Loading...
Minutes-PC 2003/12/01• • • CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2003 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRP,~RSON~JAI1/~~,5 VANDERBILT COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: PA~1~.~~OST~1/LCI~ KEL'L"Y ~U~~F~, GAIL EASTMAN, ~C~CI'L~IA ~L~ORESa, JERRY~O°CO~N,~LL, DAVID ROMERO ~~ ~~ ~~ COMMISSIONERS ABSENT r~ f~O~E~n ~'' u~ ~~ „r ~ ~2 ` ~~ x~ r# '~~ It, Nkb4 4 'T •. J^ -~ STAFF PRESENT: ~~ _ ~ ~ ~ '` ~` ' ~~ Selma Mann, Assistant Cit~!Attorn~y ~~ Michele~Irwin;~Sen~ r°~olice~Se~ices Representative Greg Hastings, Zoning ~,ivis~on~Manager James Ling, Assoc~ate°C4,~il Eng~Nrleer Greg McCafferty, Prini~ip~l Plan~ie~~~ ~`~~ Elly Morris, Senio~~°r~Se'~,retar~ ~~, ~ ~ ~F~ ~ ~ ^~ ; ~~~Pat Cl~andler, Senio`rFSec~et~~ ~ ,~i~r ~ ~~ ~ ~ n ~ t ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~m _ L bLi ~ ,.w r~ ~ .~ s~ . ~ C groo ~ ;a,~ ~i ~ "~ , `~ ' ~~ o,~ 7 ; su AGENDA POSTING~'~-~co'mple#e Copy~Qf th~ Plan~ng,~Cor~rr,~ission Agenda yvas~"pojsted~at 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November~2~~5 ~2~03~~mside the~isplaj~cas~~lo~.atec~in th(~APfoyer of~the Council Ghambers, and also in the outside display~~l~iosk. ~l " ~~~~ „rys ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ a ° ~~' e ~7 ~ ~rwa? ~~ £ ~ : PUBLISHED: Anah~im Bull~tin Newspaper qrr~Th~~rsd,ay~~~ouem~er 6, ~Q,03~ r~$ s~ " 6 eh~ Q ~ . ~~ ~ CALL TO ORDER ~ '~ ~ ~'~ ' ". ~~ ' ~ <~~= ~ .~ ~ ~n ~ ~ `~ ~ ~~ 3 :~~ d ;~~ PLANNING~ COMMISSdI~ON JIIIORNfING SESSlON 10~00 ,A.M. • STAFF UPDA,T,E TO',CC?MJVII,SSI~O~N QN VAf~I N~US'CITYh; ~ L~pi DEVELOPMENTS 4AND~ISSUES CAS~`RE~U~STED~BY ~~~~"~ PLANNING COMMISS[~N~~`~,~;: ~` ~ ~`°~ ~° ~, '~ ~. W~~'= • PRELIMINARY PLAN~F~~VIEV~/ FOR~TEMS:~ON,~HEbECEMBER 1, 2003 AGENDA '~~ a4 s~ .,~~~ ~-~~;~ ~; RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Bostwick PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT H:\DOCS\CLERICAL\MINUTESWC120103.DOC ~lanningcommission(c~anaheim.net DECEMBER 1, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 1-A and 1-B on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-A and 1-B) as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • • A. (a) CEQA 15061 (b) (3) GENERAL RULE Concurred with staff (b) ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2003-00027 Recommended City Eric Hull, Tait and Associates, 701 North Parkcenter, Santa Ana, CA Council approval of the 92705, requests amendment to the Brookhurst Commerciai Corridor draft ordinance, with (BCC) Overlay Zone to allow off-site alcohol sales by conditional use modifications made at permit for markets, grocery stores or drug stores with a minimum today's meeting. interior floor area of 15,000 square feet. (Vote: 7-0) 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 CEQA Exemption Section 15061(b)(3), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the requirements to prepare additional - environmental documentation. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the draft ordinance amending specific sections of the Brookhurst Commercial Corridor Overlay Zone pertaining to minimum floor area for markets, grocery stores or drug stores and off-premises sale of alcoholic beverages, with the following modifications: Modifications were made to the draft ordinance at today's public hearing, (Section 2, 18.55.0442 -Conditional Uses and Structures), as follows: .050 Markets, grocery stores or drug stores without off-premise sale of alcoholic beverages having an interior building floor area of 3A;88915,000 or less square feet eNe~s. sr1134cw.doc 12-01-03 Page 2 DECEMBER 1, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • B. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Approved Meetings of November 17, 2003. (Motion) (Vote: 7-0) ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Pianning Commission meeting of November 17, 2003. • ~ 12-01-03 Page 3 DECEMBER 1, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4113 (READVERTISED) (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04781) OWNER: Andrew Y. Lui, 1730 Sunny Knolf, 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, banquet facilities, and to permit accessory public entertainment. Continued from the November 3, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-162 • Chairperson Vanderbilt opened the public hearing. Approved Approved reinstatement to CUP to modify conditions of approval pertaining to a time limitation and hours of operation. (Retail sales of alcoholic beverages for on- premises consumption and accessory public entertainment, to expire on December 1, 2004) sr506Tjr.doc Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 2, Conditional Use Permit No. 4113. Applicant's Testimony: Christian Howard and Mike Huelgero, 500 North Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA, from Plaza Garabaldi. Mr. Howard stated concerns with the suggestion of the Planning Commission that they change the CUP from a nightclub and bar with dancing to a family restaurant with occasional entertainment. He stated that they have complied with the request to remove the monument sign, and charged a cover charge to patrons who only wished to enjoy the entertainment. Since their business opened the crime rate in the area has decreased. They wished to change the CUP so that it reflects the nature of business they have been operating for the last four years. Also, they requested to remain open until 1:00 a.m. Pubfic Testimony: Robert Flores, 1333 S. Euclid, an Anaheim business owner and founder of a group of non-profit business people and school directors, stated concerns with Plaza Garabaldi being required to close at midnight. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Michele Irwin, Police Department, stated concern that the business is open past 12:00 a.m., a cover charge is implied in order to enjoy the show and adequate security is not provided (after the show, at 1:30 a.m., the parking lot was dark). Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, clarified that the items being applied for were the Conditional Use • Permit that permitted a restaurant with sales of alcoholic beverages, and reinstatement of the Conditional Use Permit in order to have a restaurant. A restaurant with public entertainment would permit a cover charge. Therefore, in order to reach the second part of the request regarding modifications to conditions 12-01-03 Page 4 DECEMBER 1, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • of approval, the operation must be in conformance with conditions of approval originally placed on the use to permit reinstatement of the permit. Commissioner O'Connell expressed concerns with charging a cover charge and children not being allowed after a certain hour. Commissioner Buffa expressed concerns with the appiicant being in compliance with the current rules of the existing Conditional Use Permit, before Commission could procedurally consider changing the current hours. Commissioner Romero explained the one-year time limitation placed on operations and expressed his agreement in allowing the applicant to stay open until 1 a.m. Chairperson Vanderbilt expressed while the Commission may have been aware that there has not been complete conformance they did find there was substantial conformance. Commissioner Bostwick stated concern with the business potentially being sold and not knowing how the new owners would run their business, and Commission crafting conditions to protect the City and the neighborhood from future problems. Commissioner Flores expressed agreement with closing at 1 a.m. and the request as written, but not the amendment to pay for the show because that would mean it is more entertainment and not a family restaurant. Mr. McCafferty clarified public entertainment does not prevent children from being in the premises but only when it is being converted to a public dancehall. As it is advertised, a restaurant with public entertainment, the applicant can have children on the premises. • Commissioner Eastman expressed support of keeping the time limit on the CUP and a need for Commission to see a track record of compliance with conditions of approval, including the hours of operation. FOLLOWWG IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTfON. ~ OPPOSITION: None IN SUPPORT: One person spoke in favor of the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero 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. