Loading...
Minutes-PC 2005/09/19~~,~EIM ~~, CITY OF ANAHEIM ~ 4 ~' ~r~ • • • o ~ Planning Commission ~ ~ Minutes U D~ _ _ ~a~ MondaY, September 19, 2005 . . o e~ Council Chamber, City Hall ~O~ 1~~~ 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California NDED CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: CECILIA FLORES Commissioners Present: KELLY BUFFA, JOSEPH KARAKI, ED PEREZ, PANKYROMERO, PAT VELASQUEZ Commissioners Absent: GAIL EASTMAN Staff Present: Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney Amy Vazquez, Associate Planner Greg Hastings, Planning Services Manager James Ling, Associate Civil Engineer Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner Della Herrick, Associate Planner , Dave See, Senior Planner Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Planner Larry Garrison, Police Lieutenant Elly Morris, Senior Secretary ' John Ramirez, Associate Planner ~ Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 4:00 p,m. on Thursday, September 15, 2005, 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, August 25, 2005 • Call To Order Preliminary Plan Review 1:00 P.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 AGENDA • Recess To Afternoon Public Hearing Session • Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. For record keepinq purposes if vou wish to make a statement reaardinq anv item on the aqenda please complete a speaker card in advance and subm-f ~t to the secretarv. • Pledge Of Allegiance: Commissioner Romero • Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items • • Adjournment You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following e-mail address: plannins~commission(~Danaheim.net H:\TOOLS\PCADMIN\PCMI NIAC112005MI NUTESWC091905.DOC ; ~ SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 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 Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. Consent Calendar: The items 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 yoting 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 Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Buffa and MOTION CARRIED (Chairman Eastman absent), for approval of Consent Calendar Items 1-A through 1-C asrecommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Renorts and Recommendations 1A.(a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) Approved (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04844 Approved retroactive (Tracking No. CUP2005-05018) extension of time for 1 year • (to ezpire on May 17, 2006) (c) DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY Approved NO. 2004-00015 (Tracking No. PCN2005-00022) Agent: Eric Hull, 701 North Parkcenter Drive, Santa Ana, CA Consent Calendar Approval 92705 VOTE: 6-0 Location: 611 South Brookhurst Street: Property is 2.3 acres Chairman Eastman absent located at the southwest corner of Orange Avenue and Brookhurst Street. Request for a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for a previously-approved conditional use permit and determination of public convenience and necessity for the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption in conjunction p,~~ectPianner. with a proposed pharmacy (Sav-on). (mnew~and@ananeim.net) SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • M'n s' 1B. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Continued to Meeting of September 7, 2005. (Motion) , October 3, 2005 Consent Calendar , Approval VOTEc 6-0 ' Chairman Eastman absent 1C. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Continued to Meeting of August 8, 2005. (Motion) October 3, 2005 Continued from the August 22, and September 7, 2005, Planning Commission _ meetings. Consent,Caleudar Approval VOTE: 6-0 Chairman Eastman absent': • SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Public Hearing Items: 2a. CEQA CATEC~ORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 VelasquezlRomero Concurred with staff 2b: VARIANCE NO 1229 Velasquez Approved reinstatement for (Tracking No. VAR2005-04659) 15 years (to ezpire on July 25, 2020) ' Owner: Gregory Parkin, 2500 West Orangethorpe Avenue # V, Fullerton, CA 92833 Modified Condition No. l Agent: Jim Parkin, Covered Wagon Motel, 823 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, GA 92804 voTE: 6-0 Chairman Eastman absent Location: 823 South Beach Boulevard. Property is approximately 1.3 acres, having a frontage of 192 feet on the west side of Beach Soulevard and is located 975 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road. Request for reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on May 5, 2003 to expire July 25, 2005) to retain a 70-unit motel and restaurant (Covered Wagon Motel). Continued from the August 8, and September 7, 2005, Planning Commission meetings. • Project Planner. Variance Resolution No. PC2005-135 (dsee@anaheim.net) Chairman Pro Tempore Flores opened the public hearing. Dave See, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 2. ApplicanYs Statement: Gregory Parkin, 823 S. Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA, stated he read staff s recommendations and concurs with the Police DepartmenYs statistics. He expressed his support of deleting the time limitation. THE PUBUC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Pro Tempore Flores asked staff for clarification regarding Mr. Parkin's request. