The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 2007/09/17i i i i ®nciay, Se~ternber 17, 2007 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California • Chairman: Kelly Buffa • Chairman Pro-Tempore: Joseph Karaki • Commissioners: Peter Agarwal, Gail Eastman, • Stephen Faessel, Panky Romero, Pat Velasquez o Call To Order ® Preliminary Plan Review 1:00 P.MI. Staff update to Commission on various City developments and issues (As requested by Planning Commission) • Preliminary Plan Review for items on the September 17, 2007 agenda For record keeping purposes if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secretary. • Recess To Public Hearing • Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.Ni. • Pledge Of Allegiance • Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items • Adjournment You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following e-mail address: planningcommission ananaheim.net H:\dots\clerical\agendas\(091707).doc (09117/07) Page 1 Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. Planning Commission Appointments: Appointment for Utilities Underground Subcommittee (Motion) 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 voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item tp be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Reports and Recommendations 1A.(a) (b) Location: 500 West Disnev Wav Continued from the August 20, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. Request review and approval of a final site plan to construct a 400-unit time share within the Anaheim GardenWalk project. IIAin 1 B. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 20, 2007. (Motion) Continued from the September 5, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting Request for continuance to October 15, 2007 Project Planner. (ethienQanaheim.oet) 1C. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of September 5, 2007. (Motion) H:\dots\clerical\agendas\(091707).doc (09/17/07) Page 2 Agent: Chris Samuelian Morris Architects 2046 Armacost Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90025 Public Hearing Items: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISED 2b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-00460 Request for continuance 2c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006-00190 to October 15, 2007 2d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05175 2f. TENTATIVE TRACT flflAP NO. 17139 Owner: Natalie Tran 3100 Lindacita Anaheim, CA 92804-1715 Quyen Tran 237 South Beach Anaheim, CA 92804-1815 Agent: Mertco Attn: Roy Ward 2614 Ocean Blvd. Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Location: 237 South Beach Boulevard and 3100 West Lindacita Lane: Portion A:.This irregularly-shaped 0.27-acre property has a frontage of 47 feet on the southeast side of Lindacita Lane and a maximum depth of 142 feet (3100 West Lindacita Lane). Portion B: This irregularly-shaped 1.68 acres property is a land-locked parcel with a maximum depth of 287 feet and is located north across a flood control channel from 3067 and 3079 West Orange Avenue and is located 175 feet south of the centerline of Grand Avenue (237 South Beach Boulevard). General Plan Amendment No. 2007-00470 -Request withdrawn by applicant. Reclassification No. 2006-00190 -Request reclassification of Portion B from the T (Transition) zone to the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family) zone, or a less intense zone and to remove the Mobile Home Park Overlay zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05175 -Request to construct a 9-unit detached single-family residential subdivision with waiver of improvement of private street for Portions A and B, and waiver of minimum lot area for Portion A. Tentative Tract Map No. 17139 - To establish a 12 numbered and 1 lettered lot, 10-unit detached single-family residential subdivision for Portions A and B. Continued from the June 11, June 25, July 9, August 20 and the Project Planner: September 5, 2007 Planning Commission Meetings. (kwony2@ananeim.net) `Advertised to include Reclassification of Portion A from the RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family) zone to the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family) zone, or a less intense zone. H:\dots\clerical\agendas\(091707).doc (09/17/07) Page 3 General Plan Amendment Resolution No. Reclassification Resolution No. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED 1 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.4177 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2007-05221) Owner: Price-James Company 110'N. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Agent: EMI Attn: Rod Wilson 4737 West 156`" Street Lawndale, CA 90260 Location: 1303-1371 North Euclid Street: Property is approximately 6.42 acres and is located at the northwest corner of'Medical Center Drive and Euclid Street. Request to amend conditions of approval to permit afreeway-oriented electronic readerboard sign in conjunction with an existing automotive dealership with waivers of (a) minimum lot size for an automotive dealership to permit afreeway-oriented sign (b) maximum area for the face of sign, (c) maximum permitted height of afreeway-oriented sign.* *Advertised as "within 300 feet of single-family residential". Project Planner. Continued from the July 23, and the September 5, 2007, Planning (kwony2@ananeim.net) Commission meeting. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. H:ldots\clerical\agendas\(091707).doc (09/17/07) Page 4 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED( 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MO. 3728 (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05245) Owner: Vineyard Christian Church 5340 East La Palma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92807 Agent: Rob Chandler Fairmont Private Schools 1575 West Mable Street Anaheim, CA 92802 Location: 5310 East La Palma Avenue: Property is approximately 23.08 acres, having a frontage of 1,238 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and is located 2,370 feet west of the centerline of Imperial Highway Request to amend a previously approved Conditional Use Permit to convert a choir studio into new junior high classrooms, administration Project Planner. Offices, and Other related uses.. (ethien@anaheim.net) Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. Sa. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP2007-05246 Owner: Hearn Revocable Living Trust One Post Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Agent: Paul Klukas Planning Systems 1530 Faraday Avenue #100 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Location: 1000 North Edward Court: Property is approximately 4.1 acres, having a frontage of 44 feet at the terminus of Edward Court, and is located 335 feet south of the centerline of White Star Avenue. Request to permit an :indoor go-kart facility. Project Planner Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. (ernien@ananeim.ner) H:\docs\clerical\agendas\(091707).doc (09/17107) Page 5 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3893 (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05247) Owner: Calvary Chapel Open Door 1011 North Harbor Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92801 Agent: Roger Stahlhut 1011 North Harbor Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92801 Location: 1011 North Harbor Boulevard: Property is approximately 0.76-acre, having a frontage of 180 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard and is located 250 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. Request to amend conditions of approval and exhibits to permit the Project Planner. interior expansion of a church. (skoenm@ananeim.ner) Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 7a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00209 7c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 7d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05241 Owner: Karcher Partners 1200 North Harbor Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92801-2420 Agent: DMJM Design 999 Town And Country Road Orange, CA 92868 Location: 1325 North Anaheim Boulevard: Property is approximately 5.4-acres, located. at the southwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and the Riverside Freeway (SR-91) and having frontages of 577 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard and 475 feet on the south side of the Riverside Freeway. Reclassification No. 2007-00209 -Request to reclassify property from the General Commercial (C-G) and Transition (T) zones to the Industrial (I) zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05241 -Request to construct a 3- story office building with waivers of (a) minimum landscape setback abutting an arterial highway, and (b) minimum landscape setback abutting a freeway right-of-way. Pmject Planner. Reclassification Resolution No. (Invong2@anaheim.net) Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. H:\dots\clerical\agendas\(091707).doc (09/17/07) Page 6 Adjourn To iNonday, October 1, 2007 at 1:00 P.M. for Preliminary Plan Reviewr. H:\docs\clerical\agendas\(091707).doc (09/17/07) Page 7 CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: 2:00 p.m. September 13, 2007 (TIME) (DATE) LOCATION: COUNCIL C AMBER DISPLAY CASE AND ~, NC L DISPLAY KIOSK SIGNED: If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. RIGHTS OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications, Conditional Use Permits and Variances will be final 22 days after Planning Commission action and any action regarding Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps will be final 10 days after Planning Commission action unless a timely appeal is filed during that time. This appeal shall be made in written form to the City Clerk, accompanied by an appeal fee in an amount determined by the City Clerk. The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal in the Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for public hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City Clerk of said hearing. ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department, (714) 765-5139. Notification no later than 10:00 a.m. on the Friday before the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Recorded decision information is available 24 hours a day by calling the Planning Department's Automated Tele hone S stem at 714-765-5139. H:\dots\clerical\agendas\(091707).doc (09I17I07) Page 8 SCHEDULE 2007 October 1 October 15 October 29 November 14 (Wed) November 26 December 10 December 24 (Cancelled) H:\dots\clerical\agendas\(091707).doc (09/17/07) Page 9 sP eax vAnlxn R¢ ~, ](1021 AyNEIM INN R¢66fi]81 (e]) VM ]s]0 CI1P I1] VARx095 CVP 20fi VAR ]]5 ggMApq M9INGATE NCL 66878x11661 Vq~q 3095 ¢IP ]efi SP 93-1 i¢ ssd7dt R1) CIIP 1004 IµpSLgPEp VPAp X175 EASEMEM RICnICV 1n/nv SP BI.1 ft¢8607811106j LIIP1069 O µ7 ~ ~{ 019 NE lAlm S ; W CUP 969 J 7 0 m 0P 9T-1 RLL568781 106 m R¢~B11 f0 Q. plsNEVlw+p Q S 181T .~ 92.1 ft4fi6fi2611T]I R460{u113 ~ 92.1 flCL 568747 q¢ 55d]d1 (321 CI1P )55 R4646S113 NPS]4 g45652d2 CW R COP 255 vqR 21615 PARq NG LOT LUP 91 VPq 30115 CIIP ]2 pIONEYIANp VAR 20]4 S PAIIRING OIStJFYUNp Ppgl(MG SP 92-1 d LANOSLAPED SP 9T-1 RCLfi6d>dt(iD0) EASEMENT RLL06S]-fi11108 __... ~ 9OIRXEPN LLL149flNMEG16tlI CO. EISENEMI SP 93-i fl4 fi667a LVP381 cuPn ANAHEIN 6P B33 9A]ELLRE Lt£MIEAS R¢ 068141 101 R¢56d] 1 2-1 81 1001 dS5 216 6ns'sia Pa E661iI11m1 4NR6 vrtel t AVENUE KATELLA AVENUE e bP B23 RCL868781 (521 2260 S 65 11181 ~~'3 6fi67%i is l 6PW .emu y:Q~~ 61 g CU P J 9 NP EP023 y ~ 0ma~fe61 $86 .. V_'o LM 14]0 6P 92-1 VM2]306 VAR23306 R¢fiB61-01(161 VM 1188 ^ FA )Il ¢ a R¢666Id11811 CIIP 1601 /L ~~ ¢ ~i m 8 g 1 a s APi '~ SP B2 cuP 12 91 v ga e IABYO Mp]GRLGOGE vAw4r (y1Py ~ ~.. .41 u ~ 3 P1 o1 v e 66 pIS1E1M1AN0 EUPLOYEE N M PARNR P p G SPBI-3 SP 82-2 66dId111f0611 RESTAURANT SP B2-1 R¢868]dl (MI R0. 