Ball Road. Commissioner Flores asked if they could remove the whole wall. Commissioner Bostwick responded they need the wall for security reasons for their equipment. Chairperson Vanderbilt referred to the justifications for the waivers and asked for Commission's input. Commissioner Bostwick stated he feels the justification is that there already is an existing building with only a 5-foot setback, which may have been due to a previously widening of Ball Road. • Mr. McCafferty stated that is a compromise that would work to achieve the landscaping that the Code requires, and it also addresses the hardship the Commission pointed out with regard to the existing building. 11-03-03 Page 17 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES , Mr. Hahm stated he doesn't see a problem, but thinks the straight line would look better and it would not really impact them. Commissioner Eastman asked if he would agree if Commission prefers the angle line. Mr. Hahm stated yes, as long as it doesn't take away from their display area. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows: Approved waivers pertaining to (a) maximum fence height, and (d) minimum distance between monument signs. Denied waivers (b) pertaining to maximum number of permitted signs, and (c) pertaining to permitted location of monument signs since they have been deleted. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04782 (to establish an outdoor display area for recreational watercraft in conjunction with and accessory to an existing recreational watercraft sales agency), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report • dated November 3, 2003. Added the following condition to read as follows: That the block wail attached to the southwest corner of the service and repair building located at 125 East Ball Road shall angle from 5 feet at the existing building to a 10-foot wide landscaped setback adjacent and parallel to the proposed outdoor display area. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 13 minutes (2:35-2:48) ~ 11-03-03 Page 18 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04779 OWNER: George Adams, Serve A Self, 3200 East Frontera Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Todd Smith, Tetra Tech, Inc., 310 Commerce, Irvine, CA 92602 LOCATION: 3200 East Frontera Street. Property is approximately 2.6 acres, having a frontage of 202 feet on the south side of Frontera Street, located 1050 feet east of the centerline of Glassell Street.* "Advertised as 854 feet east of the,centerline of Glasseli Street and 3180 East Frontera Street. Request to permit a telecommunications antenna (disguised as a pine tree) with accessory ground-mounted equipment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-147 L ~ ~ Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Commissioner Bostwick indicated he is abstaining on the item. Approved Granted for 5 years (to expire on November 3, 2008) sr8665vn.doc Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. He stated the subject item is a request for approval of a 60-foot high telecommunications antenna disguised as a pine tree and the accessory ground-mounted equipment, for property located at 3200 East Frontera Street. Staff is recommending approval as conditioned in the staff report. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant or representative come forward to speak. ApplicanYs Statement: Todd Smith, 310 Commerce, Irvine. Stated he is with Tetra Tech Communications Services representing Nextel Communications for the project. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if he had a chance to review the staff report. Mr. Smith responded yes. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if he had any questions or comments. Mr. Smith stated it is customary for him to give an overview of the subject site in order to possibly answer any questions. He informed Nextel Communications was seeking a site in the area of essentially La Palma and Kramer. It's their desire to work with the City and find the opportunity for the feast impact from all stand points, being the aesthetics and community, etc. They had a couple of other opportunities to locate in what staff would consider a stealth design which would be architecturally integrated onto a roof top of a building which was their first and foremost desire, but unfortunately in this case, it was unable to come into fruition. They looked at a site along La Palma Avenue and another rooftop along Edward's Court; on industriaf buildings which would have been fully concealed designs, but due to difficulties in leasing, the property owners wouldn't allow them the opportunity to enter into an agreement. 11-03-03 Page 19 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ He referred to the proposed request and stated he feels they are pursuing a strong alternative, not the complete standards of total stealth design, but a compatible stealth design. It is a very large property and is used as an industrial site, which allowed them the opportunity to locate a small portion of the property which is in excess of 200 feet from any public right-of-way which helps in terms of lowering the impact. There is also a location on the property where there is an existing row of cypress trees that are 30-40 feet in height which provides a natural screening from additional public view and adjacent properties. By using the proposed monopine, it would be consistent with the elements of the cypress tree buffer being another evergreen type tree. They feel they have found a pretty secluded location that is removed as natural screening and is consistent with the desires and intent of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code as well as staff. He believes staff shows their agreement by issuing a recommendation of approval for the subject request. He stated they are actively doing their best to meet the design guidelines of all the cities and work in partnership with them in designs that are compatible and benign as possible. He explained the challenges which consist of a few governing criterias; they need to find a property owner who is willing to enter into a fair and reasonable lease agreement; find a site that is compatible with the network needs regarding the radio frequency; find a site that is consistent with the municipal code of the local jurisdiction and lastly, one that is constructible that could be built and is reasonable regarding the construction and building codes. They feel they have found the best design that meets all the criterias for Nextel Communications and is consistent with City staff and the Municipal Code. John Koos, 310 Commerce, Irvine. Stated