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, responded staff's recommendation is that there be a time limit and to be consistent with the findings that are required in the municipal code. tf it is Commission's wish to entertain a longer time limitation it cou~d be done under the conditions of approval but given the fact that they have had issues with the motel in the past and the secondary impacts that results from those issues, , such as, calls for service, crime that has occurred on the property and adjacent to the property. Staff understands the property owner has done a very good job recently, but they are looking to the future and feel that some time limit is necessary to ensure it continues to operate in compliance with the code. Commissioner Romero asked staff what is the significance of the recommended 10-year time limit versus a 15-year time limit. i 09-19-05 Page 4 SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES :~ Mr. McCafferty responded the Police Department was also involved in the recommendation, and staff understands that the applicant needs a fairly long tiine frame irrorder to obtain reasonable financing, but staff did not want to recommend a time limiiation that was too 1ong. Commissioner Romero noted that the applicant would be meeting periodically with the Police Depa~tment with regards to other matters. Mr. McCafferty responded yes, and stated the recommended time frame seemed reasonable to staff, but they are open to a different time frame. Commissioner Romero stated the applicant wanted to obtain a long-term financing, and 10 years would be a short time period inthe lending business. ' Mr. Parkin pointed out financial reasons why he supports a 15-year time limitation. Mr. McCafferty concurred and stated staff would be comfortable with a 15-year time limit as long as they meet regularly with the West Anaheim Policing Team. Mr. Parkin responded he concurs. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on • Tuesday, October 11, 2005. DISCUSSION TIME: 13 minutes (2:42-2:55) • ` SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA EXEMPTION SECTIONS 15061(b)(3) and 15301 Romero/Karaki Concurred with staff 3b. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT N0. 2005-00043' Romero/Flores Recommended City , Council adoption of the draft Ordinance City lnitiated: City of AnaheimPolice Department, Attn: Captain Joe Reiss, 425 South Harbor Boufevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 . Location: Citvwide. vOTE: 6-0 Chairman Eastman absent Request to'amend Title 4(Business Regulatior-s) and Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipaf Code to establish a definition, permitted locations and regulations for "smoking lounges". Continued from the August 8, 2005, Planning Commission meeting. Pro~ectP~anner. (ethien@anaheim, net) ChairmanProTempore Flores opened the public hearing: Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated the subject item is a continued public hearing and the planner todaywill be providing a PowerPoint Presentation, in order to bring the Commission up-to-date on some of the issues that were raised at the fast meeting. Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Planner, introduced Item No. 3 and provided a PowerPoint Presentation. She stated staff's goal in drafting today's ordinance is in three part, first of all they wanted to create a streamlined and business friendly administrative process, to allow smoking lounges that would operate • under the criteria outlined in the draft ordinance. The businesses would be permitted by right and would not need to go through a lengthy conditional use permit process. Second, they needed to create a process that was consistent with all state and federal laws, as we11 as the City Zoning Code. They paid particular attention to the labor code as it pertains to indoor smoking. Lastly, they needed to address the secondary impacts that are experienced by residents and businesses that are currently located close to some of the existing smoking lounge businesses. She gave the definition of a smoking lounge and stated the previously approved establishments were known as cigar lounges, hookah cafes, tobacco clubs or tobacco bars. The current businesses that are operating in the City were approved under the fast food restaurant category. The location criteria for all new businesses would be established as part of the draft ordinance, and would be permitted by right in ' any of the commercial zones provided that the specific tenant space is located no closer than 200 feet from any residential use or residential zone. The tenant space must also be at least 1,000 feet from any public or private school. Some activities that would be permitted as part of a smoking lounge include indoor smoking, outdoor seating with requirements identical to those for outdoor seating for restaurants, limited food and beverage service (typically pre-packaged items) and recorded music that could be amplified within the tenant space only. Some activities staff recommends not be approved in conjunction with a smoking lounge include alcohol service, admittance fees, live entertainment and music devices. During the presentation