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4113 (Tracking No. CUP2003- 04781), to retain the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption within an existing restaurant with a bar and banquet facilities, and to permit accessory public entertainment; and to modify conditions of approval pertaining to a time limitation and hours of operation, for a period of one (1) year, to expire on December 1, 2004. Amended Resolution No. 99R-158 in its entirety and replaced it with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition Nos. 20 and 23 were deleted and Condition Nos. 1 and 13 were modified at today' meeting): , 1. That the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption and public entertainment portion of this permit shall expire in one (1) year on d~l~~ December 1, 2004. 12-01-03 Page 5 DECEMBER 1, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . 2. That no outdoor storage shafl be permitted. 3. That trash storage areas shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division to comply with approved plans on file with said Department. 4. 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. 5. That the establishment shall be operated as a"Bona Fide Public Eating Place" as defined by Section 23038 of the California Business and Professions Code. 6. That food service with a full meal shall be available from opening time until either 10:00 p.m. or closing time, whichever occurs first, on each day of operation. 7. That there shall be no pool tables maintained upon the premises at any time. 8. That subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a public premises (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premise as defined in Section 23039 of the California Business and Professions Code 9. That the sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 40% of the gross sales of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be made available, subject to audit and, when requested inspection by any City of Anaheim official during reasonable business hours. 10. That there shall be no live entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted on • the premises at any time without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. 11. That the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises shall be prohibited. 12. That there shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcohol beverages, with the exception of one (1) sign indicating "cocktails". 13. That the hours of operation shall be limited to 11 a.m. to 11 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 11 a.m. to '"~,~ 1 a.m., Friday and Saturday. 14. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped with decorative lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the windows of nearby properties. 15. That the business operator shall comply with Section 24200.5 of the Business and Professions Code so as not to employ or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. 16. That there shall be no public telephones on the property that are located outside the building. 17. That the parking lot shall be chained, locked and emptied of patrons no later than one half hour after the closing of the restaurant. • 18. That a plan showing screening for the existing above ground transformer and refurbishment of the existing landscape planters, including additional shrubs and flowers along the south building wall, and the refurbishment of the planter along the south property line adjacent to the parking lot, shall be submitted for Zoning Division 12-01-03 Page 6 DECEMBER 1, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • review and approval. Said planting plan shall be implemented within 30 days of Zoning Division approval. 19. That the property owner shall pay the costs of Code Enforcement quarterly inspections, or as often as necessary, as deemed necessary by the City's Code Enforcement Division to gain and/or maintain compliance with State and local statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations. . , , , ~ ~ > > > > > • 21. That the property owner shall remove the unpermitted monument sign located at the southwest corner of the property, or process a variance to maintain said sign. 22. That the appropriate permits shall be obtained for all existing unpermitted wall signage. Such signage shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of the building face area as permitted by Code. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Zoning Division and Building Division approval. Any additional signage shall be subject to review and approval by the Zoning Division and may be • appealed to the Planning Commission as a"Reports and Recommendation Item". • , , ~ ~~ 24. That the activity within the building shall not create sound levels which violate any ordinance of the City of Anaheim. 25. That the number of persons within the premises shall not exceed the maximum occupancy load as determined by the Anaheim Fire Department. Signs indicating the occupant load shall be posted in a conspicuous place on an approved sign near the main exit from the room. 26. That the doors shall remain closed but unlocked at all times that entertainment is permitted, except during times of entry or exit, emergencies and deliveries. 27. That the business shall not be operated in such a way as to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 28. That ail entertainers and employees shall be clothed in such a way as to not expose "specified anatomical areas" as described in Section 7.16.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 29. That the floor space provided for dancing shall be free of any furniture or partitions and maintained in a smooth and safe condition. • 30. That the entertainment shall be restricted to that which is approved on the entertainment permit issued by the City of Anaheim. 31. That no person under the age of 21 shall self or deliver alcoholic beverages. 12-01-03 Page 7 DECEMBER 1, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 32. That the Petitioner shall post and maintain a professional quality sign, at least two feet square with two inch block lettering in English and in Spanish, facing the premises parking lot(s) that reads as follows: NO LOITERING, NO LITTERING NO QRINKING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES VIOLATORS ARE SUBJECT TO ARREST 33. That no minor under the age of sixteen (16) years shall be allowed to attend the dance, unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. 34. That the business shall be maintained as a legitimate restaurant as defined in Section 18.01.190 Anaheim Municipal Code, and contain an area designed and utilized for food preparation which constitutes not less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the gross floor area of the establishment. 35. That the floor plan of the proposed restaurant shall be specifically limited to submitted plans including permanent booths for dining in the room with the dance floor as shown on Exhibit No. 2. Any modification to the floor plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for Planning Commission review as a "Reports and Recommendations" item. 36. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and as conditioned herein. ~ 37. That within sixty days (60) from the date of this resolution, Condition Nos. 18, 21, 22, 25, 32 and 35, 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. 38. That approval of this application constitutes approvai of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-1 (Commissioner Bostwick voted no) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 36 minutes (1:41-3:17) ~~ ~J 12-01-03 Page 8 DECEMBER 1, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINIlTES ~ 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04755 OWNER: Taormina Trust, William Cosmo Taormina, 128 West Sycamore Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Ryan Wells, MMI Titan, 310 Commerce Drive, Irvine, CA 92602 LOCATIOIV: 201 East Center Street. Property is approximately 0.09- acre, located at the northeast corner of Center Street and Claudina Street (Kraemer Suilding). To permit and retain a roof-mounted telecommunications facility on an existing historic building and accessory ground mounted equipment. Continued from the September 22 and October 20, 2003, Planning Commission Meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. • ~ OPPOSITION: None Continued to December 15, 2003 sr5066jr.doc ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the December 15, 2003, Planning Commission meeting as recommended by staff since the petitioner had requested a continuance to an unspecified Planning Commission meeting, in order to provide additional time to prepare final plans. V07E: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 12-01-03 Page 9 DECEMBER 1, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 11 4b. VARIANCE NO. 2003-04584 OWNER: Raymond A. Masciel, P.O. Box 4241, Anaheim, CA 92803 AGENT: Randall Boone, Randall Boone Sign and Lighting, 34342 Pacific Coast Highway, Dana Point, CA 92629 LOCATION: 101 East Lincoln Avenue. Property consists of two parcels and is approximately 1.3 acres, located at the northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue (Harbor National Bank}. Request waiver of minimum distance between monument signs to construct an additional monument sign. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-163 ~ Chairperson Vanderbilt opened the public hearing. Concurred with staff Granted sr8672av.doc Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 4, Variance No. 2003-04584. Applicant's Testimony: Randall Boone, 34342 Pacific Coast Highway, Dana Point, CA, stated he had no concerns. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Eastman stated concern with the "temporary-looking" sign located on Lincoln Avenue. Chairperson Vanderbilt feels the sign's location is more of a public benefit than its temporary appearance. Mr. McCafferty stated staff would work with the applicant to see if brick veneer could be incorporated with the existing sign and still keep the area underneath clear for visibility. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Flores 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 11 (Accessory Structures), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Variance No. 2003-04584 approving waiver of minimum distance between monument signs (to construct an additional monument sign), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated December 1, 2003, with the following ~ modifications: Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: 12-01-03 Page 10 DECEMBER 1, 2003 PLANNING COMMlSSION MINUTES • That the existing freestanding sign located on the south side of the building facing Lincoln Avenue shall be modified to incorporate the design features and materials consistent with the proposed sign, including the brick work on the sign supports. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 12 minutes (3:18-3:30) ~ • 12-01-03 Page 11 DECEMBER 1, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 11 5b. VARIANCE NO. 2003-04585 OWNER: Tracy McLamb, Wilmington ~rust Company, Rodney Square North, 1100 North Market Street, Wilmington, DE 19890-0001 AGENT: Noe Pena, Little Diversified Architects, 1050 Lakes Drive, Suite 275, West Covina, CA 91790 LOCATION: 1095 North Pullman Street. Property is approximately 18 acres, located south and west of the southwest corner of Old Canal Road and Pullman Street, having a frontage of 623 feet on the west side of Puliman Street (Home Depot). Request waiver of permitted signs within the Scenic Corridor Overlay zone to construct a freeway-oriented parapet sign in conjunction with a home improvement store. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-164 Chairperson Vanderbilt opened the public hearing. Concurred with staff Granted sr2142ds.doc Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 5, Variance No. 2003-04585. ~ ApplicanYs Testimony: Noe Pena, 1050 Lakes Drive, Suite 275, West Covina, CA, stated their client, Home Depot, finds the staff report acceptable. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Buffa stated concern with the sign's scale and blank panels, and if Home Depot would still be able to participate in the Savi Ranch sign program once they moved to the site from Yorba Linda to Anaheim. Mr. Pena responded the matter is sensitive, and another tenant is going to take their space in Yorba Linda and he suspects the Home Depot sign would be taken down because it is under a different jurisdiction. The parapet is approximately 6 feet high and the sign is 5 feet high. Chairperson Vanderbilt proposed the sign be illuminated consistent with the hours of operation, because it is in the Scenic Corridor and would have greater impact than a wall sign. ;~LLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMM15510N AGTIC 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 11 (Accessory Structures), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to ~ prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Variance No. 2003-04585 approving waiver of permitted signs within the Scenic Corridor Overlay zone (to construct a freeway-oriented parapet sign in conjunction with a 12-01-03 Page 12 DECEMBER 1, 2003 PLANNING GOMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~ home improvement store), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated December 1, 2003, with the following modifications: Deleted Condition No. 4. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSStON TIME: 16 minutes (3:31-3:47) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:48 P.M. TO MONDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2003 AT 10:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: ~ ~~~;a.ti~G~~. Pat Chandler Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2003. ~ 12-01-03 Page 13 ~ CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL MONDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2003 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California C~ CHAIRPERSON: JAMES VANDERBILT COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: PAUL BOSTWICK, KELLY BUFFA, GAIL EASTMAN, CECILIA FLORES, JERRY O'CONNELL, DAVID ROMERO COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager James Ling, Associate Civil Engineer Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary Sergeant Michael Lozeau, Vice Detail Elly Morris, Senior Secretary Charity Wagner, Planner Ossie Edmundson, Planning Commission Support Supv. AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 11:30 a.m. on Wednesday, December 10, 2003, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, November 20, 2003. CALL TO ORDER PLANNING COMMISSION MORNING SESSION 10:00 A.