he is with Tetra Tech Communications Services on behalf of Nextel Communications. He referred to the staff report, page 6, Condition No. 1 and stated it's his understanding that the idea is to revisit the telecommunication facilities in a 5-year increment. He asked • Commission what is the rationale of applying a 5-year increment and whether or not if there has been any THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. changes to a facility when approving another 5 year period. He informed an applicant in the wireless industry might spend close to a quarter or half million dollars on a project. It is a large investment and is somewhat risky when you see a condition of approval that says the permit could expire in 5 years. He feels sometimes the wireless community is looked at as some sort of "deep pocket-cash-rich" organization where they could handle these kinds of conditions and assured that every single one of these projects has its own budget and times are tight in the sector. Mr. McCafferty stated in terms of the condition being onerous he feels it has been demonstrated through the Commission conditioning these over several years and has shown the applicants don't have a problem with it. There have been quite a few that have come back for reinstatements already and it didn't appear to be an impediment to them in being able to operate the business. Secondly, if you look at the monopalm on Kramer and La Palma it is one that had a similar time limit. After it was put in, staff had some problems with it, and for a short time, the antennas were exposed and they did not have the fronds on the monopalms. In addition to accommodating changes in technology through the time limit, it also serves notice to the operator that they need to keep their facility up to the par that the Planning Commission was expecting when they approved it. Staff is just trying to ensure the installation keeps up with technology. He pointed out the subject site may possibly redevelop to something else and it may be entirely appropriate to look at another installation. Mr. Koos stated in the case of the monopalm on Kramer and La Palma, the conditional use permit governed the design and the time limit was not what triggered it to be revisited. He informed if at any time the branches were to fa11 off, it wouldn't take the time limit trigger to address the issue. They would address it as soon as staff brought it to Nextel's attention. He doesn't feel Mr. McCafferty's statement is ~ an appropriate example of how the 5-year time limit comes into play. He informed a businessperson who sees a condition that is so definitive as to "shall expire in five years", whether or not the practice of the City is to automatically reinstate these, it may be somewhat risky in some ways to invest hundreds of 11-03-03 Page 20 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • thousands of dollars in any development, especially when there is no track record or "epidemic" of the wireless community not keeping up with their facilities. He believes he has heard in the past that there is an idea that technology is changing in such a rapid pace that they could revisit it and then entirely remove it, but he doesn't see that as the case. He feels technology used today is virtually exactly the same as when wireless first became accessible to the public in the late 80s. He stated the Commission could exercise their authority in how they see fit, but he wanted to challenge the time limit condition which somewhat seems innocuous to some but in other ways it could have a huge financial bearing on the project. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he understands the most crucial point Mr. Koos is making, as well as a clear idea of staff's point of view, and suggested they address any other issues and then return back to the time limit issue. He referred to Condition No. 4, regarding the underlying statement "antennas being contained within the canopy", and stated the plans do illustrate that, but the photographic rendering shows a pine tree where it appears the antennas are not within the canopy, therefore asked if the picture is a"stocked" picture that was used. Mr. Koos referred to the staff report, page 4, which shows a monopine located in the City of Cypress, and stated the picture is not deceiving, if you were to drive the vicinity you would literally not see the antennas at the actual pine tree and indicated they could comply with Condition No. 4. Commissioner Eastman stated artificial materials fade overtime because of the sun and begin to stand out as artificial. She asked what are their plans if it starts to look like it has been there for many years and/or any damage occurs. Mr. Koos stated he is comfortable with applying such a condition. • Mr. Smith stated with new technology most of the stealth material used is UV resistant for about 20 plus years, therefore, the quality of the design material has improved dramatically over the last several years. He informed they could comply if such a condition is added. Mr. McCafferty stated that is covered indirectly in Condition No. 4, but if they wanted to really specify they could create another condition. He referred to the 5-year time limit and stated it is a policy question for the Commission because all the previous ones that haven't been stealth have had time limits. He stated if you do that there is no incentive from the provider to ever look at anything else other than what they have. Once you have it, there is no economic incentive to do anything else because you have your lease, you have your installation and what staff is looking at from a public advocacy standpoint is the general public good of the aesthetics of the area. He pointed out when the City is spending a lot of money on under grounding power lines and so forth, that is what they are looking out for and is why it separates their recommendation perhaps from maybe the applicants. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff if there were any other conditions to address, which might allow for assurance that the tree maintains its appearance. Mr. McCafferty stated he feels Condition No. 4 would cover the concerns. Commissioner Romero concurred with Mr. McCafferty. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated regarding some of the other telecommunication poles that are reaching their 5-year expiration, if staff would be asking the applicants to incorporate the new technology. Mr. McCafferty responded yes, they have already been doing that with a couple of them and stated as some of the very old ones come back, the planner assigned to those cases would ensure it is explored • with the applicant. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. Stated if they have a facility that was built a few years ago and isn't very stealth and a large building happens to be built nearby, they could transfer their operation to that 11-03-03 Page 21 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • building because of the height of the building. It hasn't happened yet, but with the City continuing to build out it is an opportunity that may come up. Mr. McCafferty stated when they meet with the applicants that are coming up for reinstatement there is no incentive to do anything because they have what they have. Staff tries to get it to a situation where staff presents to Commission alternatives, but in the end they are not out there doing the lease negotiations. Mr. Koos stated the prospect of a building going up in the vicinity of an existing pole and then that pole coming up for review in one rnore year and because the presence of a new 4-story building is now there, that somehow staff would use that as a grounds to not approve a reinstatement. W ithout knowing whether or not the landowner would even want a facility there, how much would it cost to tear down a $250,000 project and build a new $300,000 plus project. These decisions sound nice when your discussing design in a vacuum but there are dollars associated with all these statements about the industry. He stated he is confused because he hears technology changing as the reason why a conditional of approval would be placed, yet the City of Anaheim permits, by right, roof top facilities forever. It sounds as if it is purely design rather than technology reasons. They just filed for a building permit across the street from Disneyland for a facility that is on a roof that has no time limit. He explained the current policy is confusing and doesn't seem to be fully thought out rationally. He feels Nextel would be more comfortable with 15 years, but 5 years is such a short period for a project of this cost. He explained maybe previous applicants have been benign about it because they are so eager to have their request approved, but this is a"big dollar" condition of approval and he doesn't feel any business owner that is non-wireless would look at it without concern, but why wireless. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated if it is a policy change that Mr. Koos is seeking, perhaps a policy change should be examined, but not today. They may continue the subject request and pursue some sort of • guidance from staff and move in a direction of modifying the policy so when the item comes back the Commission would have a little more license to accommodate the request. Mr. Koos stated he feels there is a nexus problem on the time frame. Commissioner Buffa stated it seems that the City's policy has been that the cellular antenna sites if incorporated into a building as roof-mounted equipment, do not have a time limit because they don't have the same aesthetic impact on the community that a freestanding site does. She feels the reason there is a time limit imposed is because they do have an aesthetic impact as it is a faux pine tree. The City's policy seems to be very clear and it sounds as though it has been consistently applied over time; that freestanding sites have a time limit. There are also other businesses which time limits are imposed. They already considered two of them on their agenda today for the sale of alcoholic beverages which requires them to come back for a conditional use very frequently. Obviously, if that conditional use is not renewed it has a significant impact on the businesses. She doesn't feel the communications industry is being singled out with a time limit, and feels they do it for a variety of circumstances in the City and it is simply because it is a freestanding facility with a very high aesthetic impact where a time limit may be appropriate. Mr. McCafferty concurred with Commissioner Buffa and stated the ones you never see are the ones that don't have a time limit because they are entirely architecturally integrated into a structure. Commissioner Flores concurred with Commissioner Buffa and stated that is why they have to place a time limitation, and also to assure that the unit is well maintained. Commissioner O'Connell stated he feels 5 years is fair. Technology does eventually change. He concurred with staff, as far as redevelopment in certain areas and certainly in the subject area, it could be • redeveloped in the next couple of years and he doesn't believe they would want the large palm tree to remain. He concurs with Commissioner Buffa because on top of buildings is a lot different then a huge pine tree that is 60 feet tall next to an industrial building. 11-03-03 Page 22 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Koos stated he doesn't see much point of laboring the time limit issue as a policy. He understands staff is working hard on the Zoning Code Update and part of that would include the wireless telecommunications ordinance and they would be seeking input from the industry, therefore, they may be able to make a stronger plea at a policy level at another time, but based on the commentary today and the practice of the Planning Commission, he doesn't want to see the subject item dragged out for no useful purpose. Therefore, they would be fine for Commission to act on the item today. He understands Commission often appreciates a dialogue on certain topics, but you win some and you lose some. He stated he is glad to present the monopine as it actually is a quality installation and would then suggest to drop the 5-year issue now, but hopes the Commission appreciates his effort on the subject matter. Chairperson Vanderbilt responded he feels the dialogue is healthy, and indicated since he has been on the Planning Commission he now has the awareness of the artificial trees, which is most likely heighten because of his position. He doesn't necessarily know if he could be unbiased when he looks at them because he thinks he may perhaps be overly critical than the average citizen who may be completely unaware of them. Mr. Koos stated they are designing the pole to be co-locatable, which the City does encourage. At the end of the meeting, Commissioner Bostwick clarified that he abstained because the applicanYs company (Nextel Communications) is a source of income. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None • ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04779 (to permit a telecommunications antenna disguised as a pine tree and accessory ground-mounted equipment), for a period of five (5) years (to expire on November 3, 2008), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated November 3, 2003. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick abstained) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION T1ME: 34 minutes (2:49-3:23) • 11-03-03 Page 23 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 8a. CE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREVIO SL -A P D Q ( U Y P ROVE ) 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3790 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003- 04775) OWNER: Bobby Gilbert Jr., 17300 17th Street, #J231, Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION: 1514 West Broadwav. Property is approximately 1.1 acres, located at the southwest corner of Broadway and Adams Street (B & J's Tree Service). Request reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on June 4, 2002, to expire October 17, 2003) to retain a tree service contractor's storage yard with a modular office building. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITRESOLUTION NO. PC2003-148 Approved Approved reinstatement for 2 years (to expire on October 17, 2005) sr8664vn.doc Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. He stated the subject item is a request to reinstate a tree contractor's yard and modular office building at 1514 W. Broadway, B& J's Tree Service and staff is recommending approval of the request as conditioned in the staff report. • Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant or representative come forward to speak. ApplicanYs Statement: Bobby Gilbert, 1516 W. Broadway, Anaheim. Stated he is the owner of B& J's Tree Service. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if he had a chance to review the staff report. Mr. Gilbert responded yes. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if he had any questions or comments. Mr. Gilbert responded no. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Flores asked staff if there were any code violations. Mr. McCafferty responded no, which is why staff is recommending that it be reinstated. ~ • ~ ~~ ~ ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner O'Connell and MOTION CARRIED, 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. 11-03-03 Page 24 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Approved the request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3790 (Tracking No. CUP2003-04775) to retain a tree service contractor's yard for a period of two years to expire on October 17, 2005. Incorporated the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 2002R-114 into a new resolution with the following conditions of approval based on the finding that the modification is necessary to permit the reasonable operation of this tree service business (Condition No. 1 is a new condition): 1. That this conditional use permit shall expire in two (2) years on October 17, 2005. 2. That only equipment, trailers, and vehicles incidental to the tree trimming business or the personal property of the business owner shal! be stored at the property in the designated locations as shown on the revised site plan. Said items shall not be visible from off-site. 3. That plant debris incidental to the tree trimming shall not be mulched or allowed to compost on-site. Plant debris shall be removed on a weekly basis between June and October. During this time, no single pile of debris may remain on the property for longer than seven (7) days prior to total removal of the pile. Plant debris shall be removed within 30 days during the months of November through May. At no time shall any plant material or equipment be visible above the fence line. 4. That the sorting and transfer of tree trimming and dead plant debris shall be limited to debris retrieved in the normal operation of the subject tree trimming service and no further on-site processing shall be permitted. 5. That a maximum of six (6) shipping containers and six (6) roll-off bins shall be • maintained on-site in the designated areas as shown on the site plan exhibit. 6. That all site-screening materials shall be maintained free of tears, holes, rips, and separations. Said material shall be properly stretched, not faded and free from graffiti and any paint-out markings. 7. That all barbed and razor wire shall be located on the interior of the property and shall not be visible to the public right-of-way or residentially zoned properties to the west. 8. That any modifications to the fence or materials used for site screening shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendation item. 9. That the tree trimming equipment shall not exceed the height of the required perimeter fencing. 10. That any oil, fuel or fluid waste products shall be disposed of in an approved manner. 11. That no retail sales of firewood shall be permitted on-site. 12. That all major engine, equipment, and truck repairs and/or overhauls shall be prohibited at the property and only fluid changes, tire changes and tune-ups of the tree trimming business vehicles and equipment shall be permitted between • the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. 13. That the property owner shall pay the cost of Code Enforcement Division inspections once each month for the duration of this permit, or as deemed 11-03-03 Page 25 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • necessary by the City's Code Enforcement Division to gain andlor maintain compliance with State and local statutes, ordinances, {aws or regulations. 14. That the existing chainlink gate shall be kept in good repair and shall remain unlocked and open during business hours to provide vehicular and pedestrian access to required on-site parking. 15. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 16. That the on-site and off-site landscaping (adjacent to the west property line abutting the railroad) and irrigation system shall be maintained in compliance with City standards and Exhibit No. 1, Revision No. 1 of Conditional Use Permit No. 3790. In the event that the off-site landscaping is removed, revised landscape plans shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval for adequate screening from the residential properties to the west. 17. That all existing mature landscaping shall be maintained and immediately replaced in the event that it becomes diseased or dies. 18. That signage shall be limited to existing and approved signs. Additional signage shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 19. That no required parking area shall be used for outdoor storage uses. • 20. That within 30 days from the date of this resolution, the petitioner shall submit a waste diversion and recycling plan to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division for review and approval. Any trash and/or recycling containers stored on-site shall be located behind the office building and shall not be visible to the public right-of-way. 21. That subject property shall be developed and maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1, Revision No. 1 of Conditional Use Permit No. 3790 and as conditioned herein. 22. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (3:24-3:27) • 11-03-03 Page 26 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ u C ~ 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 9b. CONDITfONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04595 Approved (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04752) Approved extension of 9c. EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF time for one year (to APPROVAL expire on September 23, 2004} OWNER: Anaheim General Hospital, Attn: James Wilcox, CEO, 3350 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Robert A. Freeman, Integrated Design Service, Inc., 13891 Newport Avenue, Suite 110, Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION: 3350 West Ball Road. Property is approximately 9.3 acres, located at the southeast corner of Ball Road and Masters Lane (Anaheim General Hospitai). Request to amend a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) trailer and for an extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for a previously-approved emergency room expansion. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-149 sr8656av.doc Chairperson Vanderbiit asked staff to introduce the subject item. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. He stated the subject request is for Anaheim General Hospital located 3350 W. Ball Road and the request is to amend conditions of approval to retain their existing MRI Trailer and to request an extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for the previously- approved emergency room expansion. Staff is supportive of the time extension and the retention of the MRI Trailer for an additional year until they move forward with the expansion. He pointed out that over the years there was testimony regarding the noise generated from the MRI trailer, and staff feels it should be incorporated into the expansion in order to eliminate complaints from residents along Masters Lane. Staff recommends an added condition that was inadvertently left out in the staff report with regard to the four office trailers that are currently on the property, "that the approval of the four office trailers shall expire in one (1) year on September 23, 2004:' He indicated Commissioner Flores asked for an update on the status of the hospital's expansion and iYs his understanding that they have applied for a grading permit with the City. They have also applied to the State office that reviews the expansion plans, and they are awaiting the decision on the permit today in order to move forward with that application. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant or representative come forward to speak. Applicant's Statement: Robert Freeman, Integrated Design Services, Inc., 13891 Newport Avenue, Suite 110, Tustin. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if he had a chance to review the staff report. Mr. Freeman responded yes. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if he has any questions or comments. 11-03-03 Page 27 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Freeman responded yes, and stated he is representing Anaheim General Hospital, the hospital has been trying diligently to address the MRI trailer's noise issue. They have recently been given approval by the State Health Department to convert the trailer totally to an on-site power in order to eliminate the generator/noise. The hospital is very sensitive to the neighbor's concerns about noise and it is his understanding that the only time the generator would be operating is when it is coming onto the site for a period of about fifteen minutes until it is physically connected to the site power. That would be the only time the generator is running. The rest of the time it is there it would be operating by on-site power and not disturbing residents. Therefore, they would like to propose the time limit for the MRI trailer be eliminated. Hong Nguyen, 1298 S. Masters Lane, Anaheim. Stated she has two concerns; one is regarding the noise created by the MRI and the unit was there more than three times a week, past the time limit of 7 p.m. In the summertime they had trouble sleeping because it was past 7 p.m., they called the hospital and the police department. Chairperson Vanderbilt clarified if she indicated she called the police. Mrs. Nguyen responded yes, and they came but said there is nothing they could do about it. They also contacted the hospital but nothing was done. Don Chapman, Director of Plant Operations, Anaheim General Hospital. Stated the day the police was called was because the company they contract with to pick up the unit was unable to pick up the unit because their truck broke down; therefore Mrs. Nguyen is correct as the generator did operate until about 8:30 p.m. Since that day, they have made new agreements with the company and they no longer support that particular MRI unit. MRI units are now delivered after 7 a.m., and take about fifteen minutes to set up, after that they connect to on-site power and there is no noise from the unit. The unit is now going • everyday, three days a week when it is there. The hospital has notified the MRI company that if the unit is not moved by 6:50 p.m., it is not allowed to be taken off the property for the rest of the night. Therefore, they would not allow the trailers to be pulled in or anything to be taken off the property. Commissioner Bostwick referred to the prior approval and stated one of the conditions states "that the MRI trailer shall be powered by an underground-connected electrical power source; and the unit shall not be powered by the existing generator"; and asked has that been done. Mr. Chapman responded no, and explained the existing power to hook up the unit when the MRI comes on the property has always been there, unfortunately who they contracted with did not have a unit that could run on their power, therefore, this is one of the reasons why they have one of the newer units which are now able to hook up. The generator does run when it comes in, runs when it is on the road, and runs when it leaves. It is something that any MRI unit has to do in order to maintain its computer system. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Flores referred to the expansion and asked are they going to place the MRI facility in the building. Mr. Chapman responded that was not the intent. They are going to expand the emergency room from its present 3 bed to a 10 bed. It was never thought to put the MRI in-house, their doctors don't support the MRI unit more than 3 days a week. It is a million plus dolfars to put an MRI unit inside of a hospital, they don't have enough room and would need to expand the hospital. Commissioner Flores asked if the hook up is already in place. Mr. Chapman reiterated the hook up has always been there. Different trucks come in and have to change • the "electrical head". They have two different "heads" out there which is suppose to fit any type of truck, but unfortunately the company sent an old truck which had to run off the generator because it couldn't connect. Since it has been changed it is no longer an issue. 11-03-03 Page 28 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i Commissioner Flores asked how long would the trailers be needed. He explained if they need to reappiy for a conditional use permit every year in order to have the trailer three days a week, they would do that. It is income to the facility and if their doctors can't get the service they may leave the hospital. Financially they can't afford to put a permanent one in. It would take them about 11 years to make the million dollars that it would take to put a permanent MRI in. If they get different doctors who start supporting the MRI more, then they would put one in. It is basically what their doctors are requesting, as to what they try to supply, therefore the portable MRI unit is the best way to go. He stated they have resolved the noise issue as they would not allow the old unit back, if the company had to bring the old unit back they would then cancel the cases. Commissioner Eastman asked if there has been any consideration about a different location for the MRI unit; maybe closer to the building in the area where the office trailers are located. Mr. Chapman stated the office trailers are temporary, but those are parking spaces and when the trailers are gone they will return to parking spaces that the City requires. The MRI trailer was parked up front near the emergency room but that caused problems with the neighbors on the other side. Me explained additional problems that would occur from other agencies (Orange County Fire Authority, etc.) when moving it closer to the building and complying with certain codes. Mr. McCafferty referred to the parking spaces and stated it shouldn't matter if they are looking at a potential location that is less offensive to the neighbors you would just be exchanging one parking area for another. They are not trying to dictate where they put it inside or outside, they are trying to ensure it doesn't disturb the neighbors on Masters Lane. They now have an updated unit that they could plug in and not make noise which is fine. He referred to the time limit and stated staff wouldn't recommend a • long timeframe because in the past they have had more than one person present with regard to noise issues. Commissioner O'Connell asked Ms. Nguyen if she is now satisfied with the noise situation. Mrs. Nguyen responded if the noise were reduced they wouldn't have any prob{ems. Commissioner O'Connell asked how long did the noise problem exist. Mrs. Nguyen responded during the summertime it was really bad, but the past month it has been fine. Commissioner Bostwick asked if the construction trailers are going to be removed. Mr. Chapman stated the trailers are now being unloaded with the exception of one, which they are going to use for construction. The other three have been sold and just a matter of getting them empty to move. He stated it took so long to empty because they had to get the Department of Health Services to approve the relocation of the people because anytime they move anybody inside the hospital the Department of Health Services has to approve the reuse of the area. Mr. McCafferty stated the last remaining trailer would be a construction trailer and once the construction is finished that would also be off the site as well, therefore, the only trailer would be the MRI. Commissioner Flores referred to the time limit issue and stated there was a condition of approval which stated that the trailer was not suppose to have a generator and Commission just found out that it did have a generator. Therefore, that would be the reason why she would support the one-year time limit to ensure they do not use the generator anymore and continue to use the electrical. • Mr. Chapman responded he understands. 11-03-03 Page 29 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ After action was taken, Mr. McCafferty informed Commission that the conditions of approval in the staff report did not include the time limit on the MRI trailer, therefore, staff will formally incorporate that condition into the resolution. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: One person spoke in opposition ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim 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 Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request to amend Conditional Use permit No. 2002-04595 (Tracking No. CUP2003- 04752) pertaining to a time limitation to retain a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) trailer for one (1) year to expire on September 23, 2004, based on the following: (i) That the MRI trailer will no longer be a detriment to adjacent resident since the portable generator that has been a source of noise in the past is no longer necessary for operating the unit and therefore, no further noise disturbance would be created. (ii) That the proposed modification of the time limitation for the MRI trailer is necessary to permit the reasonable operation of the MRI unit. • Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That the approval of the four (4) office trailers shal{ expire in one (1) year on September 23, 2004. Incorporated conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. PC2002-147 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: 1. That the legal property owner shall provide the City of Anaheim with a public utilities easement to be determined as electrical design is completed. 2. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer's expense; and that landscape and/or hardscape screening of all padmounted equipment shall be required and shall be shown as plans submitted for City review and approval. 3. That all driveways shall be reconstructed to accommodate ten (10) foot radius curb returns in conformance in conformance with Engineering Department Standard No. 137. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 4. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval showing conformance with the current versions of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436 and 601/602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. Said information ~ shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 11-03-03 Page 30 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5. That lighting fixtures in any proposed parking area located adjacent to any residential property shall be down-lighted with a maximum height of twelve (12) feet. Said lighting fixtures shall be decorative and shall be directed away from adjacent residential praperty iines to protect the residential integrity of the area; and that said information shall be specified on the plans submitted for building permits. 6. That four (4) foot high street address numbers shall be displayed on the roof of the building in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible to the adjacent streets or properties. Said information shafi be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 7. That any existing or proposed roof-mounted equipment shall be subject to the screening requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Section. 18.44.030.120 pertaining to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 8. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for storage or other outdoor uses. 9. 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. 10. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped 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 not to unreasonably illuminate any off-site windows. Said information shall be specificalfy shown on plans submitted to the Police Department, Community Services Division, for review and approval. 11. That a final landscaping and irrigation plan for subject property showing plant type, size and location (including minimum twenty four (24) inch box sized trees) shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. Any decision made by the Zoning Division regarding said landscaping and irrigation plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission and/or City Council. 12. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dies. 13. That the landscaping planters shall be permanently maintained with live and healthy plants. 14. That no exterior vending machines shall be permitted which would be visible off- site. 15. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the Planning Commission or City Council. 16. That all non-emergency deliveries shall take place between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. ~ 17. That the MRI trailer (including the air conditioning unit) shall be powered by an underground-connected electrical power source; and that the unit shall not be powered by the existing generator. 11-03-03 Page 31 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MiNUTES • 18. That delivery of the MRI unit shall not take place earlier than 7 a.m., and that removal of the unit shall not take place later than 7 p.m. 19. That operation of the MRI unit shall be limited to three (3) days per week. 20. 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 Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, as conditioned herein. 21. That prior to issuance of a building permit by the appropriate governmental agency or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 22. That prior to final building and zoning inspections or prior to occupancy of the structures requiring City of Anaheim building permits, whichever occurs first, Condition No. 20, herein-mentioned, shall be complied with. 23. 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. • Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for a one (1) year extension of time to comply with conditions of approval, to expire on September 23, 2004, based on the following: That the proposed plan remains in conformance with the current zoning and General Plan land use designation for this property. Further, there have been no code amendments that would cause the approval to be considered inconsistent with the Zoning Code, nor has the petitioner submitted plans that would render the project inconsistent with the existing Zoning Code. (ii) That this is the first request for a time extension, and Code permits a maximum of two requests for extension of time to comply with conditions of approval. (iii) That there is no information or changed circumstances which contradict the facts necessary to support one or more of the required findings for approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04595. (iv) That the property has been maintained in a safe and clean condition and there are no unremediated Code violations for this property. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 23 minutes (3:28-3:51) • 11-03-03 Page 32 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 10a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04778 OWNER: Marlene N. Evans, Ultimate Kids, Inc., 1751 West Romneya Drive, Unit J, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 1751 West Romneva Drive, Unit M. Property is approximately 5.8 acres, having a frontage of 760 feet on the north s+de of Romneya Drive, located 230 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street (Martin Luther King Medical Plaza, Ultimate Kids). Request to permit a pediatric day health care facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERM{T RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-150 • Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Concurred with staff Granted sr1131 cw.doc Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. He stated the subject item is a request to permit a pediatric day health care facility at 1751 W. Romneya Drive, staff is recommending approval of the subject use as conditioned in the staff report. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant or representative come forward to speak. ApplicanYs Statement: Marlene Evans, 1751 W. Romneya Drive, Anaheim. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if she has had a chance to review the staff report. Ms. Evans responded yes. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if she has any questions or comments. Ms. Evans responded no. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Flores asked if the children would have any need to go outside. Ms. Evans responded no, they would not be going outside. • • ~ ~- • ~ • ~ ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, ~ Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. 