6867-01(108) 1 V LUP 2120 RCL82-0328 LVP O59 SP 02-2 CUP 2481 RLLfi6-0ed ll0) CUo n6an NRTGFINp WNg9UNE0 e Final Site Plan No. 2007-00009 Requested By: CHRIS SAMUELIAN r Subject Property Date: September 17, 2007 Scale: Graphic Q.S. No. 87 500 West Disney Way 1035'1 MII®1 ~ENP]P~ xnesara°P1'mi Milli 9 03-I RLL n-]058 R¢B682d1110! LUP 23]0 Vqq ]599 VM ]30 SN. INO. FIRl1 SP 03-1 1 RLL 086]-fil (' LUP 1000 'j_ C architects 2040 Armacost Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90025-6113 Phone 310.820A600 Fax 310.820.4611 September 7, 2007 Della M. Herrick, Associate Plannee City of Anaheim Planning Department 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite #t 162 Anaheim, California ,44@achenenY _ R~rt21 _p RE: Westgate Gardenwalk Timeshare -Anaheim, California 500 W. Disney Way, Anaheim CA 92802 Request for Planning Commission continuance to October 15, 2007 Dear Della, As you are aware we have recently met with members of the planning commission to address concerns expressed during our first Planning Commission hearing back on August 20, 2007. Based on our meeting with commission members we have revised the elevation of our building along Katella Avenue to more adequately address the concern of tying the timeshare building and the parking structure together so that they read as one building. In an effort to be as thorough as possible, we have also scheduled a meeting with the PEER review architect prior to going back to the Planning Commission for final approval. In order to have adequate time to meet with the PEER review architect and respond to comments she may have, we request a further continuance for the date of our hearing with the Planning Commission to October 15, 2007. We are currently scheduled for a hearing on September 17, 2007. for your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you have G'~"~L~' C~~/'~~~ Daniel Ortega, A.I.A. Associate Principal cc: Wayne Fjare, VP, Westgate Resorts Gerald Koi, Principal, Morris Architects Chris Samuelian, Senior Associate, Morris Architects Item No. 2 a U EAC RS-2 1 D EACH PASO ROBLES DR RS-2 1 U EACH = U q+¢ T(MHP) w RCL 62-83-28 RS-2 ~ O CUP 1150 1 DU EACH ~ CUP 557 CUP 60 ~ CUP 42 OLINDA LN MOBILE HOME PARK w R -2 ¢ AREA A 1 DU EAC = z RS-2 N~ ~ _ - RCL 2006-00190 C7 ~ CUP 2006-05175 ] p = - TTM 17139 RS-2 ~ NO ~ GPA 2007-00460 1 DU EA H ~~~ 10U p IN ACITA LN L O ~- AREA a RcL o-v2o ~ ~ T (MHP) -< 7cua zooz~ogeiea ~?°t ~ R 0 ~j76 C cue as9i 10U EAC ~ b .- RCL 6283-28 - cupz~p 359 RCL 61- L "• CUP 2006-05175 GJp o- ~59s T-CUP 20 TTM 17139 ~ 1 DU c` o 10 CU ~y~p CUP RS-3 F GO - CUP RCL 65-86- 8 ! O G RCL O 74-38 CUP (Res. of Intent to RS-7200) CUP 2002-04516 CUP 3 1 U E CH T-CUP 2003-04698 CUP ~ CUP 3677 CUP O CUP 3591 CUP z CUP 3379 WESTA w CUP 2473 MEDICAL ° C QN ~ CUP 1656 m ~Q y T WEST ANAHEIM T c>> O V-115 MEDICAL CENTER O-L 1 DU Z = 1 DU O , RC 2006-00 e2 O c-a CU 2006-0 130 RCL 774&91 CUP 257 cuP lase 2 DU VAR 3027 PHYSICAL THE PY ORANGE AVENUE ~ ~ U.I RCL 71• General Plan Amendment No. 2007-00460 (Area A) - `' "~i AREA A Date: September 17, 2007 Reclassificallon No. 20D6-00190 (Area A, Area B) Sple: 1 inch equals 200 feet Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05175 (Area A, Area B) ., .~`~ AREA 8 O.S. No. 9 Tentative Tract Map No. 17139 (Area A, Area B) Requested By: NATALIE IRAN OUYEN IRAN 237 South Beach Boulevard and 3100 West Lindacita Lane lozso gTEM N®. 2 PL ~ C®1i~10'YgSSi®N AGENHJA REP®it']C 200 S. Anaheim Blvd.. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765.5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 veww.anaheim.net City of Anaheim I'LANI~TINC'J I~EI'ARTIVIEIVT DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SIJB.IECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.2007-00460, RECLASSIFICATION NQ.2006-00190, CONDITIONAL IJSE PERIVIIT NO. 2006-05175, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17139 LOCATION: 3100 West Lindacita Lane (Portion A) and 237 South Beach Boulevazd (Portion B). APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: MertcolNatalie and Quyen Tran. REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of the following applications to construct nine (9) single-family residences: (a) General Plan Amendment No: 2007-00460 -The applicant requests withdrawal of this request. (b) Reclassification No. 2006-00190 -Request to reclassify Portion B from the Transition (T) zone to the Single-Family Residential (RS-4) zone and to remove the Mobile Home Pazk (MFIP) Overlay Zone. (c) Condifional Use Permit No. 2006-05175 -Request to construct a 9-unit detached single-family residenfial subdivision with waiver of improvement of a private street and minimum lot azea. (d) Tentafive Tract Map No. 17139 -Request to establish a 10-unit detached single- family subdivision for Portions A and B. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission continue this request to the October 15, 2007, Planning Commission hearing for staff to work out site plan issues on the revised plans with the applicant. BACKGROUND: This hearing was continued from the June 11, June 25, July 9, August 20, and September 5, 2007, Planning Commission meetings.. The most recent continuances were to allow the applicant to revise the plans to address the concerns expressed at the public hearings. The application was deemed complete in May 2007; therefore, a decision would need to be made by November 2007. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-OD4G0 September 17, 2007 Page 2 of 2 Staff and the applicant request a continuance to the October 15, 2007, Planning Conunission meeting to work out site plan issues with the revised plan. Courtesy notices have been sent to surrounding property owners within 300 feet and the members of the.' public that attended the last two meetings. Respectfully submitted, Concurred by, ~ ,. .,,,r, ~, , . ,~ ; t Acting Principal Planner Planning Director Item No_ 3 RIVERSIDE FREEWAY (SR-91) FyS-2 CN 1~~FA c~ RCL 79-BD-16 RC173-74-36 (Res. of In[. to PC) RCL 73-74-35 CUP 3640 CUP 2720 CUP 1574 EMERALD COURT RETIREMENT FACILITY 195 DU MEDICAL CENTER DRIVE ~ 517'- --°i ~ ^ ~^ ~ ~ GG RCL 5758-05 ~ CUP 1906 CUP 17 ~ ~ VAR 3296 C-G VAR 1665 S RCL 57-56-45 CUP 2003-04778 EMPLOYMENT AGENCY CUP 1468 CUP 17 VAR 1685 S Q MEDICAL CENTER ~ I RCL 57-58-05 CUP 17 ROMNEYA DRIVE Conditional Use Permit No. 4177 TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05221 Requested By: PRICE-JAMES COMPANY 1303-1371 North Euclid Street CNE~~~ o I / 1 a 6DU CUP 2000.04202 CUP 2675 H CUP 1820 LU CUP 1700 UJ VAR 2922 S ~ STRIP MALL E- -_ O J U RCL 64-65-0OT W RCL 59-~-108 c~c RCL 69.70-17 KAISER PERMANENTE t Subject Property Date: September 17, 2007 Scale: 1"= 200' Q.S. No. 44 10321 A q§ g u'YGa y~4•y ~.~¢n ~ W 'M ~ V Y .z`..„'J 'P ~~ ~ r-t,~'Y A' 3 'Date of Aerial Photo: July 2005 Conditional Use Permit No. 4177 TRACKING NO. CUP 2007-05221 Requested By: PRICE-JAMES COMPANY Subject Property Date: September 17, 2007 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 44 1303-1371 North Euclid Street 10321 i 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #1 fit Anaheim, CA 92605 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5260 vdww.anaheim.net ITEM N0.3 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT - DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT':' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.4177 (TRACHING NO CUP2007-05221) LOCATION: 1303 -1371 North Euclid Street. APPLICANT/PROPERTYOWNER:"EMI'/Price-James'Company. REQUEST: The applcanrrequests to amend a conditional use permit for an automotive sales dealership topermit afreeway-oriented electronic'readerboard sign. The proposal will require modifications to standards because the Miller Toyota site is too small to qualify for a freeway oriented sign, the sign face is lazger than code permits, and he sign height is more than double the permitted height. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends thatthe'Commission take the following action: (a) By motion, approve a CEQA Negative Declaration. (b) By resolufion, denyan amendment to Condifional Use Permit No. 4177 and the three associated waivers: BACKGROUND:. This property is developed: with Miller Toyota.. It is located within the General Commercial (C-G) zone and the General Plan designates this property for General Commercial land uses. Properties to the east aze designated for Low Density. and Corridor Residential land uses. Properties to the south: across Medical Center Drive aze designated for Mixed-use land uses. «Properties to the west are designated for Public Institutional land uses and the Riverside Freeway (SR-91) is located north of the property, On April 18, 2000, the City Council approved Conditional Use Permit No. 4177. The Council approved waivers to reduce the number of required pazking spaces to establish the dealership and to allow freestanding signs between uses on the site that are closer than code allows. A request fora 60-foot high freeway-oriented sign was denied. Resolution No. 2000-67 included the following condition pertaining to permitted signage: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4177 September 17, 2007 Page3oF5, " 24. That signage for subject facility shall be limited to that which is shown on the exhibits submitted by the petitioner and approved by the Planning Commission, provided; however, thaf the 60-foot high freeway-oriented sign shall not be permitted. Any additional signage shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item." The Council believed the wall signs on the building provided adequate identification, and there were no freeway-oriented signs on other properties along the 91-Freeway. Therefore, the Council found that construction of the proposed sign would not be consistent with the goal of preserving the freeway corridor. This request was continued from the July 23, and September 5; 2007; Planning Commission meetings.: At these. meetings, the Commission indicated a concern over canopies, tents and banners that were not permitted. The Community Preservation Division has indicated the canopies; tents and banners have been removed; however, there is an open violation for unpermitted deliveries prior to 7 a.m: Staff is working with the operator to address this,issue. PROPOSAL: At the July 23 Planning Commission hearing; the applicant presented a proposal fora 75 foot high, 505 squaze foot electronic readerboard sign. The sign requested required three (3) waivers of code requirements. There were two: (2) waivers relating to the size of the sign because the sign was taller than code permits'. and lazger in area than the code permits. The third waiver was needed because freeway-oriented signs are only allowed: for: auto dealerships that are lazger than ten. (10) acres. and this site does not meet that criteria. The Commission directed the applicant to reduce the height of the sign, to incorporate'a telecommunications£acility and to look at the feasibility of providing identification through wall. signs. The applicant has submitted revised plans for construction of afreeway-oriented. electronic readerboard sign: The applicant has submitted various designs for the freestanding sign (Alternatives 1-3)`and a design for two (2) wall-mounted electronic. readerboard signs (Alternative 4). The applicant continues toprefer a freestanding sign: They have submitted three (3) different styles of freestanding signs for the Commission's consideration'. Plansindicate the sign would be 70 feet tall rather than 75 feet tall as previously proposed. The three (3) signs aze roughly the same: size and the specific sign dimensions are detailed in the attached Project Summary (Attachment No. 1). As directed by the Commission, the applicant has included the option for'integration of a telecommunications facility with the sign. The applicant contacted a representative of a telecommunications cazrier o work'on a sign design which'could incorporate both uses. The attached letter indicates that the design and height of the freestanding signs. are suitable for a future telecommunications facility. Although the, sign can accommodate a telecommunications facility, and a carrier has reviewed the plans, the applicant is'not' ' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.4177 September 17,?U07 Page 3 of 5 proposing a telecommunications facility within the sign atxhispoint. The plans only illustrate the ability to incorporate such facilities. An option for a wallsign has also been submitted as requested by the Commission. The applicanthas~provided a design for two (2) 144'square foot electronic readerboard signs affixed to the north and eastelevations of the building. The wall signs comply with code and do not require any waivers: However, any'electronicreaderboazdrequires approval s of a conditional use permit: Please refer to the attached Proj ect Summary chazt attached to the staff report for the walFsign details. ANALYSIS: Of the four (4) options presented by the applicant; the electronic readerboazd wall sign (Alternative 4) would be permitted with a conditional use permit without the need forwaiverss The three (3) freestanding signs (Alternatives 1 through 3) would continue to require three (3) waivers of code requirements. Electronic r•eaderboatd signs are conditionally permitted for auto dealerships that aze three (3) acres in size or larger. 