she described the restrictions of the labor code as certain provisions in the draft ' ordinance celates to not conflicting with the labor code. She stated two scenarios exist in which a business can allow indoor smoking; first when the business is truly owner operated and they do not have any janitors, senrers or entertainers that are considered to be employees, and the owner does everything pertaining to the business. Next, is the small business exemption in which a business has no more than 5 employees. She stated in the case of a bar, it is not allowed by the labor code to qualify for the small business exemption, so that any bar at the place of employment meaning one or more employees cannot be exempt from labor code and cannot allow indoor smoking. • ` 09-19-05 Page 6 SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - She indicated in order for a small business,to qualify they need to meet the following provisions: the • smoking area must not be accessible to minors; all employees must consent to permif smoking; and air ' from within the smoking area must be directed to the outside of the buiiding by a mechanical exhaust fan. The state energy code has requirements pertaining to ventifation requirements for smoking lounges and this would be regulated through the Building Division through a mechanical permit. At this time, staff is not aware if existing businesses are in compliance with the small business exemption pertaining to the number of employees and requirements of the ventilation standards. ~ She noted that the current draft ordinance does not allow for smoking lounge owners to'apply for a conditional use permit for alcohol; however-if the Commission wished to aNow abusiness owner to have the opportunity they would have to follow the process in order to be approved. lt would require a conditional use permit, they would need a license from the Alcoholic Beverage Control, and also would need to demonstrate that as part of the conditional use permit application how they would'be able to - comply with the labor code in order to have alcohol and indoor smoking. She reiterated it would be a business that was completely owner operated. The next 2ctivity is when a business wants to charge an admittance fee which is required by the current code to o6tain a conditional use permit: Some examples are nightclubs, public dance halls or full service restaurants with public entertainment where there would be a cover charge to enter thebusiness. This ' would'not be allowed with a smoking Iounge,,buY if Commission wanted to allow the opportunity tliey would have to follow the same process as they would have for alcohoL She stated staff also recommends that live ente~tainment and amusement devices be excluded from a' smoking lounge. These activities are currently regulated under Title 4 and they are granted through an administrative permit process with the Business License Division. TypicallyJive entertainment or amusement devices are accessory uses to restaurants. Staff feels these activities should be excluded from the smoking lounge because both activities either alone or combined, tend to change the dynamics • of the business which may impact nearby residents. : Larry Garrison, Police Lieutenant, stated the surrounding residents are negatively impacted from some of the smoking lounge businesses as it is in close proximity to the residential areas, along with the change in dynamics from traditional smoking lounges to more of a night club or dance hall type atmosphere which is impacting the quality of life for the surrounding residents. Commercial neighbors are also being impacted, however to a lesser degree, by loitering, drinking in the parking lots and litter. Some of the concerns that have been brought to them are loud music, talking, yelling, drinking, smoking and urinating in parking lots and adjoining commercial areas, minors possessing and/or consuming alcohol or using tobacco products. He relayed recent incidents which involved teenagers who were smoking marihuana in theparking lot area and one of the teenagers received a citation for possession of marihuana. Also, another incident there was a group of 4-6 males who were cansuming alcohol in the parking lot area before entering the smoking lounge. Another incident, before midnight there were a car load of 5 male/females, 16-19 year old, from the City of Huntington Beach and one of the 16 year old female was consuming alcohol and was issued a citation. He continued relaying additional incidents occurring in the area of smoking lounges. He stated some of the proposed regulations will maintain smoking lounges as smoking lounges as oppose to operating as dance halls or night clubs and those regulations wou{d include the five entertainment, the coverage charges, prohibiting amusement devices and serving no alcohol at the ` establishments. Other regulations would prevent problems associated with existing clubs from becoming probfems at other Anaheim locations in regards to the proposed distance for new businesses from residential and school zones. By regulating these types of activities, the City will be able to prevent the intensification of activity associated with the problems the residents are now experiencing, thereby preventing future problems and police responses. The regulations will also allow the chief of police to require uniformed security if a specific location is causing negative secondary impacts: The police • department has seen a change in the dynamics of the smoking lounges, the trend they notice is a move towards more of an after-hour club instead of a traditional smoking' lounge: Some of the proposed regulations will help to minimize problems for a number of Anaheim residents as additional smoking 09-19-05 Page 7 SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • lounge businesses continue to open in the future. Therefore, the police department endorses the adoption of the regulations. ;, _ Public Testimony: Mohammed Elkhutib, 512 S. Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA, stated he isthe owner of one of the hookah club establishments that was shown during today's presentation: As long as he has owned his business, they have never found drugs or alcohol inside the premises.' He tries to control as much as possible in the parking iot area, but there will always be people who will drink alcohol in their vehicle and not everyone will get caught. He asked Commission fordirection to help them better follow the guidelines for'smoking lounge establishments. He presented a"hookah" and gave a brief illustration of the use of a "hookah". Commissioner Buffa asked Mr. Elkhutib if he has reviewed today's draft ordinance. , Mr. Elkhutib responded no, he reviewed it at the last meeting and since then he has made changes to the business pertaining to the coals, vents, etc. Commissioner Buffa stated it sounds like physical changes have already been made to the business in order to'try to comply with the regulations that haven't even been adopted yet. There is a draft ordinance todaywhicH staff will submit to you, she asked Mr. Elkhutib to review it because following his review she wants to ask if he feels he would be able to operate the business with #he new restrictions. She also asked that he review the draft City of Anaheim'Fire DepartmenYs Specifications and Requirements because it does state you need to have the coals indoors. Mr. Elkhutib stated the fire marshal has given him one year to complete the necessary kitchen renovation. ~ Ken Bell, 517 S. Archer Street, Anaheim, CA, stated he resides directly behind the hookah bar, and he has lived there for 8 years. , He stated the noise coming from the establishment is very loud and has talked to the police department several times. The cars leave at 2-3 a.m., and the reason you don't see any bottles on the property is because they are on his property as they are thrown over the fence, plus he has to throw away the hypodermic needles in the trash. He expressed concerns pertaining to the hours of operation, noise, smell and trash. Chairman Pro Tempore Flores asked if Mr. Bell is opposed to the rules. Mr. Bell stated he is in favor of the 200 feet requirement to a residence, and may try to obtain a variance to build a higher fence, and stated he is in favor of the new ordinance. Vanessa Shanley, 1734 S. Varna Street, Anaheim, CA, expressed concems with what is happening outside of the hookah bar establishments, not necessarily the business itself but the impacts brought to a neighborhood by people who frequent the business. The businesses need to be located away from the neighborhoods. Linda Moore, 635 S. Archer Street, Anaheim, CA, stated she was directly behind the hookah bar that burned and the owner was very cooperative with them, he now has his hookah bar business in Anaheim Hills. She stated the noise was a big problem with the neighbors, they didn't have a lot of elicit activity in the alley, but the noise went on nightly. She expressed support of the ordinance but wished that it would apply to existing businesses. Commissioner Buffa asked Ms. Moore what her opinion is about the proposed 200 feet distance from residents. Linda Moore responded that is not very far. • Commissioner Perez asked what day was it more of a problem. 09-19-05 Page 8 SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSCON MINUTES • Linda Moore responded more so on the weekends, but every night of the week especially during summer time. THE PUBLIC HEARWG WAS CLOSED. , Commissioner Romero expressed his support of staff's recommendation. Commissioner Velasquez expressed her support of staff s recommendation. Chairman Pro Tempore Flores asked staff if they feel with the new regulations and the 200 feet distance from residents if it would take care of the noise and problems: Mr. McCafferty responded yes, as staff feels the administrative process appropriately addresses all the secondary impacts and it can be reviewed by the business license collector and the police department, and if there are additional measures needed they couid require them through the process. Chairman Pro TemporeFlores expressed her support of the draft ordinance. Commissioner Perez expressed concerns pertaining to the 200 feet distance versus 500 feet distance from residents as testimony was provided today regarding the noise and problems that occur. He asked staff if the proposed standards would apply to the existing smoking lounges as he is concerned that they will still have activities to cause problems and complaints. Mr: McCafferty