11-03-03 Page 33 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04778 to permit a pediatric day health care facility, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated November 3, 2003. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (3:51-3:53) • ~ 11-03-03 Page 34 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINU7ES i 11 a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 (READVERTISED) 11b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04780 OWNER: Miguel Vazquez, 626 North Rose Street, Anaheim, CA 92803 AGENT: Fefix Castellanos, 1179 West Hampshire Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 804 North Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximatefy 0.16-acre, having a frontage of 50 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, located 95 feet north of the centerline of North Street. Request to permit and retain an automotive sales lot. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-151 • • Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Concurred with staff Granted for 1 year (to expire on November 3, 2004) sr8657av.doc Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. He stated the subject item is a request to permit an automobile sales lot for property located at 804 N. Anaheim Boulevard, staff is recommending approval as conditioned in the staff report. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant or representative come forward to speak. Applicant's Statement: Lorena Garcia, speaking on behalf of her husband Miguel Vazquez. Stated they are requesting approval of the conditional use permit. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked have they had a chance to review the staff report. Mrs. Garcia responded yes. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if there were any concerns or comments. Mrs. Garcia responded no. 7HE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Miguel Garcia stated he was the previous owner of the property and sold to them. When he purchased the property the City told him to comply with the landscaping, the fence and parking permit, City Codes, which he has completed. The City told him once that was done, he wouldn't need a conditional use permit. But, when he soid the property he found out that the conditional use permit was expired; when he understood there was suppose to be no conditional use permit on the property. Mr. McCafferty informed the old permit had a time limit, which is why it is now before the Commission, he reiterated staff is recommending approval. Chairperson Vanderbilt explained it is customary if you have a car dealership that a conditional use permit is always required. Commissioner Bostwick asked if he understands the conditional use permit would be for one year. 11-03-03 Page 35 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . Mr. Garcia asked why is only one year recommended when everything is complying with City codes. Commissioner Bostwick stated you could come back to reapply, but it is to find out how the new operator is going to operate the business. After a year, you could request a permit with a longer time period or without any time period. Chairperson Vanderbiit stated he frequently travels up and down Anaheim Boulevard and often encounters trucks dropping off cars in the median and he asked staff for their input on the delivery issue for the subject request. Mr. McCafferty referred to the large truck auto transporters and stated he doesn't fee! the subject business would be using that method for their deliveries; they probably would be using a flat bed tow truck. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant how he intends to have the vehicles delivered to the business. Mr. Garcia stated he has been in business for 26 years, and there are 6 car lots down Anaheim Boulevard, and the transporters park in the middle of the street, which is how they always unload the cars. Commissioner Eastman stated there might be some improvements along Anaheim Boulevard and if so there wouldn't be a center lane. James Ling, Associate Civil Engineer. Stated he believes there are going to be some median improvements on Anaheim Boulevard in the vicinity of South Street, and he believes the Department of . Public Works is currently designing plans in that area, but he is unaware how far north that goes. Mr. McCafferty stated it appears they have already put in most of the medians on north Anaheim Boulevard. He referred to the area of La Palma Avenue coming towards City Hall, the entry marker that says Anaheim Colony, and stated that is about where the medians begin. He asked Mr. Ling if there are any plans between that and La Palma to put in additional medians. Mr. Ling responded he was unaware but can confirm that with their Design Department. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to reiterate the rules regarding deliveries of vehicles that it is not permitted to use the medians. Mr. McCafferty stated it may have to do with the vehicle code in the municipal code, but Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, is not present to address that issue. Me believes Mr. Yalda may have reiterated in the past that is something that shouldn't be occurring. Commissioner Bostwick stated they could add a condition that all vehicle deliveries would be made in the alley, the rear ofi the property. Mr. McCafferty stated you could, but you would be exchanging one issue over the other in regards to the residential area. Commissioner Flores asked what is their option. Mr. McCafferty stated they don't have one. Commissioner Flores stated they would need to drive the vehicle to their lot from some other remote ~ location. Mr. McCafferty concurred. 11-03-03 Page 36 NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • After action taken, Mr. McCafferty stated he did talk to the Principal Traffic Engineer and stated he did indicate they could get cited if they are seen unloading vehicles in the public right-of-way. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Pianning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04780 to permit and retain an automotive sales lot for one (1) year to expire on November 3, 2004. ~ VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (3:55-4:05) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:07 P.M. TO MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2003 AT 10:30 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW, AND A WORKSHOP ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. ~ Respectfully submitted: _~~ cs~~ ./ Elly Morris Senior Secretary Received and approved bythe Planning Commission on /'VpyQrr,bGr ~7 , 2003. 11-03-03 Page 37