'The electronic readerboard: component: of both the wa1L and freestanding sign comply with code... Freestanding freeway-oriented signs are. conditionally permitted for automotive dealetships occupying a minimum'of ten (10) , ii acres. The Miller Toyota site is 6:4 acres and thus does'not qualify foi• a freeway- oriented sign.- Freestanding.freeway-oriented. signs azealso limited to an azea of 125 squaze feet and 30 feet in height. The proposed sign exceeds the maximum height and size permitted by code.: Staff is concerned with the waiversahatare necessary to permit. :::the requested freestanding sign:- Staff continues o believe'that the dealership can achieve its identification.needs byusing wall signs uch as the signs proposed under Alternative 4. Although modifications have been made to the proposedsfreestanding sign,' a number of codewaivers' aze still required:' Staff has provided the following analysis and recommendations: Issue: Minimum site size for afreeway-oriented sign Coderequires a 10-acre minimum site for freeway-oriented signs o encourage multiple dealerships br automotive malls to shaze freeway signs or to allow azge stand-alone dealerships freewayidentification: The goal of limifing the number of signs along the freeway is to preventvisual clutter. The automotive dealership site occupies only approximately 6.42 acres: The subject property is covered by the SR-91 Comdor Beautification Program, in which the City is taking an active interest in ensuring that the visual appearance of the freeway corridor is improved. Furthermore, all other auto. dealerships in the City that have freeway-oriented signs occupy at least 10 acres. According to the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission can approve a waiver only if application of the Code creates a hazdship. Staff does not believe there is a hardship. because there aze no other auto dealerships under ten (10) acres with afreeway-oriented sign. There is one auto mall in the City that has a freestanding freeway-oriented. electronic readerboard sign. This sign is shazed by all the dealerships in the mall and the combined acreage exceeds ten (10) acres as the Code requires. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.4177 September 17,?007 Page 4 of 5 Issue:. Maximum area for the face of a sign The Code limits each side of a double-faced freestanding sign to 125 square feet, excluding the sign base: The proposed azea of the sign face is 600-624 square feet depending upon the sign alternative.: The main purpose of the. sign is to provide identification. to the motorists on the Riverside Freeway: Given the close proximity of the sign to the freeway; staffbelieves adequate identification can be achieved with the code permitted sign: azea: There. aze'no physical aspects of the property that warrant the. need for the additional squaze footage: In addition, there are no other freeway-oriented signs in the vicinity and the construction of such a lazge sign would be incompatible with the. surrounding azea::.Therefore; staff does not recommend approval of this waiver. Issue: Maximumpermitted height of afreeway-oriented sign The maximum height permitted for afreeway-oriented sign is 30 feet.' Although the applicant has reduced the heighYofthe sign from 75 to 70 feet; the proposed height of the sign,is still greater than.the. Code permits::. The applicant believes a substantial grade separation of approximately 30 feet between the freeway and the proposed sign location is a hardship that imits the visibility in both east- and westbound: traveling lanes and states that only 40 feet of the: sign. will be visible from he freeway.. Although there are some grade separation constraints for the property; staffbelieves that thesequested height of the sign exceeds the minimum required to provide adequate visibility from the. :freeway.:: Based on the submitted line-of-sight drawings; 40 feet of the sign would still be visible to motorists from the freeway. If the height is'adjusted to subtract the portion that is not visible due to the grade difference, the sign would still exceed the 30-foot limitation of Code! In addition; there would:be negative impacts to the .adjacent residential uses. The residential uses aze on a similaz grade as the auto dealership and would be adversely impacted by the visibility of the full height of the sign. Therefore, staff does not support thiswaiver. In conclusion; the applicant has submitted three (3) alternatives for the proposed . freestanding sign; all. of which exceed the City'sregulations. In addition, the applicant has submitted a wall sign alternafive: Of the four (4) options,'. staff believes Alternative 4 for wall signs would be the best option as it would match the design of the dealership building and is consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Code..- '. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.4I77 September 17, 2007 '. Page5of5 Respectfully submitt~e~d, Concurred by, ~ l ,,.' Acting Principal Planner Planning Director Attachments' 1. Project Summary 2. Justification of Waiver Form 3. Letter of Response to the Planning Commission 4. Letter from Telecommunications Carrier S. Prior Minutes 6. Draft Conditions of Approval Pld®.IECT SUlViMARY C®NDI'd'I®NAL USE PERNII'1' N®. 4177 Alternative No. 1- Freestandin Si n: IDevelo ntent Standard Pru'`osed Pro'ect Code Si Standards Site Area 6.42 Acres 10 Acres Height 70 Feet 30 Feet Area 624 Squaze Feet 125 Squaze Feet Readerboazd Size 460 S uaze Feet N/A Alternative No. 2 -Freestanding Sign: 9Develo ment.5tan$ard _ Pro''osed Pro'ect Code Si Standards Height 70 Feet 30 Feet Area 600-602 S uaze Feet 125 S uaze Feet Readerboazd Size 479 S uaze Feet N/A Alternative No. 3 -Freestanding Sian: Develo ment Standard Pro ' osed Pro"ect ~CotDe Sf Standards " Height 70 Feet 30 Feet Area 602 S uaze Feet 125 S uaze Feet Readerboazd Size 479 S uaze Feet N/A Alternative No. 4 -Wall Si n: IDevelo went=Standard • Pro"`used Pru'ect Code Si Standards Readerboazd Size 144 S uaze Feet 150 S uaze Feet [®R~,FT~ RESOLUTION NO. PC2007-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05221 BE DENIED (1303-1371 NORTH EUCLID STREET) WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as: PARCELS 2, 3 AND 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 80-234 AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 150, PAGES 2 AND 3 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED JUNE 23, 1999 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19990465854 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 2; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2 SOUTH 80°33'00" EAST 100.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 09°27'00" WEST 0.75 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 0.75 FEET SOUTHERLY OF SAID NORTHERLY LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL 80°33'00" WEST 99.87 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE NORTH 00°13'40" WEST 0.76 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on July 23, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 "Procedures", to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and that said public hearing was continued to the September 5, and September 17, 2007 public hearing; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That the freeway-oriented electronic readerboard sign in conjunction with an existing automotive sales dealership is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorised by the Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.44.050.010.0101 (Electronic Readerboard Signs) and 18.44:050.010.0103 (Freeway-oriented Signs) with waivers of the following provisions: CR\PC2007-0 -1- PC2007- SECTION NO. 18.44.100.010 SECTION NO. 18.44.100.030.0301 SECTION NO. 1$.44.100.060 Minimum lot size of an automotive dealership to Hermit afreewav-oriented.. sien• 10 acres required; 6_4 acres proposed) Maximum area for the face of a Bien. 125 s.f. permitted; 624 s.f. proposed) Maximum nermitted height of a freewav- oriented sien. 30 feet permitted; 75 feet proposed) 2. That the waiver pertaining to minimum lot size of an automotive dealership to permit a freeway-oriented sign is hereby denied as the proposed sign would create additional visual clutter and degrade the aesthetic value of the surrounding neighborhood. Furthermore, there aze no similar signs along the 91-Freeway, and the request would be inconsistent with the City's approach of preserving the corridor. This property would not be deprived of a privilege enjoyed by others because there are no other dealerships under 10 acres in size with afreeway-oriented sign. 3. That the waiver pertaining to maximum area for the face of a sign is hereby denied as the proposed sign area is substantially greater than code requirements and there is no hazdship to justify this waiver as similaz waiver requests have not been approved in the vicinity. 4. That the waiver pertaining to maximum permitted height of afreeway-oriented sign is hereby denied because although there is a significant grade difference between the property and the freeway, the adjacent residential uses aze of similar grades. The full height of the sign would be visible to surrounding residential land uses and the applicant has not fully demonstrated the need for the requested height. In addition, the sign would create visual clutter and illumination of the sign would be detrimental to the adjacent residences. 5. That the size and shape of the site is not adequate to allow for the freeway-oriented sign, and that a waiver of minimum lot azea is necessary to permit the freeway sign. 6. That the granting of the conditional use permit to allow the freeway-oriented sign, even under the conditions imposed, if any, will be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens by allowing additional freeway signage contrary to the zoning code and existing efforts to improve the City's arterial highways and freeways by reducing the amount of large freestanding signs visible to the public. 7. That *** indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and does hereby find that the Negative Declazation -2- PC2007- previously approved in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 4177 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation in connection with this request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby deny subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit, on the basis of the aforementioned findings. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case .application within I S days of the issuance of the final invoice. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 17, 2007. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60, "Zoning Provisions -General" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission held on September 17, 2007, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of 2007. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION _3_ PC2007- Attachment - Item. No. 3 PETITIONER'S STATEMENT OP JUSTIFICATION.FOR VARIANCE/CODE WAIVER (NOT REQUIRED FOR PARKING WAIVER) ~' REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION: 18.44.1Ot;<.tk1t1 (A separate statement is required for each Code waiver) PERTAINING TO: minimum lot size required topermit a freeway-oriented sign for an automotive dealershin (10 acres reauired; 5.8 acres pronosedl Sections 18.03.040.030 and 18.12.060 of the Anahehn Municipal Code require that before any vaziance or Code waiver maybe granted by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, the following shall be shown: L That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity; and 2. That, because of such special circumstances, strict application of the zoning code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. In order to determine if such special circumstances exist, and to assist the Zoning Administrator or Panning Commission to arrive at a decision, please answer each of the following questions regazding the property for which a variance is sought, fully and as completely as possible. If you need additional space, you may attach additional pages. 