stated there are grandfathering provisions for the locational and parking requirements for existing businesses, but all the other standards that are included in the draft ordinance there would be a certain period of time that the existing businesses would need to compfy with. • Commissioner Buffa concurred with Commissioner Perez regarding the 200 feet distance as it may not be far enough, particularly since it is from the tenant space and doesn't control people/activities in the parking lot which may be immediately adjacent to residential uses. Mr. McCafferty stated staff is open to increasing the distance than 200 feet, but it may limit the number of establishments that are permitted due to the established land use patterns in different parts of the City. Commissioner Karaki stated he believes more than 200 feet would make it almost impossible as most commercial properties are abutted to residential. - Mr. McCafferty responded the land use pattern in West Anaheim is that there is a lot of strip commercial, unless you are at a major intersection. He agreed that a lot of eligible locations would be reduced along the major corridors at least in West Anaheim. Commissioner Karaki expressed his support of the draft ordinance. Commissioner Romero reiterated his support of staff's recommendation and asked staff for clarification if there are any complaints from a business it would be taken care of appropriately by the police department if reported and the operating permit may be at risk for being revoked. Mr. McCafferty responded yes. OPPOSITION: None IN SUPPORT: 3 people spoke in favor, and a letter was received in favor of the subject • request. IN GENERAL: A person spoke in general to the subject request. 09-19-05 - Page 9 ~_ , SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mark Gordon Assistant Git Attorne ' resented the 22-da ap eal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on , Y Y, P Y P Tuesday, October 11, 2005. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 14 minutes (2:56-4:10) ~ i SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 P4ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Perez/Buifa 4b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2005-00166 Perez ~ 4C: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3653 Karaki (TRACKING NO. CUP2005-05019) 4d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005-05015 Flores ' Owner: City of Anaheim, Greg Smith; 800 West Katella Avenue, ' Anaheim, CA 92805 Agent: Kevin Starkey, Anaheim Arena Management, 2695 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA'92806 , Location: 2695 Easf Katella Avenue and 1621 Doualass Road. The.property consists of two sites as follows: Fortion A is approximately 12.7 acres, located at the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road; Portion 6 is approximately 7.06 acres, located at the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road (Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim). Reclassification No. 2005-00166 - Request to reclassify Portion B from the T(Transition) zone and I(Industrial) zone to the PR (Public Recreational) zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 3653 - Request to amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to the number of freestanding signs on ` • the property. Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05015 - To construct an on-site electronic readerboard sign at an existing regional sports and event facility (Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim). Reclassification Resolution No. PC2005-136 Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2005-137 Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2005-138 ' Chairman Pro Tempore Flores opened the public hearing. John Ramirez, Associate Planner, introduced Item No. 4. ApplicanYs Statement: Approved Granted Approved Granted VOTE ON CEOA. RCLS AND CUP NO. 3653: 6-0 Chairman Eastman absent VOTE ON CUP NO. 2005-05015: 5-1 Commissioner Buffa voted no and Chairman Eashnan absent Project Planner.• Qpramirez@anaheim.net) Bob Wagner, 2695 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA, stated he is the Vice President and CMO of the Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim. He is handling along with his colleagues the construction on #he marquee. Chairman Pro Tempore Flores asked if he agrees with the staff report. Mr. Wagner responded yes. THE PUBUC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ Commissioner Perezreferred'to the brightness and density of the sign, and asked if there would be some type of digital imaging of events/concerts. 