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE DECEMBER 15, 2003 AGENDA ~ RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card and submif it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT MINUTES FOR ITEM NO. 9 Chairperson James Vanderbilt H:\DOCS\CLERICAL\MINUTESWC121503.DOC DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL MINUTES ~ Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 9 as a petitioner's request for: (1) A General Plan Amendment to amend the Land Use Element of the Anaheim General Plan redesignating the property from the Hillside Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation to the General Commerciai land use designation. (2) A reclassification of the property from the RS-5000 (SC) (Residential, Single-Family; Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone to the CL (SC) (Commercial Limited; Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone. (3) An approval of a Conditional Use Permit to permit and construct an automotive sales dealership with accessory roof-mounted equipment with a structural height greater than 35 feet (32 foot building plus 10 foot equipment enciosure) with the following waivers: (a) Maximum number of wall signs (not more than one (1) wali sign per building unit permitted; three (3) wall signs proposed). (b) Maximum structural height adjacent to a single-family residential zone (16-feet permitted; 32-feet proposed). (c) Minimum structural setback adjacent to a freeway (100 feet, fully landscaped required; 5-40 feet, fully landscaped proposed). (d) Required landscape setback adjacent to an interior site boundary line abutting • a residential zone (10 feet, fully landscaped required; 4-10 feet, fully landscaped proposed). ApplicanYs Testimony: Don Bering, 5395 E. La Palma, Avenue, Anaheim, CA, Chief Financial Officer of Caliber Motors, stated that he and other members of the company and their consulting team were present to answer questions that the Commission might have about the project. He started by giving a background on Caliber Motors about where they had been and where they would like to go in the future. He stated that Caliber Motors began operations in 1984 as a Mercedes Benz Dealer on La Palma Avenue in Anaheim, and coming March 2004 they would have been there 20 years. They have grown from the initial 25 employees to 170 employees, and expected their sales for the next year to top 200 million dollars. Caliber Motors generates over 1 million dollars a year in sales tax revenue for the City of Anaheim, and has real property assessed evaluation of around 10 million dollars. Although they feel the dealership has been successful in its present location, and they enjoy doing business in the City of Anaheim, they have several problems with the current location: - They suffer from the lack of visibility; it is hard for people to really know that they are there. They have spent 20 years advertising, and still a lot of people in the community do not know where they are located. Also, because the business has grown a lot in the last few years, they are short of vehicle display space, vehicle storage places, and office space. They have been trying to solve the problems and have been looking around a long time for another location, a location that especially gives them better visibility, and ideally visibility from the freeway. They have located a site • adjacent to the 91-Freeway on the south side of the freeway just east of Imperial Highway. 7hey admit that it is not an ideal site for a variety of reasons, but is the 12-15-03 Page 1 of 10 DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL MINUTES ~ best site they could find in Anaheim that would meet their needs. They propose to build it as a satellite vehicle sales facility that would consist of a vehicle showroom and office building that wauld be two-stories, a separate one-story building for the cleaning and detail of cars to get them ready to put on display or to get them ready to sell. The additional location would permit the expansion of Caliber Motors as aforementioned. They feel it would generate considerable additional sales tax revenue for the City of Anaheim in the future as they try to grow the business further and would increase Anaheim's property tax base. There would be no servicing of vehicies at the location; it would be a sateilite sales facility only. Caliber would continue to operate its main facility on La Palma Avenue just west of Imperial Highway, and wouid continue to sell vehicles and service them at that location. - Although there is a lot of freeway exposure, the site is long and narrow (185-195 feet) and has a lot of development constraints. Originally, it was proposed to be part of the adjacent Canyon Oaks residential development (the residential development that is currently in final stages), but was dropped from the project due to a large number of easements, flood control and drainage channels found on the property. - They knew when they set about to design the project that there would be some concerns from the community, because the Canyon Oaks property and the subject property has been subject to many different proposals over the years as to what to do with it. So they tried to design a project that would meet their needs, and meet the needs and concerns of the community. They presented the plans to the City and community a number of months ago, and after receiving feedback from the members of the community and the City Planning Department, they made changes to their operations and to the building and facility that they thought would meet the concerns of the community and the issues that were raised by the Planning Department staff. • - The project would be an attractive addition to the community that would allow Caliber to stay in the Anaheim Hills area and grow the business and grow the sales tax dollars for the City. And the look of the site should definitely improve, as well as the design of the project would be compatible with the surrounding properry uses. Joseph Marca, Escondido, CA, presented a 1-minute video of the project site, illustrating the boundary conditions. Public Testimony: Mark A. Garcia, 249 Calle Da Gama, Anaheim, CA, stated that he has lived in Anaheim Hills for over 20 years and does not know of one neighbor that he has taiked to in the last 4-5 months that is interested in having a car lot at that site. It is supposed to be a green belt; a Scenic Corridor; a residential area; and the only commercial area there was adjacent to it; a hotel that was put in next to Imperial and the on-ramp to the 91-Freeway eastbound. The rest of the area included a fitness center, which used to be a local market for the area Albertson's, a couple of banks and general "mom-and-pop-type" stores, approximately 5 schools; a high school, a handicap school, an elementary school, and a Montessori school located a quarter of a mile west of the site. And, no matter how a car lot is dressed up, it is still a car lot; the purpose is to have ingress into that location, and it would increase the public through there unknown. A Mercedes dealership should be in an industrial area, and he is opposed to either a variance or having it rezoned to commercial. Stefanie O'Neill, 216 S. Mohler Drive, Anaheim, CA, representing the Concerned Citizens of the Canyon, stated that their organization was founded in 1998 during the fight to preserve a historic piece of land called Magg Ranch. They were able to stop commercial development and were • forced to deal with 106 houses. Afthough, as a community, they desperately wanted the land for a park, they knew that the Planning Commission and City Council, at the time, did not have the 12-15-03 Page 2 of 10 DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL MINUTES ~ best interest of the residents in mind, and they worked with the developer to get the best project possible for the community. After fighting so hard to keep commercial off of Magg Ranch, they were once again faced with it, and it felt like a slap in the face. Their board and the community were immediately outraged at the project. They held a town hali meeting of over 120 people in attendance. Petitions