1. Are there special circumstances that apply to the property in matters such as size, shape, topography; location or surroundings? X Yes _ No. If your answer is "Yes," describe the special circumstances: SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST DUE TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERABLY LOWER THAN FREEWAY GRADE MAKING ff NOT SUFFICIENTLY VISIBLE TO RECEIVE THE PRIVELEGES ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES. ALSO, THE PROPERTY HAS A CONSIDERABLE SETBACK AND THE NEARBY SOUND WALL DRAMATICALLY MINIMIZES ALL FREEWAY. EXPOSURE TO EASTBOUND TRAFFIC. WITH THE INSTALLATION OF THE FREEWAY PYLON SIGN WITH THE LED DISPLAY THE DEALERSHIP WBd, INCREASE VISIBILITY BOTH EASTBOUND AND WESTBOUND AND WILL BE ABLE TO RAISE AWARENESS TO THE 250,000 CARS PASSING BY ON THE 91 FREEWAY EACH DAY. 2. Are the special circumstances that apply to the property different from other properties in the vicinity which are in the same zone as your property? X Yes _No If your answer is "yes," describe how the property is different: THE r~r.rnnnrrm rnrnn A~rcn Annn nvnRA•ltirvne+nIIr nril L'DCCIiIAV l.V ArIC AT.TiI '1'LTFDC is A T A-f_F CniTAiil 3. Do the special cirucumstances applicable to the property deprive it of privileges currently enjoyed by neighboring. properties located within the same zone? _X_Yes No !f Your answer if "yes," describe the special circumstances: 4. Were the special circumstances created by causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property owners)? X Yes _ No Signature of Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNARIANCE NO. 3762SDECEMF3GR 12, 2000 PETITIONER'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE/CODE WAIVER (NOT REQUIRED FOR PARKING WAIVER) REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION: 18.44.100.050' `+ (A separate statement is required for each Code waiver) PERTAINING TO: maximum nermitted heightfor a freeway-oriented sign Sections 1.8.03.040.030 and 18.12.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code requ've that before any vaziance or Code waiver maybe granted by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, the following shall be shown: 1. That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoningclassi5cetion in the vicinity; and 2. That, because of such special circumstances, strict application of the zoning code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. In order to determine if such special circumstances exist, and to assist the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to arrive at a decision, please answer each of the following quesfions regarding the property for which a variance is sought, fully and as completely as possible. If you need additional. space, you may attach additional pages. 1. Are there special circumstances that apply to the property in matters such as size, shape, topography, location or surmundings7 X Yes _No. If your answer is "Yes," describe the special circumstances: THE TIF AT PRCLIrD TC i/1(`ATRTl 77n+BDltA.fTLIC eTOC4T Al.m tic>conne TT+C >•nnnn,AV /M1rn nAM1wn •T nn Trm 2. Are the special circumstances that apply to the property different from other properties in the vicinity which are in the 3/5/07 B-29 same zone as your property? X Yes No If your answer is "yes," describe haw the property is different: THOUGH THIS IS THE ONLY AUTO DEALERSHIP IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY THIS INDUSTRY IS HIGHLY COMPETITIVE SO IT IS 1NVALUABLETO HAVE THE ABILITY TO REACH THE CONSUMERS TO ACHIEVE "BRAND" A WARENESS AND TO COMMUNICATE NATIONAL ADVERTISING PROGRAMS THROUGH THIS TYPI OF MEDIA. OTHERWISE. THE BUSINESS IS LOS_T_TO OTHF,R COMMUNITIES WHERE DEALERS ARE ALLOWEI THIS TYPE OF LED FREEWAY DISPLAY. 3. Do the special circumstances applicable to the property deprive it of privileges currently enjoyed by neighboring properties located within the same zone? _X_Yes No The sole purpose of any variance or Code waiver shall be to prevent discrimination, and no variance or Code waiver shalYbe approved which would have the effect of gran5ng a special privilege not shazed by other property in the same vicinity and zone which is not otherwise expressly authorized by zone regulations governing subject property. Use variances are not permitted. 4. Were the special circumstances created by causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property owners)? X Yes _ No EXPLAIN: The sole purpose of any variance or Code waiver shall. be to prevent discrimination, and no variance or Code waiver shall be approved which would have the effect of granting a special privilege not shazed by other property in the same vicinity and zone which is not otherwise expressly authorized by zone regulations govendng subject property. Use variances are not permitted. Signature of Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE NO. 37625NECEMBER 12, 2000 If your answer if "yes," describe the s ial circumstances: Attachment -Item No. 3 PETITIONER'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE/CODE WAIVER (NOT REQUIRED FOR PARKING WAIVER) REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION: 48.44.100.030.0301 (A separate statement is required for each Code waiver) PERTAINING TO: Maximum area for the face of a freestandine sien Sections 18.03.040.030 and 18.12.060 of the Anaheim Mut»cipal Code require that before any variance or Code waiver tnay be granted by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, the following shalt be shown: 1. That there ace special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in [he vicinity; and 2. That, because of such special cireumslauces, strict application of the zoning code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. in order to determine if such special circumstances exist, and to assist the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to arrive at a decision, please answer each of the following questions regarding the property for which a variance is sought, fully and as completely as possible. If you need additional space, you may attach additional pages. L Are there special circumstances that apply to the property in matters such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings? X Yes _ No. [f your answer is "Yes," describe the special circumstances: TEIE DEALERSHIP IS LOCATED 270' FROM THE STREET CHART 2. Are the special eircwnstances that apply to the property different from other properties in the vicinity which are in the same zone es your property? X Yes _ No If your answer is "yes," describe how the property is different: 3. Do the special circumstances applicable to the property deprive it of privileges currently enjoyed by neighboring properties located within the same zone? X Yes _No answer if"yes," describe the special circumstances; 4. Were the special circmnstances created by causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property- owners)? X Yes _ No EXPLAIN: THE TOPOGRAPHY AND THE INDUSTRY STANDARD FOR FREEWAY ADVERTISING N~CESS(TATE THE L.E.D. SIGN 1'he so~purpose of any variance or Code waiver shall be [o prevent discrimination and no variance or Code waiver shall be appro ed which would have [he effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other property in the same vicinity and zone which snot otherwise pressly authorized by zone regulations governing subject property. Use variances are not permitted. Signature of Property Owner or Authorized Agent Dote CONDITIONAL USE PERMiTNARiANCE NO 7762SDECEMBER 12, 2aaa Attachment -Item No. 3 August 20, 2007 Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission City of Anaheim, California Deaz Chairwoman Buffa, The 141 employees of Miller Toyota of Anaheim join me in thanking the Commission for hearing our case and offering to work with us towazd a solution. During our meeting there was general agreement that some form of improved .signage was required for the dealership. At that time the Commission charged us with reseazching certain issues and then, with the city staff and the sign firm, EMI, to develop signage options for the Commission to evaluate at the September 5 meeting. The issues to be vetted include: ® Determine feasibility of incorporating cell tower capability into the signage ® Assure that any code violations at the dealership be promptly corrected ® Assess feasibility of lazger wall signage on the store as a remedy ® Assess feasibility of a roof sign as a remedy ® Improve the appearance of the previously proposed sign and consider its utility as a city gateway beacon and information source The staff has joined us in this effort and we commend to the Commission Ms. Kimberly Wong for her professionalism and courtesy. The products of these efforts will be found as attachments to this letter except for code violations for which action was started immediately and are now resolved. Cleazly we are seeking Code exception treatment in this request. We appreciate the challenge to the Commission of embracing a variance, especially if it might establish a precedent that would lead to the visual clutter that the code intends to discourage. In that spirit we offer the following factors that make this case unique and preclude it as a future basis for similaz requests: 1. The dealership's establishment was bom of a partnership with the city's desire to eliminate a vacant big box structure and replace it with a long term, viable business that would enhance the neighborhood. 2. The business is 30 feet below freeway grade with extended and landscaped setbacks rendering it virh~ally invisible from the freeway. 3. The business is uniquely situated as the first Anaheim firm seen by those who enter the city from the north. This gateway entry is presently not recognized. Again we thank you for your attention to our issue and we look forwazd to a long term and positive relationship with the city as your lazgest dealership and as a committed good corporate citizen. Marvin Marcell Miller Toyota of Anaheim Sprint Together with NEXTEL Sprint Nextel 310 Commerce Irvine, CA 92602 Office: (714(3683500 To whom it may concern: Attachment -Item No. 3 I have reviewed the drawing for the Miller Toyota sign and have determined the design and height is suitable for a cell site. Terry Hays Sprint Nextel Site Development Manager- Consh•uctiat 3120 Conmterce L•vine, CA 92602 ANAHE"", CALIFORNIA -CITY COUP' 'L MINUTES APRIL 98, 2000 Attachment -Item Plo. 3 Roll Cail Vote on Res 'on No. 2000R-66 for ado tion: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL M Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNC BERS: ABSENT: MAYOR/ CILMEMBERS: None The Mayor aced Resolution No. 2000R-66 duly passed and adopted. C2. 17g: CONTINUEp PUBLIC HEARING, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4177 OWNER: Property Reserve, Inc., 35 Century Parkway, Salt Lake City, UT 84115 AGENT: Dennis Flynn Architects, Inc., 5109 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, GA 92807 LOCATION: 1303-1371North Euclid Street. Property is 6.42 acres located at the northwest corner of Medical Center Drive and Euclid Street To establish conformity with existing Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing commercial retail center and to permit an automotive dealership with accessory auto repair services and a 60-foot high freeway-oriented sign with waiver of (a) minimum number of required trees (detefed), (b) required parking lot landscaping (deleted), (c) minimum distance between freestanding signs, (d) minimum lot size for an auto dealership to permit afreeway-oriented sign (denied), (e) minimum number of parking spaces, and (f) permitted encroachments into required yards (deleted), ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION; CUP NO. 4177 GRANTED, IN PART, denied waivers (a), (b), and (f) (7 yes votes); denied waiver (d) (4 yes votes; Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun and Bristol voted no); approved waivers (c) and (e) (7 yes votes) (PC2000-17); waiver of code requirement approved in part (denied the proposed freeway-oriented sign). Approved Negative Declaration. Informational item at the meeting of March 7, 200D, Item 82. Letter of appeal submitted by North County Toyota. Public hearing continued from the meetings of March 28, 2000, Item C1 and April 11, 2000, Item CL PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in North County News: March 16, 2000 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet: March 14, 20D0 Posting of property: March 17, 2000 Mayor Daly first referred to Supplemental Staff Report dated April 18, 2000 from the Planning Department relative to the subject recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 4177 as approved by the Planning Commission (Resolution PC 2000-17) with amendment to Condition Nos. 5, 18, 31, 39 and a new Condition No. 47 as described and recommended in the report. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. He described the project as outlined in Staff Report to llre Planning Commission dated February 14, 2000 including the requested waivers. He then explained Ihat over the past two weeks, the applicant has worked closely with staff and the adjacent uses resulting in proposed changes to conditions of approval as reflected in the April 18'^ Supplemental StafF Report The only unresolved issue is the proposed 60' high freeway pylon sign. Staff feels "that opportunities far i`~ 17 ~~ - . ') ,j ;r ANAHE!'' CALIFORNIA -CITY COUN! '. MINUTES, APRIL 18, 2000 freeway-oriented wall signage would be more suitable", and that the pylon sign should he denied. He also explained for Council Member Kring that relative to where the wall signage would be placed, the applicanC has submitted plans showing two wall signs, one facing Euclid and one facing the freeway. Staff has reviewed those signs and is comfortable with them. The one facing the freeway is at the parapet of the building. Mayor Daly noted that staffs recommendation is simply a slightly updated recommendation from the Planning Commission;. Mr. Hastings confirmed that was correct and that would include the conditions in the staff report to the Council and also, in keeping with what the Planning Commission approved, denial of the freeway sign. There is one new condition and four revised conditions. Staff also understands that the neighborhood issues have all been resolved. Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked first to hear from the applicant and subsequently those in favor and in opposition. Applicant's Stafernent Dennis Flynn, Dennis J. Flynn Architects, Inc., 5109 East La Palma Avenue, Ste. B, Anaheim. He first confirmed for the Mayor that he had seen the Staff Report of April 18 and they are in agreement. He is present tonight to answer any questions. The reason for the appeal is for consideration of the pole sign which they would like to have for freeway orientation. There were no further persons who spoke in support; the Mayor then asked to .hear from those either in opposition or who may have concerns relative to the proposal. Mr. James Karsch, Administrator of Emerald Court adjacent to the subject property, Transamerica Senior Living, Inc., 1731 Medical Center Drive, Anaheim. (Also see letter dated March 28, 2000 from Dennis Markus, President, Transamerica., previously made a part of the record.) Emerald Court is home for 214 senior citizens. Upon learning of the proposal, they have had numerous concerns about the impact that the dealership would have on the quality of life at Emerald Court. The concerns include construction, noise, traffic congestion, delivery schedules, hours of operation and lighting. With the assistance of Kevin Bass, Senior Planner, they have had the opportunity to meet with representatives for the project. I[ remains to be seen how the project will affect the quality of life for those living at Emerald Court; however, they look forward to being a good neighbor with North County Toyota Applicant's Closing Statement: Dennis Flynn. At issue are the visibility and site Tines that are afforded the property. The concern they have, .although they are adjacent to the freeway, recently, sound walls have been constructed along the perimeter of the property. Although they feel they are going to have a fair opportunity to attract business in the local community, a dealership would like to be able to reach out beyond those boundaries. He noted, however, when travelling east on the 91 freeway, with the sound wall, a motorist can easily drive by the off ramp before seeing signage on the building and thus a potential customer is lost. Mayor Daly. He has spoken briefly with the developer-owner of the project about reducing the length of the sound wall. He asked Mr. Flynn if he had approached that possibility with Planning staff; Mc Flynn answered they have had preliminary discussions on the issue but their concern was to address the concerns of the neighbors. Mayor Daly. He asked staff to report back as to the advisability of any attempt to scale hack the length of the sound wall. The applicant would like to have a portion of the sound wall lowered or removed. Dennis Flynn. In lieu of the pole sign, that would help. If there was an advantage to the credit union or the medical center currently on the site, or maybe even Emerald Court, if there was a North County Plaza sign with not only Toyota, but also those other businesses who may suffer from the lack of visibility, they 18 ANAHEI'- CALIFORNIA -CITY COUN! '. MINUTES, APRIL 18, 2000 would like to have discussion or consideration on that as well. The businesses are separately owned and operated, but all are on one parcel. Combined, the parcels together would be over 10 acres. Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing. Mayor Daly then asked staff if they were familiar with the notion of scaling back the sound wall; Mr. Hastings answered he was not but he does know the sound wall was to protect the residents.: He does not know if the wall extends beyond the point of that protection. As part of the project to the west, there was a wall built with that project. He does not know if it was built as part of the project approval or by Caltrans. Mayor Daly. He told the owner he would check., but until he hears all the facts, he feels the issue is for determination at a future date; Mr. Hastings stated that most likely, there would have to be a noise study to see if the wall had .any impact. Mayor Daly asked if there were any changes to the Best Buy building (the vacated building on the property) that would accomplish any sound attenuation; Mr. Hastings. He is not aware that the building would do that. The wall that would be constructed between this project and the senior complex which is currently 6' would undoubtedly have some affect in reducing sound to that facility. Mayor Daly. He is going. to offer the project for approval according to he Staff Report of April 18, 2000 and the conditions contained therein and asked that Planning report back with an analysis and recommendation on the sound wall question. He suggested they consult with Mr. Flynn or the property owner on what their goal is and if possible, what steps would have to be taken and what the implications would be (of reducing the sound wall). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT -NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member McCracken, the City Council approved the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2000R-87 for adoption granting Conditional Use Permit 4177 subject to City Planning Commission conditions but with the changes/modifications to conditions as outlined in Supplemental Staff Report dated April 18, 2000. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-67: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4177. Council Member Tait asked if the resolution was being offered without allowing the freeway sign; Mayor Daly answered that was correct - it includes everything recommended by the Planning Commission and by Planning staff which includes denying the pylon sign. Council Member Tait. Relative to the freeway sign he would ihitially agree, but looking at the site drawings, the dealership cannot be seen from the freeway. Relative to the sound wall, he does not know if it is practical to scale it back. In every other city, every dealership seems to be visible from the freeway. He asked the Mayor if he would consider amending his resolution by adding the freeway sign. Mayor Daly. He talked at length with Planning staff and also the owner. It is his own belief there is adequate visibility even though it may be less than ideal, Considering there are no other pylon signs along that stretch of the 91, it is not consistent with his cwn approach in trying to preserve that corridor. 19 ANAHE'"' CALIFORNIA -CITY COUN' '_ MINUTES APRIL 18, 2000 The wall signs will be visible; it is a prominent corner. That is his rationale. Perhaps they could look at it -- again down the road if it appears to be a severe hardship and if the neighborhood changes, but now there is a major residential facility west of the :property as discussed. He does not think freeway signs are in keeping with what he thinks is [he look they are trying to achieve and preserve. Council Member Kring. She has a concern as well and believes that it is a hardship if the sign is not allowed considering the lack of visibility from the freeway. Dealerships contribute a lot of sales tax to the community, she wants them to be as successful as possible and she supports giving them a sign far the freeway. Council Member McCracken. The City's code only gives large auto dealerships (minimum 10-acre site) such freeway oriented signage. She feels they will be setting a precedent if they change those standards and that it will be an unfair advantage. To be consistent with what they are asking of others, they should be consistent In this regard as well. Mr. Greg Moss, owner of the North County Toyota site, approached the podium and stated there are seven Toyota dealerships within 1p miles of the proposed site and all have freeway signage with some having electronic signage. They did a business plan that they submitted to the City reporting that they will generate approximately $10 million in sales tax revenue over the next 1D years which included the freeway sign. There is going to be millions of dollars spent to promote this dealership and the location. If it can't be seen, the sales tax revenue will be diminished by approximately 15% to 20%. They estimate they will do one billion dollars in sales over the next 10 years with the freeway sign. He asked that they reconsider the sign. A roll call vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution approving the project as recommended by the Planning Commission and Planhfng staff (not including the pylon sign). Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 2000R-67 for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, McCracken, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kring, Tait ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ' The Mayor declared Resolution No. 2000R-67 duly passed and adopted. Council Member Tait clarified that he supports approval of the project but disagrees on the denial of the freeway sign; Council Member Kring clarified that was the reason for her no vote as well. C3. 155: PUBLIC HEARING -NORTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 94-1, AMENDMENT NO N NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWN edtronic, Inc., 3850 Victoria Street North, Shorev' N 55126 AGENT: Hog - and, Inc., Attn: Kelly Carlyle, 4 atham Street, Suite B, Riverside, CA 92501 LOCATION: 4633 East La a A e. Property is 1.82 acres located at the northeast comer of La Palma Avenue and H treeL Request an .amendment tot ortheast Ar ecific Plan (Anaheim Canyon Business Center) to reclassify the subjec operty from the SP94-1, opment Area No. 5 -Commercial Area to the SP94-1, De`~ pment Area No. 2 -Expanded Industn a. ACTION TAKF~tdBY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: 20 FEBRUARY 1a, zooo Attachment - Jtem No. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION <v~cNDA 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 7c. CONDITIONALUSE PERMIT NO. 4177 OWNER: Property Reserve, Inc., 35 Century Parkway, Salt lake City, UT 84115 AGENT: Dennis Flynn Architects, Inc., 5109 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 1303-1371 North Euclid Street. Properly is 6.42 acres located at the northwest corner of Medical Center Drive and Euclid Street (North County Toyota). To establish conformity with existing Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing commercial retail center and to permit an automotive dealership with accessory auto repair services and a 60-foot high freeway-oriented sign with waiver of (a) minimum number of required trees (deleted), (b) required parking lot landscaping (deleted, (c) minimum distance between freestanding signs, (d) minimum lot size for an auto dealership to permit afreeway-oriented sign, (e) mihlmum number of parking spaces, and (f) permitted encroachments into required yards (deleted). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-17 Approved Approved, in part Granted, in part (Denied [he proposed freeway-oriented sign). SR7672KB.DOC Applicant's Statement: Dennis Flynn, with Dennis Flynn Architects., stated they are the architects for the proposed auto dealership. Staff has completed a thorough and complete staff report and appreciated working with them. They are proposing to renovate an existing 6ullding and add some additional square footage to conform its use for automotive sales and service. They plan to take the larger part of the existing building and convert it into an indoor service facility. They have display Icts proposed in front of the existing stare, service parking and employee parking to the rear. They are in agreement with the conditions and, explanations within the staff report. There is only one concern that they would like discussed in more detail, which is the freestanding freeway oriented sign proposed for the project. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, informed Commission that the applicant had a video presentation of the proposed sign. Linda Francis narrated the video presentation, which she explained was taken from the 91 Freeway to show how difficult It is to see the facility and to show where they want the sign to be placed as well as other enhancements. The video demonstrates how the sound wall takes away much of theft visibility. Fritz Hitchcock, majority owner of North County Toyota, stated they are requesting a 60-foot high, freeway-oriented sign with Toyota's official brand sign for dealerships. The property is down 25 feet from the freeway at Euclid. Now that the freeway has been reconstructed with a higher center divider, the facility cannot be seen coming from east to west. The sound barrier hides the facility for those coming from west to east. The reason for the request is the difference in the freeway and in the property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEp. Commissioner Arnold asked what kind of containment systems and precautions are going to take place for the materials that could be hazardous or polluting. 02-14-00 Page 18 FEBRUARY 14, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION r.~iENDA Dennis Flynn responded in regard to oil storage, waste oil and new oil, there would be new tanks that will be employed and installed. Oils storage is highly regulated and they have to conform to Fire Department requirements. Typically tanks are above-ground, double-wall system in the event that there is a leak ri the inner tank. Tanks are located adjacent to the service area to assure shorter runs. It would be to the rear of the service facility (northwest corner) near the detail building. Clarifiers will be installed that will trap waste from the ground water. Commissioner Arndld stated it appears that the area pointed out is relatively close to the assisted living facility and asked if it could be moved more to the interior of the property. Dennis Flynn indicated tanks could be moved closer to the east side of the service building, bringing them more in-line with Euclid as opposed to residents. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated the proposal indicates 23,000 square feet of the second floor of the building will remain vacant to possibly become a community facility space in the future. Since parking is an issue, it is relevant to explore other uses such as car rental or other automotive related business that could occupy that space. Mr. Hitchcock explained a secohd story car rental is not practical because it takes up too much space. They will grow into the second floor over time; part of it will be a parts mezzanine and used for records storage. Also, Toyota's goals are to increase car sales up 50% by 2008 without adding new dealers. This means parts and service size will have to increase. This facility will allow them to glow. It will not be consumer oriented because it is not convenient. The proposal previously mentioned the possibility of a community facility, but it has since been changed. Linda Francis stated the wording "community facility" fs not the 23,000 square feet. The drawing stipulates a room proposed as a possible meeting room but not the entire 23,000 square feet. Chairperson Boydstun asked if they were including up to the dental office on Euclid Street when counting the size of the parcel Dennis Flynn stated they traded a few spaces around in terms of where they park versus where they could display, but it was not counted. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Alfred Yalda whether the north side of Medical Center Drive could have parking. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, advised he had not reviewed at it, but it could be conditioned for no parking or remove parking if it is currently allowed. Greg McCafferty stated when the Sign Code was developed the 10-acre minimum was taken from the auto center at the 57 freeway to provide a critical mass where you could use a single sign for multiple dealerships. It was not set up for each ihdividual dealership to have their own sign. For that reason, staff is discouraging the freeway-oriented sign. Also, with that Code requirement as part of the Sign Code, findings are difficult to make for that site to waiver the Code. Chairperson Boydstun asked the height bf the sound wall as well as the hospital. Alfred Yalda responded that generally a sound wall is between 14 to 16 feet high. The hospital is approximately 100 feet away. Chairperson Boydstun felt the sound wall hides .property from view and the applicant., therefore, needs something there so people know when to get off the freeway. 02-14-00 Page 19 FEBRUARY 14, 2000. PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION i,~ENDA Commissioner Koos slated he drives the freeway on a daily basis and does not have any problem seeing this building going westbound. He did not feel visibility of this site is an issue. People should already ' know to get off at Euclid Street. Dennis Flynn explained that advertisement adds cost about $80,000 a month and one of the reasons you look for a freeway location, is to help overcome that, your building is your add. It is a major issue; this is really anon-freeway site without a sign. It is a huge economic impact for them to not have the ability to use the word "Toyota". If there were to be any other dealerships attracted to the area in the future, they would be happy to share the sign. Other cities make dealerships share signs and that is acceptable to them. Commissioner Koos stated it seems unlikely that another car dealership will locate adjacent to this site, but should some locate somewhere else along the freeway and then they would also want a sign. This would be a waiver and in Anaheim Hills would not be in favor of that. If Commission allows this sign, then they have to allow other signs to come in. He sees the building every day and feels the daily commuter on the 91 Freeway will know it is there. He feels the exposure will be there and it is a prominent location despite a sign. Dennis Flynn disagrees because their location is 25 feet lower. They would not be having this conversation if [he land was level. He has owned 20 new car dealerships in the past and 8 currently. It does make a difference when there is only a "two-second window" view. Commissioner Koos stated if other dealerships come in they could point to this as a precedent and adding high rise signage it will reduce the aesthetics. Chairperson Boydstun asked how tall Norm's sign is, which does not appear inappropriate. Greg McCafferty advised it is 25 feet. Commissioner Bostwick indicated tt would not be seen over a 16-foot wall. Mr. Hitchcock advised they looked at all of the property between Euclid and Lemon, including the north side and concluded from a financial point of view there were no other locations. Commissioner Bostwick stated 10 acres or more, as indicated in the Code, was design for multiple dealerships and there is only one dealership here. Therefore, there is reason for a waiver. This property is different from an auto mall and needs that type of identification. The average person driving needs a landmark, they would be looking for a Toyota dealership sign. Commissioner Arnold stated an one hand there is an econdmicbeed For the sign, but do the other hand he is concerned about the general policy towards minimizing visual clutter along the freeway. In order to approve the waiver, Commission has to find that the strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classifications in the vicinity. He did not see that they would granCsimilar types of approvals far other property. If Commission is going to exercise care about what goes up along the 91 Freeway, then Commission has to be attentive to that. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. McCafferty whafuses are allowed signage on a freeway. Greg McCafferty responded regional shopping centers and auto dealerships. There are about four or five types of businesses that allow freeway-oriented signs with a conditional use permit. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked the applicant about impulse purchasers. Dennis Flynn referenced results of a study completed regarding the source of advertising. Only 60% of television watchers watch local TV stations, the others watch cable. Twenty-nine percent of Southern Californians read the newspaper. The top two TV stations In Southern California are Hispanic. When 02-14-00 Page 20 FEBRUARY 14, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION aGENOA they surveyed customers after purchasing a car, 25% saw the place of business, 12 to 15% were referred by a friend and rest fell into media mix consisting of a variety. Commissioner Vanderbilt felt the issue is the difference between advertising and finding a location. There is actually a benefit to not having a freestanding sign because there aren't many along that corridor. The signage on the building is in an area where there is not any other signage to compete with. The "two- second window" opportunity might increase a little bit because there are no other signs to look at. He would be willing to allow for more signage on the building to compensate for that as opposed to the freestanding sign. Dennis Flynn stated their land lease alone for the first 15 years is $10.8 million and they are spending $3 million on the rehab. He disagrees with Commissioner Vanderbilt that the sign will stand out because it is on the side of a building. If the sound wall was not there and it were level, it would be an issue. Commissioner Koos stated it is a larger policy issue that they are dealing with. The direction that the City is moving in on freeway signage is the overriding issue. Commissioner Bristol stated Commissioner FCoos had a good point about setting precedence, but the fact is that Commission has approved signage with a conditional use permit on particular properties. This is an issue that will be ultimately determined by the City Council. This use comes in, and for the most part they are variance free, but they need a variance to be successful. He feels there is an impulse buyer and that is the reason for signage and they do have restrictions with that wall that did not exist before. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated Section 18.05.095 of the Code indicates that freeway- oriented signs as defined in the subsection maybe permitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit only for service stations, restaurants, lodging facilities, regional shopping centers as defined, or automobile dealership(s) occupying a site no less than 10 acres in size. During the Action: Commissioner Arnold recommending adding a condition to the CUP that the dil storage occur as much away from neighboring residential uses as possible and that the plans and locations be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. Melanie Adams advised it should actually be submitted to the City Fire Marshall Commissioner Bristol asked to consider a condition that there be no parking on north side of Medical Center Drive. Greg McCafferty advised that the resolution would also include the denial of the sign since it is allowed by the CUP. Selma Mann requested clarification of the parking and to make sure that they are in compliance with the Code; subject to the City Engineer's approval. It is the Planning Commission's recommendation for this particular use, but it is the City Engineer who will make the final decision with regard to that. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows: Denied waiver (a) pertaining to minimum number of required trees on the basis that it was deleted following submittal of revised plans. (Vote: 7-0) 02-14-00 Page 21 FEBRUARY 14, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AVENDA Denied waiver (b) pertaining to required parking lot landscaping on the basis that the proposal is in compliance with Code for the parking lots and therefore, a waiver is not required. (Vote: 7-0) Approved waiver (c) pertaining to minimum distance between freestanding signs on the basis that special circumstances related to the shape of the property not having a significant frontage on Euclid Street and that the monument sign is replacing an existing permitted freestanding sign that Is currently located within 300 feet of the existing monument signs, and that strict application of the Code would deprive the property of privileges to advertise on Euclid Street that other commercial businesses currently enjoy. (Vote: 7-0) Denied waiver (d) pertaining minimum lot size for an auto dealership to permit a freeway-oriented sign on the basis that the property fs aregularly-shaped parcel, and a hardship could not be identified. (Vote: 4-3, Commissioners Bostwick, eoydstun and Bristol voted no) Approved waiver (e) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces based on the parking study findings and the recommendation of approval by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. (Vote: 7-0) Denied waiver (f) pertaining to permitted encroachments into required yards on the basis that it was deleted following submittal of revised plans. (Vote: 7-0) Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 4177, as follows Denied the 60-foot high freeway-oriented sign. Added the following conditions of approval: That oil storage shall occur as far away as possible from neighboring residential uses and that plans showing said storage locations shall be submitted to the City Fire Marshal for review and approval. That there shall be no parking allowed on the north side of Medical Center Drive, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. VOTE ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4177: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour (2:24-3:24) 02-14-00 Page 22 Attachment -Item No. 3 ATTACHMENT NO. S DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.4177 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE SUBMITTED BY VARIOUS CITY ASSOCIATED WAIVERS ARE APPROVED. 1. That final sign plans, and a colors and materials boazd, shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and approval. Any decision made by the Planning Services Division regazding said plan maybe appealed to the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 2. That any relocation of City electronic facilifies shall be at the developer's expense. That landscape and/or hadscape screening of all pad-mounted equipment shall be required and shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits. 3. That the developer shall acquire all appropriate permits from the State or other relevant agencies for all work associated with the construction of the sign or modifications to landscape areas adjacent to the SR-91 Freeway. All advertising on the sign shall comply with provisions set forth in Sections 5200-5489 (Outdoor Advertising Act) of the Business and Professions Code. 4. That the sign shall be continually maintained in a "like new" condition. 5. That the electronic readerboazd sign shall display only advertising or business identification pertaining to the on-premise business. 6. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans aze on file with the Planning Department mazked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and as conditioned herein. 7. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. 8. That timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition(s), (ii) the modification complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress towazd establishment of the use or approved development. Item Nn SP 949 RLL 66fi>-60 pl WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIOUTION VAR 3)33 OMNIAANDBF INDUSTRY SP 94.1 flCL 664i)-6a (1) VAR 3]3J CIBA COMPOSITES PoST OFFlLE PROCLESGINGtENTER L86 F0.5TENEIIS SMALL IND. FIRMS ~ ~'1 RCV0.]td](4 6P 941.. '- R4 ]0.i1d6 RCL )0.)iJ] 19) CM1IP 41 Z4 RCL ]6]td6 W8. BL8p, T-CUP 2063-04666 pAZ CUP 288p04Z)2 F LLI LLUP ZO8b04Z40 W "~ OUP 4156 F W b I J1 SP 94.1 RCL )0.)1-4T (121 LPIP 20E0I CUP 2421 ] L ] 1221 ft4 ]wH6 K RCL )0.]1J6 CUP 21551 CuPZOBaMZlZ W T-CUP 2 0 81-843 98 GUP 2120 M 23T I GUP 2880.842]2 LUP 1569 GLLIBFR 1AOTp~ DA Z ~ CUP Z90B CUP 33)) CANYON WM ERGE CENTER m LANG ROVER CAR DA2 OA2 EALERSHI 237a to tial`rt ~> ImPa LA PALMA AVENUE 1230' SP B4115L1 RLL fi6S)-64111 VAR 2985-04640 ANAHEIM MILL6 BUSINESS CEMER CONTROL AIR ~ B41 RCL )0.)H)14) RCU0.)tdfi CUP 2W)-05211 H. KGLH 8 SANS GULF 8 WESTERN INp.INL. pAZ 6P RCL SP B41 PNAHEIM MILLSCORP. DA2 (Nprfhfias(Ame) T SANTA ANA ' RIVER SEO SANTA ANA RIVER T SANTA ANA RNER BED x ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE SCENIC CORRIDOR (SC) OVERLAY ZONE. Conditional Use Permit No. 3726 TRACKING NO. CUP 2007-05245 Requested By: VINEYARD CHRISTIAN CHURCH 5310 East La Palma Avenue -Fairmont Private School Subject Property Date: September 77, 2007 Scale: 1" = 300' Q.S. No. 178 10366 N ALL PROPERTIES`ARE IN THE CORRIDOR (SC) OVERLAY ZONE. Conditional Use Permit No. 3726 TRACKING NO. CUP 2007-05245 Requested By: VINEYARD CHRISTIAN CHURCH 5310 East La Palma Avenue -Fairmont Private School Subject Property Date: September 17, 2007 Scale: 1" = 300' Q.S. No. 178 10366 `ITEM N0.4 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENIDA REPORT 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 .Fax: (714) 765.5260 www.anaheim.net City of'Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT - DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: CUP 3726 (TRACHING NO. CUP2007-05246) LOCATION: 5310 East La Palma Avenue. APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Rob Chandler /Vineyard Christian Church: REQUEST: The applicant proposes to convert an existing choir studio into new junior high classrooms within an existing private elementary and junior high school RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission take the following actions: (a) By motion, approve a CEQA Negative Declaration (Previously-approved): (b) By resolution, approve the amendment to CUP 3726. BACKGROUND: This property is currently developed with Vineyazd Church and Fairmont Private School. It is within the Northeast Area Specific Plan, Development Area 2 -Expanded Industrial Area (SP94-1, DA2). The General Plan designates this property and properties to the east and west for Low Intensity Office land uses, properties to the north for Industrial uses and properties to the south for Water Uses. Conditional Use Permit No. 3726 was approved in October 1994. This permit allowed a previously approved the existing private school as an accessory use to the existing church. Subsequent amendments were approved in 1997, 1999, 2002 and 2003 in order to add classrooms and increase enrollment. The current maximum enrollment is 775 students. The prior amendments have all been approved with no opposition and there have been no operational concerns over the years. PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to convert a portion of the building to classrooms. The area is currently used by the church as a choir studio and would be converted to ten new junior high classrooms, two labs, offices and a conference room for school staff. Fairmont has requested expansion of their campus over the yeazs. The church has required less operating space over the years and Fairmont has increased its need for space. CONDITIONAL LJSE PERMIT NO. 3726 September 17, 2007 Page 2 of 2 Ah1~,L~'SIS: The project has been evaluated against applicable development standards and is in compliance. The pazlting requirement for schools is based on the number of classrooms, amount of office azea and number of employees. There is no increase in the maximum enrollment proposed as part of this request. As indicated in the attached project summary, even with the increase in number of classrooms, there is sufficient pazking to meet Code requirements for both the church and school. The school has been, operating without violations or traffic/circulation problems and the property is well maintained: Staff recommends approval of the requested amendment. Respectfully submitted, Concurred by, J Acting Principal Planner Planning Arector Attachmends• 1. "Project Summary Table 2. Prior resolution 3. Prior minutes A'I'TACHMEN'I' N®. 1 PR®JEC'T 3UMIVIARY Conditional Use Permit No. 3726 `Development Standard Proposed Protect SP94-1, DA 2`Standards Site Area 23.1 acres N/A Pazlcin (see table below) 1,201 s aces rovided 1,186 s aces re uired PARING SUMMARY USE:'. g SQUARE :-FOOTAGE CODE-REQUIItED PARKINGRATIO - REQUIRED NUMBER OF SPACES Church Sanctu 30,288 29 / 1,000 878.4 Offices 19, 008 ' 4 / 1,000 76 Church Production D amnent 7,710 1.55 / 1,OOD 12.0 Warehouse 28,083 1.55 / 1,000 43.5 Private School Classrooms 45 1 /classroom 45 Non-office E to ees (18) - 1 /employee 18 Offices 1,330 4 / 1,000 53 Auditorium 3,990 29 / 1,000 115.7 TOTAL RE UII2ED 1,194 TOTAL PROVIDED 1,201 [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2007 *** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3726 AND AMENDING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. PC94-147 (5310 EAST LA PALMA AVENUE) WHEREAS, on October 31, 1994, the Anaheim Planning Commission did, by its Resolution No. PC94-147, grant Conditional Use Permit No. 3726 to expand apreviously- approved private educational institution as an accessory use to an existing church facility at 5300 East La Palma Avenue; and that certain conditions of approval were adopted therewith, including approving Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3 (Condition No. 5) and limiting the maximum enrollment to 450 students (Condition No. 6); and WHEREAS, on May 20, 1997, the Anaheim City Council did, by its Resolution No. 97R-7Q, amend certain conditions of the aforementioned Resolution No. PC94-147 to approve Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No. 1 (Condition No. 5), to increase the enrollment from 450 to 650 students provided that the increased enrollment was permitted through June 20, 2002 at which time the maximum number would revert to 450 students (Condition No.6), and to add certain new conditions (Nos. 10 through 13); and WHEREAS, on Februayy 17, 1999, the Planning Commission did, by its Resolution No. PC99-28, further amend the aforementioned Resolution No. PC94-147, as amended by Resolution No. 97R-70, to expand the existing private school at 5310 East La Palma Avenue by converting an existing warehouse and office into seven classrooms, to approve Revision No. 2 of Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 (Condition No. 5), and to add certain new conditions (Nos. 14 through 23); and WHEREAS, on February 10, 2003, the Planning Commission did, by its Resolution No. PC2003-3Q further amend the aforementioned Resolution No. PC94-147, as amended by Resolution No. 99-28, to expand the existing private school at 5310 East La Palma Avenue by converting a bookstore and storage azea to classrooms and an assembly area, to convert parking spaces to outdoor play area and amend a condition of approval to increase student enrollment from 650 to 775 students., to approve Revision No. 3 of Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2; and WHEREAS, this property is developed with church facilities including two accessory schools at Vineyard Ministries and FairmonbPrivate School; that the property is located in Development Area 2 (Expanded Industrial Area) of the SP 94-1(SC) (Northeast Area Specific Plan -Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone; that the Anaheim General Plan designates the property for Low-Intensity Office land uses; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested amendments to Conditional Use Permit No. 3726 to revise exhibits under authority of Code Sections 18.60.190; and -1- PC2007-** WHEREAS, the proposed plans (Revision No. 4 of Exhibit No. 1) show the proposed conversion of an existing choir studio associated with the church into classroom, lab....... and office area; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 17, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That the requested amendment/modification of use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.110.100.050.0528 (Private Educational Institutions).. 2. That the proposed expansion of the school will not adversely affect surrounding land uses because it consists of improvements to existing buildings. 3. That amending this conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and provides a convenient service to residents. 4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use, as amended, will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because there will be little or no additional traffic generated from this expansion. 5. That the size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of this use, as amended, in a manner not detrimental to the health and safety of the particular area. 6. That *** indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition to the proposal; and that no correspondence was received in opposition: CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and does hereby find that the Negative Declaration previously approved in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3726 is adequate to serve as the required enviromnental documentation in connection with this request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby amend, in their entirety, the conditions of approval adopted in connection with Resolution No. PC94-147, as amended by Resolution Nos. 97R-70, PC99-28 and PC2003-30 and as adopted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3726, to read as follows: -2- PC2007- 1. That the subject conditional use permit shall remain in effect only as long as it remains as an accessory use to the primary church use of the property (currently Vineyard Christian Fellowship). 