09-19-05 Page 11 SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Wagner stated the electronic board would be utilized topromote upcoming events being held at the Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim. They have factored in an opportunity.of 5 minutes perhour for the City to use a{ong the stretch of the 57 Freeway which according to Caltrans it generates about 62 million cars per year, therefore, they feel the sign would be very valuable for the facility and the City of Anaheim. - Rocky Gruner, 3345 Miraloma Avenue, Anaheim, GA, stated the brightness issue is that during the nighttime the sign automatically dims to a minimum of 50% of its daytime brightness. Commissioner Perez asked for clarification regarding the video plus and asked would he see an actual video image. \ Mr. Gruner stated the application is regulated by Caltrans, which is four seconds on and one second off at ' a minimum, no trailing or video. They can't'display video on the freeway. Chairman Pro Tempore Flores asked if there would be video on all three signs. Mr. Gruner responded just the very top sign would have video, and the resE would be normal advertising signs. Commissioner Romero asked if Caltrans has reviewed and approved it. Mr. Gruner responded the permit is currently in effect. - Commissioner Buffa stated if Commission approves the request, it is clearly the largest advertising display in the City. It is not as tall as the "Big A" but it certainly has a lot more advertising space. She expressed that she has a hard time justifying the height of the sign, it is over 93 feet tall and 63 feet of '• that is visible from the freeway. It is a very large sign, and she is not convinced regardless of the curvature of the freeway, height of the grade and direction of approach that the sign needs to be seen from that far away. Mr. Wagner stated it was important for them to make sure that people could read the sign, and there are some strict Caltrans regulations. They looked at existing signage/billboards in the area, and stated their advertising would be a lot smaller than a billboard and smaller than the back of Angel Stadium's scoreboard. Commissioner Buffa asked typically what size are freeway billboard signs. Mr. Wagner responded those signs are 60' x 40'. Commissioner Karaki asked for clarification regarding the illumination at night. Mr. Wagner responded that during the night it has a photo cell on it, where it automatically dims to 50% of its brightness of the daytime. If you need further dimness than you could go to the control system and dim it down in increments of 1%. Commissioner Karaki expressed his support of the request. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on • Tuesday, October 11, 2005. DISCUSSION TIME: 24 minutes (4:11-4:35) _ 09-19-05 Page 12 SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5. CE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED Perez/Romero a Q Approved 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4165 ' Perez Approved reinstatement ' (TRACKING NO. CUP2005-04988) for S years (to ezpire on December 6, 2009) Owner: Southern California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, : Rosemead, CA 91770 Agent: Terri Grisenti, Velocitel for Sprint PCS, 18071 Fitch Avenue, Suite : VOTE: 6-0 200; Irvine,`CA 92614 Chairman Eastman absent Location: 1200-1400 West Audre Drive,1650 South_Ninth Streef and 1651 South Walnut Street. Property is approximately 5.0 acres, having a frontage of 1,232 feet on the south side of Audre Drive, 175 feet on the west side of Walnut Street and 175 feet on the east side of Ninth Street (Southern California Edison Easement). Request for reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on December 6, 1999 to expire December 6, 2004) to retain telecommunication antennas on an existing electrical transmission tower. Continued from the June 27, 2005,PIanning Commission meeting, Project Planner. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2005-139 (dherrick@anaheim.net) • Chairman Pro Tempore Flores opened the public hearing. Defla Herrick, Associate Planner, introduced Item No. 5. ApplicanYs Statement: Thomas Cornish, 18071 Fitch Avenue, Irvine, CA, stated he is with Velocitel Incorporated and represents Sprint PCS and they have reviewed the staff report and agree with all staff's recommendations. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Pro Tempore Flores stated she is glad to hear that the landscape issue was taken care of. OPPOSITION: IVone Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 11, 2005. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (4:36-4:38) ' SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. ' CE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Buffa/Perez Q Approved ° 6b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 20Q5-00167 ' Buffa Granted 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.'2005-05023 Buffa Granted 6d. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16784 Buffa/Romero. Approved Agent: Elisa Stipkovich, Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: Area 1: This 1.8-acre area consists of multiple properties TTM Modified Condition 1vo. 2 west of the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and West Street, with a frontage of 440 feet on the south side of -' LincolnAvenue and a maximum depth of 192 feet (1200- voTE: 6-0 1226 West Lincoln Avenue - Five Points). Chairman Eastman absent Area 2: This 0.5-acre area consists of multipleproperties atthe southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and West Street, with a frontage of 354 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a maximum depth of 121 feet (1100 -1108 West Lincoln'Avenue - Five Points). Reclassification No. 2005-00167 - City initiated request to reclassify Area 2 from GG (General Commercial) to the GG (MU) (General Commercial; Mixed Use Overlay) zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05023 - Request to permit a • residential/commercial mixed use development in Area 2. Tentative Tract Map Na 16784 - To establish a 5-lot residential subdivision in Area 1. Reclassification Resolution No. PC2005-140 Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2005-141 Project Planner. (dsee@anaheim.net) Chairman Pro Tempore Flores opened the public hearing. Dave See, Senior Planner, introducedltem No. 6, he referred to the Tentative Tract Map and stated staff recommends that Condition No. 2 be modified, to read as folfows "that a portion of Center Street shall be abandoned for landscape purposes°. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Tract Map ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, September29, 2005; and presented the 22-day appeal rights for the Reclassification and Conditionat Use Permit ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 11, 2005. • DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (4;39-4:44) 09-19-05 Page 14 SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Buffa/Flores Concurred with staff 7a. CEQA CATEGOR 7b. CONDITIONAI. USE PERMIT N0.2005-05021 Buffa Granfed ~. Owner: Suites 0 Weekly, Weekly Suites of Anaheim, 30 Harbor Moasrea cona~aon Si ht Drive, Rollin Hills Estates, CA 90274 Nos.1,1~ and 25 of the 9 g revised draffresolution provided to the Agent: Gary L. Frazier, 6445 Joshua Tree Avenue, Orange, CA Commission and applicant 92867 at the meeting. Location: 2748 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 1.7 acres, having a frontage of 125 feet on the south side of VOTE: 6-0 L'+ncoln Avenue and is located 670 feet east of the Chairman Eastman absent centerline of Dale Avenue. Request to permit an existing legaf non-conforming motei (Lincoln inn). Conditional Use Permit Resolution Na PC2005-142 ProjectP~anner. _ (avazquez@anaheim.net)' Chairman Pro Tempore Flores opened the public hearing. Amy Vazquez, Associate Planner, introduced Item No. 7. . Chairman Pro Tempore Flores stated that seven (7) speaker cards were submitted at today's meeting indicating their support of the request, but did not wish to speak. ApplicanYs Statement: Jimmy Gaston, 2110 E. Virginia Avenue, Anaheim, CA, stated the item today is an interim step in a long process. He informed that he preaches at State College Boulevard Church of Christ in Anaheim, and he chairs the monthly round table which is known as the Anaheim Collaboration to Assist Motel Families, which was the genesis of a group called Anaheim Supportive Housing for Senior Adults which he is president of the board. The genesis goes back to September of 1998 when Anaheim's Community Services Department called together the citizens of our City to address the issue of motel families A monthly round table of involved agencies and concerned citizens which came to be known as the Anaheim Collaboration to Assist Motel Families. After a 1999 holiday outreach to motel families at the Lincoln Inn, three leaders of the collaboration began working with Acacia Housing Advisors to form Anaheim Supportive Housing for Senior Adults as they assembled the board of directors, the potential for acquiring the Lincoln Inn and : ' rehabilitating and converting it to more appropriate and affordable housing for seniors and families was in the forefront of their minds. He stated that they are certified as a community housing development organization and operate a collaborative business model and their role is to highlight housing needs in the City and identify opportunities to satisfy those needs and to collaborate with other housing and human services , organizations to produce housing with supportive services. To ensure the long-term quality of the properties and programs, they (the board) serve as the managing general partner of the real estate partnerships that own the housing. As they were forming the housing corporation, the Lincoln Inn lost its conditional use permit and became even more embroiled in controversy, therefore they moved onto • another opportunity. About a year after their formation, a plan was approved by the Planning Commission to construct a high density 3-story apartment communify for homeless and disabled citizens, 09-19-05 : Page 15 SEPTEMBER 19,'2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ across from Boysen Park in East Anaheim which opened one year ago and their vision of a quality ' apartment community for seniors in need has become a well received reality in their own neighborhoods. While they were working to finance Tyrol Plaza, pieces started to come togetherfor their vision to convert - the Lincoln lnn.