and e-mails were circulated in opposition, and after having several meetings with Caliber, and sometime to calm down and look at the deeper issues, such as the City potentiaily losing tax revenue at a time where layoffs were imminent, the Concerned Citizens began working with City staff and Caliber to see what could be done to make the project livable to those in the surrounding neighborhoods if it were to be approved. She stated that the subject project is not what they wanted to see for Anaheim Hills. They would love to still be a royal community, and pray that the overdevelopment the city has allowed in other parts of town wouid not one day haunt the hills as well. The land is not ideal for a park or houses. Studies have been done over and over, to no avail. The land would not remain undeveloped. The owners would want to sell their property to make income off of their land. Since houses could not be built on the property and the City refused to buy the property for a park, it would be utitized for commercial use. If not the subject car dealership then perhaps a strip mall or office building that could potentially have more impacts than what was being proposed. The homeowners and the new D. R. Horton Project signed disclosure for a dealership far bigger than what was being proposed. The nearest homeowner and the older neighborhood were in support of the project. Sonja Grewal, P.O. Box 17224, Santa Ana, CA, stated that additional signage and building height waivers and would not be harmonious with the surrounding areas. The project did not adhere to the goals and policies of the Scenic Highway Element of the Anaheim General Plan. In addition, the type of lighting proposed would have a significant impact on the highway. A regular 30-foot streetlight emitted from 10 to 20,000 lumens. The majority of the 69 light poles in the project ~ each output 110, 000 lumens, and the light poles would create a stunning solid block of light 24 feet high over virtuaify the entire length and width of the finished grade of the parcel. And even though the initial study Mitigated Negative Declaration stated that not much light would spill into the homes, it did not address the amount next to the hotel and the impact from light that would spill onto the freeway; whether or not it would cause an impact on the freeway drivers. The nighttime daylight effects would dramatically interrupt residents, hotel visitors and motorisYs enjoyment of the night viewscape. The impact would exist seven nights a week, and at 9 o'clock would change to an undefined security level, but it would still be there and would continue to generate a block of light unlike that generated by any business or center next to residential uses in the Canyon. She stated the following regarding the noise, aesthetics and storage facility impacts: Noise: The air conditioners barely met the minimum exterior noise standards, and the impacts on surrounding residences from other commercial uses and residential uses would not be as much. Aesthetics: The building was modern in design with glass sides, totally inconsistent with commercial and residential buildings in the immediate vicinity. Storage Facility: The architectural style of the building must agree with the neighborhood; it had to look like it belonged next to homes. The building was incompatible with the architectural of other commercial centers in the area. The other centers harmonized with their residential neighbors' building design and color scheme. The project is in the heart of the Scenic Corridor and abuts the Scenic Highway. Because of the Canyon Area's general plan, goals, and policies, development has been guided that retained the semi-rural, uncongested character of the Santa Ana Canyon ~ Area, a primary goal of the Canyon Area General Plan. Existing development did promote identification and visual quality in the Canyon Area among residents and visitors 12-15-03 Page 3 of 10 DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL MINUTES ~ per the Canyon Area Generai Plan, and for the most part development adhered to the controls of the Scenic Corridor Overlay zone, which had stipulations on landscape setbacks, signage and roof mounted equipment. The drive on the stretch of 91-Freeway from Lakeview to Weir Canyon was scenic, not just because of the surrounding hills on both sides but aiso because of a visual clarity on either side of the driver. There was a regional park on one side and an almost uninterrupted stretch of various types of walls and landscape on the other side. They take this visual clarity for granted, especially at night. They do not see the type of intense lighting proposed by the project until they would get to Weir Canyon from car deaierships located farther away from the freeway in the large commercial area of Savi Ranch. This type of project belongs in a purely commercial area. The impacts of the project would diminish the quality of life for some of their newest residents or visitors and for established homeowners who have fought long and hard to retain the residential character of their neighborhood. Cheryi Thompson stated that she is unique to speak on the project and could not really say that she was speaking in opposition of it and did not really want to speak for it, but believed that she was a good person to speak for it. She is the project's manager for the Canyon Oaks development that sat next to the particular piece of property and was in due diligence on the property for over a year. She stated that she knows the property better than most people. She knew what was possible on the property and what was not possible on the property. She was unique because she worked for D. R. Horton and lived in Canyon Oaks; a resident and also a project developer on the neighboring development. They looked at the property very seriousiy to put 22 homes on it and she spent a solid year trying to understand the constraints on the property. There are many intense constraints on the property. If it were left the way it was, Scenic would not really fit the bill. She worked very hard with the City staff on her project trying to understand what they could do to purchase the property at one point. It did not work. Her concerns really are not for or against, but hoped the Commission wouid take seriously some of • the issues that have been brought up, not necessarily to oppose it, but to make sure that when it was developed, it would be developed in such a manner that would be aesthetically pleasing to those who lived there. That the landscaping would be mature landscaping so as to really buffer the sound; that the street was designed responsibly and appropriately so as to handle truck traffic. And, when trucks traveled to and from there, the City would consider putting the kinds of restrictions that would be least intrusive for them to back out; and that it could be done in such a time frame that they would not be coming in during the middle of the night so that it would not be a burden on the people who lived there. Betty Delligatia, 6059 Camino Manzano, Anaheim Hills, CA, presented a petition of approximately 600 names. She stated that she walked her shoes off getting the petition against the project, and that nobody in the area wanted it there. She recalled a few years back when she got a letter from the City telling her to take down her television antenna because she was in the Scenic Corridor. The subject project would not increase her Scenic Corridor it would deteriorate it. Anita Steageley, a representative of D. R. Horton, stated they were in their final phases at the construction at the Canyon Oaks project. They conducted extensive feasibility on the subject property and under their guidelines determined that it was not suitable for residential development. Also, as soon as they became aware of the initial application submitted to the City for the Caliber Motors project, they immediately and separately disclosed it to their homebuyers. Lastly, the one thing she remembered vividly in her due diligence of the project was that they were specifically conditioned to take access from another location off of Solomon Drive because of the City's concern of the negative impact that the traffic would have on Via Cortez. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that he was trying to reconcile the petition and Ms. O'Neill's statement because her statement sounded like there was not an opposition but the petition indicated opposition. • 12-15-03 Page 4 of 10 DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL MINUTES ~ Ms. O'Neill responded that a lot of the petitions were gathered when they were under the assumption it was a three-story building which was double the size currently being proposed. The Concerned Citizens' policy is that they do not make decisions on their own. They present the facts as they are given to them and explain them to the residents. She wanted the land to be a park. She would love it to be houses. It is ugly the way it is. It is rat infested. They have done their research since they started the initial petitions and the e-mail campaigns, etc. There is not a lot of feasibility for other things on the site. It is not going to be left vacant. The owners have a right to sell it. While she does not want to see a car dealership there she felt at this point it was the best use for the land. She stated that the petition was based on the original plans, which were absolutely hideous. Applicant's Rebuttal: Mr. Bering responded that theyjust hoped Commission would give all of the issues brought forth careful consideration. They tried to accommodate many of the concerns and issues regarding lighting and access and test drives. That only during the construction phase would there be trucks going by, and that one of the conditions in the requirements is that they not deliver cars to the property on the traditional flatbeds or car haulers that haul 7, 8, 9 cars. The cars would be delivered to their main facility on La Palma Avenue where they would do a"pre-delivery inspection" and driven one by one to the new dealership. Commissioner Eastman stated that there were several things that troubled her. Commission would have to reverse something that they did not long ago as far as general plan and turning from residential back to commercial. From all of the documentation they have gotten, she understood the difficulties in trying to develop it for home sites, so she would not be opposed to the commercial use of it or not even opposed to the car dealership, but she opposed the plans. She concurred with the speaker who said it was insensitive to the rural feel of the Canyon. In ~ other areas in the City residents have fought very hard to have standards, and it seemed a two- story building would be intrusive, especially along with the variance. It would not be compatible with the area. Commissioner Buffa concurred with Commissioner Eastman and stated that it was not an appropriate use on the site and although it was a fairly creative site plan for a site that is extremely difficult to develop, the design of the building and architectural style was not compatible with the residential or commercial uses that were already in the area. She understood the Mercedes dealerships desire to have a contemporary building, especially since they were selling what they advertised as a very high-tech product and that they probably would not be interested in pink stucco and red tile roof, but she did not believe it was appropriate to have the highly reflective glass looming over the backyard fence of the neighbors or pointed towards the 91- Freeway, which could create a visual distraction. She was concerned that the building has more articulation, and would be more compatible with its residential neighbors and the commercial uses that were already there. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to speak on the choice of design for the project because he believed it was not consistent with what Caliber Motors wanted and was much different than what was seen throughout the Canyon Area. Mr. McCafferty responded that staff did not have design view per se but that when something was adjacent to other architectural they tried to make it complimentary. Given that Caliber Motors wanted a contemporary look, staff focused on how to make it as compatible as possible with its surroundings. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if there was a screening process that justified the reasons so that Commission could understand it better. ~ 12-15-03 Page 5 of 10 DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL MINUTES ~ Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, concurred that it did not fit in with the other architectural immediately adjacent to it but was closer to what was seen on Imperial Highway and La Palma Avenue and on Savii Ranch, in terms of being a modern, non-traditional type of architectural. At the time staff first saw the plans, it was a much larger scale and has since been scaled back tremendously in terms of the size and some of the other operational features of the site in terms of the glass; that it was something the City has along Weir Canyon Road and the 91-Freeway, which was part of the Scenic Corridor. Staff was not expecting this type of automotive to actually look like the adjacent properties simply because it was not residential nor was it a retail commercial shopping center or a hotel-type of look and if Commission was looking at something more traditional, the project would not make it because it would stand out from the rest of the architectural in the area. Staff was not too concerned about the fact that they pick and change some other type of look out there. There was no architectural statement that had been adopted for the area. It just so happened that most of the architectural just kind of followed it along in the pattern that currently existed. Commissioner Flores stated if the signage were illuminated in the nighttime, the two on the sides would be affecting some of the residents. Mr. Bering responded that they would be illuminated at night, but that he did not believe they would be as high degree of illumination as the Mercedes Benz Starr, and the words Mercedes Benz. Commissioner Flores asked if there could be any agreement of one sign at the front or if it was necessary to have all three signs. Mr. Bering responded that the trees growing up along the property would shade most of the residences from view of the signs at night. ~ Commissioner Flores stated that she was not comfortable with the three signs and the look of the building. Commissioner O'Connell stated to continue the look (the red tile roof, etc) for this type of show piece or display would be very difficult and would take away from what it was; a car dealership, a showroom. It would be a negative to try to change the entire thing. He agreed with Ms. O'Neill that there was not a whole lot that could be done with the property. He believed having the high caliber building and display would be fantastic for the site. He was not too concerned about traffic on the 91-Freeway as far as accidents, etc., because it was slow, and he did not see any real opposition present. Regarding the schools, they were pretty far away from the immediate business and he did not see any real impact to local businesses, but would help the shopping center with people coming in. It could be a real plus for Anaheim Hills. Commissioner Buffa stated the project would be a very positive use and appropriate use for the site but they would need to work out some of the design details. She suggested approving the use so that Caliber Motors could go back to Mercedes and say that they had gotten their site approved and wanted to expand and work with them to become a bigger dealership in the Mercedes Benz family. She suggested adding a condition of approval on a project that required Caliber to bring their architectural back to the Planning Commission and that there be some redesign of the facility so that it would be designed in such away as to have less of an impact on adjacent residences; to have some characteristics that were more compatible with the surrounding uses, the commercial, hotel and the residential and more in keeping with the style and the feeling in the Canyon. Commissioner Bostwick concurred with Commissioners Buffa and Eastman and felt there were some issues that needed to be addressed. He suggested maybe they could put red tile on the roof and do a parapet roof and hide the equipment behind the parapet; reduce the glass or put ~ some other articulation to the building. He stated that in the Savii Ranch area there was a Chevy 12-15-03 Page 6 of 10 DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL MINUTES ~ dealer, the GMC dealer, which was on a property that also had constraints, and also a Honda and Acura dealership. That all had very nicely designed buildings, not as much glass, and yet could get the message across so that they could be seen. They did not have to have a wall of glass to be a dealership. He was truly impressed with the Concerned Citizens of the Canyon particularly, Stephanie in her statement about being realistic. He would rather have seen the whole site commercial and have it border in Anaheim and not in Yorba Linda, but nobody liked that idea. Now there were 100 plus homes on the site with a little piece of land left over. When the decision was made he questioned the developer about the strip of land and how they were going to access it and they said they could do it. It did not pan out and now was a very difficult site, very constrained and required certain variances. He suggested looking at a four-week continuance for them to work on their architectural, issues of signage, and the back lighting of the sign so that it would not show or reflect on the neighborhood. He asked if on the strip between the sound wall and the other retaining wall being built now, if they were planning to plant trees there or if they were planning to plant in front of the other wall. Mr. Bering responded they would not be planting anything on the Horton property. They would have to plant everything on their property, north of the drainage channel running east and west. Scott Koehn, representative of D. R. Horton, stated regarding the new retaining wali going up, there would be a chain link on top of the wall, green coated and vineage running through the chain link so that eventually there would be plantation going through it. Mr. McCafferty asked if there would be any planting on the north side of the sound wall, other than the vines. Mr. Koehn responded no. ~ Commissioner Bostwick wished to clarify that they were going to build another wall on their side of the drainage ditch and plant there. Mr. Marca stated that there was already a large sound wall constructed that was the back wall of most of their adjoining neighbors. There was a 15-foot tour easement and then the Caliber property began. For the majority of the site there was the drainage channel, and directly to the north of that they were planning extensive 36-inch boxed trees that would grow approximately between 12 and 16 feet tail in the beginning and then approximately 2 feet a year. The goal of the boundary was to create quickly a very dense visual screen between the residential property, and they would have the benefit, because of the sewer easement, of being set 15 feet farther back. There would be a substantiai tree line, which would assist them both in terms of sound from the freeway and light from their site. As indicated, in today's modern optics although the lumens are very high, the photo metrics of the lights would direct their lighting straight down so that the cut-off along the property line with the shield would be less than a half a foot-candle. The City requested that they go to 12-foot lighting along the property line with residences, and they proposed 24 feet. He felt 12 feet would be a real hardship because the lighting dispersion was very bad when those types of heads were close to the ground. Many cities required lighting near a residential area to be 16, 18 or 20 feet. Regarding the architectural, he stated that Mr. Zandy of Caliber Motors indicated that if the Commission should find a general approval for the project they would be happy to present alternate designs to the Commission for something more in keeping with a residential scale. As an architect who spends 85% of his time doing auto dealerships he felt Mercedes Benz signages were extremely subdued; essentially a dark blue background with a fine emblem in it. So at night the dark blue would not be a highly objectionable color for them. Mercedes Benz preferred the contemporary, high-tech type and they desired to please Mercedes Benz as well as staff in their concern about the reflection on the glass. The glass was highly studied and determined to be less reflective than clear glass. The second ~ floor by the building was pulled in 20 feet from the exterior glass so that light projecting out at the upper level would be minimized. The reflective surface was turned inward on the interior of the 12-15-03 Page 7 of 10 DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL MINUTES ~ dual-pane thermal glass they were proposing to use on the building. Which would mean that there was no brightness projected on the outside. It would reflect but it was not categorized as a highly reflective surFace by the glass industry. The north side of the building facing the 91-Freeway reflected nothing because no direct light shone on it from a major light source. The south side of the building woufd project the majority of the glare and they minimized that to the maximum extent that technology allowed and that presented a screen system. He felt they had made a lot of good efforts. Mr. McCafferty stated the Mitigated Negative Declaration went to Caltrans with the photo metrics analysis and they did not comment on the lighting. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that for sometime now Commission had been looking at both freeway oriented signs and telecommunication, essentially mobile telephone antennas. And he wanted to encourage that maybe as a bonus to certain businesses that wanted to have freeway oriented signs that they allow the signs to include some kind of telecommunication equipment. Often mobile phone companies would state that they proposed to a company but the company was not interested. He asked staff if there was a way there could be some sort of "gentleman's agreement" that stated as part of the support for the project would be the understanding that the applicant would be open to talking to the telecommunication companies in terms of having their equipment located on the building since it would save the Canyon the need from another stand along structure or Commission would not be faced with the situation where the applicant would say they went to a company and it was not interested so they would have to build a separate structure. Mr. Marca stated they would agree to it. ~ Mr. McCafferty stated staff would always encourage that to happen, if possible. Mr. Marca stated usually antennas were placed on taller buildings where they could not be seen from ground level, and asked if Commission would want antennas on the top of Caliber. Mr. McCafferty responded they should not be visible but integrated into the architectural design of the building, and sometimes the antennas could be lower if there were other facilities in the area. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked, regarding the location on La Palma Avenue if it was the intent of the applicant to actually move all of its facilities to the new site or if the one on La Palma Avenue was still going to be in operation. And if so, how would they advertise them. Mr. Bering responded that it obviously presented them with a lot of operational and advertising difficulties, but they thought the benefits would outweigh those type issues. They intended to keep the location on La Palma Avenue as vehicle sales and service facility. People had known about it for almost 20 years and they have outgrown the space. The landlord did not renew their lease of the building at 5401 East La Palma Avenue where the Land Rover dealer would be expanding. They needed extra room and would be willing to put up with the operational difficulties to get it. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that the Conditional Use Permit would not permit a public address system and asked that since salesmen would be scattered all over the property, how they intended to overcome that. Mr. Bering responded that they would use cell phones that included paging features where they could press one button or enter a couple of keys and talk to anybody any place in the facility or anywhere in town. ~ 12-15-03 Page 8 of 10 DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL MINUTES ~ Mr. McCafferty asked Commission's guidance on the architectural design with the types of materials or style they wanted such as the Kaiser Health Care Building which was different but still contemporary; incorporating more stone and less glass that had a contemporary feel but also had a bit of craftsman to it to with the stone. Commissioner Eastman responded that it was an excellent example of a building that was contemporary and gave the warmth of a residential or more rustic feel that some of the other things in the Hills had. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated the palm trees were bothering him more than the architectural. Some of the other dealerships off of the 101-Freeway in the Ventura area had tall eucalyptus trees that were very elegant looking, and felt they would be an example of something that might blend in more with the area without calling for greater changes in the architectural of the buildings. Commissioner Flores felt the eucalyptus might block the view of the vehicles. Debbie O'Neil responded that the eucalyptus on her property dripped a sap down and had cones on them so that if they were to hit a car with any moisture on it, the car would be bright red. She suggested a weeping willow or something. Chairperson Vanderbilt recalled his idea and stated in the Canyon area more evergreen trees than eucalyptus trees were found. Mr. Marca stated unfortunately there were very few trees compatible with automobile dealership uses. The palm tree was relatively common as one that got used a lot because they were tall; they were a part of Southern California's heritage; and they did not shed a lot; they could be controlled, the heads could be shaped and controlled without having things fall from them. Trees that attracted birds; trees that dropped seed pods; tons of leaves, etc. were incredible maintenance problems and many of them would actually damage the finish of the vehicles and systematicaliy overtime the dealers would find a way to get rid of them. Many types of grass would have a difficult time growing under eucalyptus. The front portion of their site wouid be as close to a park as they could get it and yet would be commercial. There wouid be an awful lot of landscaping in the front portion of the site and he would hate to see Commission require them to eliminate the palm trees in favor of eucalyptus. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that it would be sort of a shock to change from one field temporarily to the other field and further down in the Canyon return to the look that was consistent for the entire corridor. Commissioner Eastman suggested incorporating a design where the applicant would come back, having taken into consideration all of the remarks made, that would give more of a comfortable feeling as far as blending in with the residential area. Mr. McCafferty suggested changes to the conditions as follows: Modify Condition No. 10 to indicate that a final landscaping and fencing plan for the entire site ... and the rest remained the same. Modify Condition No. 32 to say that all lighting should be arranged and directed as to reflect the light away from joining residential properties and should not exceed a height of 12 feet so that restriction on the lighting would apply to the entire site of 12 foot high standards. Commissioner Eastman suggested 18 feet since they needed it to be a little bit higher closer to the freeway. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, suggested an 18-foot by the freeway if they could show ~ that the lighting would not be obtrusive. Also on the specific signage to the Scenic Corridor, the signage would be required to be turned off at midnight. Since they were only going to operate 12-15-03 Page 9 of 10 DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL MINUTES ~ until 9 p.m. it would not serve other than advertising purposes after hours to have the signage on after 9 o'clock. Commissioner Buffa stated she was not sure that she would be comfortabie asking them to turn off their signage at 9 o'clock when Aerostone could leave theirs on during hours of operation, which could be 24 hours a day. Commissioner Eastman stated that across the freeway Commission also required Armstrong not to have their lights on at night. Mr. Hastings clarified that Condition No. 32 restricted the hours to what the applicant requested from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Mr. McCafferty stated a Finai Elevation Plan should be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a reports and recommendation item. And that Condition No. 44 should state that prior to final Building and Zoning inspections, Condition No. 42, above mentioned should be complied with. That the only waiver related to the building would be the maximum structure height adjacent to a single-family residential zone, which was essentially a two to one requirement. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if they were providing a sound buffer. He understood that the project would develop some signs but asked if they would also represent a barrier between the freeway and the residential area. Mr. McCafferty responded that there might be some acoustical value of the building being there and with regards to the building itself the only noise created was from the HVAC equipment, and that woufd be acoustically enclosed to comply with both Title 24 and the City Municipa! Code. ~ Commissioner Bostwick stated that from the standpoint of someone who owned property along the Santa Ana Freeway and who has had a sound wall next to his property, from going from landscaping, that the landscaping was a much better buffer for noise than the wall. The wall tended to bounce the sound and was actually louder and dirtier than landscaping. ~ 12-15-03 Page 10 of 10 ~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:04 P.M. TO MONDAY, JANUARY 12, 2004 AT 10:30 A.M. FOR A PRESENTATION ON THE BROWN ACT AND DUE PROCESS BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. RECEIVING AND APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES FOR ITEM NO. 9, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04800, FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 2003, SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD AS A PUBLtC HEARING ITEM BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2004. Respectfully submitted: ~L/ Pat Chandler Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2003. ~