` In 2002, the Planning Commission approved their proposal to convert the Lincoln fnn to 84 senior citizen's apartments. Recently, the entitlement was extended to January of 2006, that is not , what is planned to be built now but the Commission's action was an important element in their present process of financing the acquisition of the motel. : In 2003, their efforts to initiate the project failed because the property did not have a conditional use - permit, which forced them to pursue an impossible schedule of doing everything at once. Before they lost control of the site they had achieved the entitlement, implemented an anti-displacement strategy and received a significant grant from theFederal Home Loan Bank which remain in' place today, but their loan commifinents from the City and from US Bank have expired: He stated local housing policies have changed dramatically since 2002; City Council has adopted a new multi-family housing development ordinance, and reviewed a motel sfrategic plan and incorporated many of those strategies into a strategic plan for affordable housing. They have parallel the City progressby obtaining site control of the Lincoln lnn, in June, and filing application for the'subject conditional use <' permit, in August. Within a couple of months applications for a general plan amendment and a zone change will be filed to accommodate their revised plan for a'communitythat now includes both senior ' citizens and families in Cherry Orchard Apartments. He referred to the conditions of approval and stated there are two conditions that seriously concern them because their financial impacts might make the interim operation of the motel infeasible, or impossible. He relayed concerns pertaining to some of the recommended conditians of approval. • Chairman Pro Tempore Flores asked for clarification regarding the condition of approval pertaining to maid service. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated the intent of that condition is to ensure that the property operates as it is intended as a moteL Typicafly, with motels there is some form of maid service, and staff wanted to ensure that on a daily basis the room could be inspected, trash emptied, and bathroom cleaned, etc. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Velasquez asked that staff comment and/or clarify some of the concerns raised by the aPPlicant. : Amy Vazquez responded a lot of the conditions refer to the motel, but they are maintenance conditions and if any future roof-mounted equipment or signs were to come in those woufd be subject to City ordinances. Therefore, in summary a lot of the conditions are just for maintenance and any new construction but it would pertain to the motel and not to the new use that would be proposed in the future. As far as the 2 year time limit, originally the Police Department had submitted a memo recommending a 6 month approval and the appticant asked for 3 years. Therefore, staff recommended a 2 year time limit, and after 2 years the applicant could request a reinstatement. She stated she spoke with the Police Department today and they do feel comfortable with a 3 year time limit if that is Commission's wish. Commissioner Velasquez asked for clarification regarding the time limitation for the trash enclosure refurbishment. James Ling, Associate Civil Engineer, stated the requirements do pertain to the subject operation and the plan for the trash truck turnaround area and the storage collection area; they would still want to see the • plans as they relafe to the subject application. The timing is not for the future operation of the conversion but for the existing operation. He referred to the storage area, and stated the currenf enclosure does not meet the current standards for trash enclosures: They are nof requiring the trash enclosure be rebuilt to 09-19-05 Page 16 SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ' current standards, but are asking that the trash enclosure be modified by replacing the existing wooden gates with new wooden gates and not the metal ones as required bystandard. Commissioner Velasquez referred to the condition of approval pertaining'to the pay phones and asked if the pay phones are not allowed`in order to reduce crime activities. Mr. McCafferty responded yes, thaf was the original intent when it was imposed some years aga Commissioner Buffa stated she is aware that outside pay phones have been a problem inthe past and suggested having the pay phone in the lobby or to look into the issue. Gary Frazier, 6445 Joshua Tree Avenue, Orange, CA, stated he is the consultant to the applicant and clarified that the phone is verysimilar to the vending machine issue and indicated iYs not in a public area and is located in the private courtyards of the property and that area is gated. Mr. McCaffertyresponded it is reassuring that the phones are within the courtyards and the goal for staff is to ensurethat those phones are somehow monitored or controlled. Mr. Gaston stated they are located within a gated courtyard and he believes that would limit outside pay phone use, it is not accessible from 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m., as the office is closed. They also have a night watch man located on the site who can observe activities of the pay phone. Commissioner Buffa expressed her support as she feels it is reasonably secure. Commissioner Romero asked for clarification regarding the maid service. Mr. McCafferty responded staff is open to having weekly maid service, but it is up to the Commission if • they wish to modify the condition. OPPOSITION: None IN SUPPORT: 7 people filled out a speaker card in favor of the request, but did not wish to speak. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 11, 2005. DISCUSSION TIME: 35 minutes (4:45-5:20) Respectfully submitted: . ',~~,~ ~n ~-~ ~ EII Morris Y Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on d c~ o Ia e r 3~, 2005.