2. That the property shall remain in conformance with the current versions of Engineering Standazd Plan Nos. 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. 3. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of Development Area 2 (Expanded Industrial Area) of the SP 94-1(SC) (Northeast Area Specific Plan -Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the City. Any additional signage shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission as a `Reports and Recommendation' item. 4. That the hours of operation, as stipulated to by the applicant, shall be the same as originally approved for the existing private school, as follows: Classes: 8:00 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday School Office Hours:7:00 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday 5. That any proposed freestanding sign on subject property shall be a monument-type not exceeding eight (8) feet in height and shall be consistent with the exhibits approved under Variance No. 2002-04372. Said sign shall be subject to review and approval by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager to determine adequate lines-of-sight. 6: That the enrollment at 5310 East La Palma Avenue (Fairmont School) shall not exceed seven hundred seventy fave (775) students. 7. That a wrought iron fence enclosure of the playground shall be maintained where the fence is visible to La Palma Avenue; and that the remainder of the fence maybe constructed of chain link. 8. That all sewer and storm drain improvements shall be privately maintained. 9. That trash storage aeea(s) shall be maintained in location(s) acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage aeea(s) shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage area(s) shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plants such as minimum one (1) gallon sized clinging vines planted on maximum three (3) foot centers or tall shrubbery. 10. That an on-site trash truck tum-azound azea shall be maintained in accordance with Engineering Standazd Detail No. 610 and maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. -3- PC2007- 11. That all existing mature landscaping shall be maintained and immediately replaced in the event that it becomes diseased or dies. 12. That the parking lot shall be maintained free of debris and/or loose gravel at all times. 13. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from time of discovery. 14. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, or prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, 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 labeled Revision No. 4 of Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3, and as conditioned herein. 15. That extensions for further time to complete said conditions maybe granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 16. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other .applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. 17. That timing for compliance with conditions of approval maybe amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition(s), (ii) the modification complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each .and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all chazges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice, prior to commencement of the .activity or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all chazges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application. -4- PC2007- THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 17, 2007. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60, "Zoning Provisions -General" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and maybe replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAII2MAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Moms, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission held on September 17, 2007, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of 2007. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -5- PC2007- Attachment -Item No. 4 7a. S,EOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approvod 7b. CONDITI h~AL USE PERMIT NO. 3726 Granted OWNER: VINEYARD MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL, 5300 E. La Palma Avenuo, Anahelm, CA 92807 AG'-•NT: FAIRMONT SCHOOLS, INC.. Attn: Glen Noreen, Buslnoso Manager, 7567 W. Meble Street, Anahelm, CA 92802 LOCATION:, 3900 East t_w Palma Avonue Propany Is approximately 23.06 acres Iccated on the south side of to Palma Avonub and epproxlmately 2,37D lest west of the centedine of Imperial Highway. To oxpend a previously approved private educational InstiWllon as an accessory use of an existing church feclilty, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC94-!a7 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Glenn Noreen explained this proposal involves moving thalr Yorba Linda campus to Anahelm; Thal It is preschool through elementary school now and they have applied for preschool through jr. high because they would the llexiblllty of adding )r, high In the future. They will entl up with 450 students at this campus and It looks like a very good compllmentery use to the Vineyard Church. Their high use Is during the week antl Vineyard's high use Is on weekends. CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Chairwoman Boydstun asked if the Vineyard Church is Closing their preschool and Mc Noreen responded they are actually expanding and they are moving Fairmont out of the area they are currently using and this new building will be a permanent location. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration (Findings In Paragraph !7 of the stall report) Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3726 (Findings in Paragraphs 22 and 23 of the stall report. subject to Condition Nos. !through 6, pages 7 and 8 of the stall report, and Added the toliowing condition: That school enrollment shall be limited to tour hundred iihy (d60) students. VOTE: 6•t (Commissioner Masse voted no) Selma Mann presented the 22-day right of appeal. ! 0-3! •94 Page 9 ANAHEIM CITY PUWNINO COMMI$$ION, SUMMARY/ACTION AOENOA 6/12/95 O. CONDTONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3680 -SUBSTANTIAL Determinod plans are CONFORMANCE Ayg FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW: EII Home, Inc., in substamial 140 S. Imperial Hwy., Anaholm, CA 924)06 request: a substantlal conformance with conlormence determination and final site plan review }or Condltlonal previously approved Use Permit No. 3680 (lo permit a group home for abused children and plans and approved tholr mothors). Property Is located at 100 S. Canyon Crost Drive. landscape and wall plans as submittod E. ,~QNDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3726 -SUBSTANTIAL Deterrnlned plans are CONFORMANCE REVIEW: Falnnont Private Schools, Attn: Glen In substantlal Noraon, Business Manager, 1557 W. Mable Street, Anaheim, CA 92802- conformance with 10932 roquests substantial. conformance review to expand a play area previously approved of a previously approved private educational faclliry {accessory use of plans an existing church faculty). Property Is located at 5300 E. La Palma Avenue. F. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 95.07 - R UE T 70 CONSID_g Contlnuetl to AMENDING TITLE 98 PERTAINING TO OUjDOOR ACCESSORY June 26, 7995 USES IN THE CG iGOMMERGIAL GENERAL) 20NE. Requested by City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevani, Anaholm, CA 92805. Selma Mann, Deputy Clty Manager, stated sho needs to make some revisions to the proposed ordinance by the time It goes to the City Council, but the substance would remain as h is today. Phillip Schwartze, San Juan Capistrano, stated the Commission received a letter from him In November requesting a Code Amendment that deals with'' small number of propeNes zoned heavy commercial (CG). Most of them are In the older downtown area arto nave been subject to various right of way takings through the expansion of Lincoln and are subject to [he new freeway oN-ramp, partlculady the property he Is Interested in. He suggested maybe a way to resolve some of the problems is to amend the code and require some landscaping. He stated in reviewing the properties, it appears something even better could be done. There is a requirement fora 5-foot wide landscaped area and this amendment Is suggesting 5 feet with a tree every 20 feet. He stated maybe because of the various takings that have occurred, it would be better to reduce the width and inuease the number of trees. Since the Code would require a full wall, the goal is to screen the wall and to screen the &7 2-95 Page 3 7a. CEM NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) Approved 7b. ~QNDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO: 3726 IREADVERTISEDI Approvod revisatl plans OWNER: VINEYARD MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL, 5300 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim. CA 92807 AGENT: FAIRMONT SCHOOLS, INC.. Attn: David Jackson, 1557 West Mable S[roet. Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: Sitn F t Pol o A enue IFai ont Private Sohooll• Property is approximately 23.08 acres, having an approximate frontage of 7,238 feet qn tho on the south side of La Palma Avenuo, located approximately 2.370 foot west of iho centerline of Imperial Highway. Petitioner requests review and approval of rovisod plans (Revision No. t) to permit the conversion of an approximate 8,292 square-foot area of an existing auditorium into a total of nine additional classrooms, to '. convert a :portion of an existing Parking lot area into an approximate 12,475 landscaped play area for studenss and modification or deletion of a condition of approval to increase the maximum student enrollment from 450 to 650 students far a previously-approved private etlu~ational institution (an accessory use of an existing church). SR6463KP.WP CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-26 FOLLOWING IS A SVMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Applicant's Statement: Jim Meyer, Facilities Manager with Fairmont School: Indicated he read the staff report and was in full agreement with the conditions. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Henninger. Stated he would likd to see an added condition whereby the applicant sins a dicpb5pre thatinforms them of thR types o/ uses thpi are allowed in this industrial area because their use is not compatible .with an industrial use. Commissioner Bostwick: Indicated in their packet there was a memo from 'Dill Christiansen indicating he has not agreed to any of those changes. Why? 03-77-97 Page 17 Jim Meyer: Stated Bill Christianson spoke with Ms. Pfost and tpld hur to procoetl with it. Tho floor plan chat hp was given was a reduced sizp which Mc Christianson did not sea [ho cut out et the rest of the building. Mr. Meyer mast with him on Friday and showed him the enlarged floor plan and ho was than satisfied. Ma Jack :on and Bill Christiansen are in negotiations now rpparding the amount of rent to bo charged. Tnoy can not move until the rpnial contract is signed. Chairman Mossn: Asked if the auditorium is going to be broken down into classroomst Jim Meyer: Responded yes, it is already subleased and Mr. Christiansatt was already having problems with that, so !hero was soma talk about some modilications so ho could use their rooms storing the chairs, should the need arise. Chairman Messer Asked staff about Ordinance No. 6224, it allows churches in the Canyon Industrial Area on a permanent basis provided that said churches are the exclusive use of the property. With a tenant on the property is that considered an exclusive use] Cheryl Flares: Responded the schools are considered accessory to the exclusive use which is the church. Chairman Messe: Asked what is meant by exclusive? This is a Iarpe operation (660 children) in an industrial area and the Ordinance said the use should ba exclusively the church. Cheryl Flores: Responded the problem may be the wording on the prdinanca because ft does specify that the church would be the exclusive use but then it goo^, on to say it may inctudo educational facilities as an accessory use Chairman Mpsse: Stated that would be an accessory to thechurch, but this is a tenant of the church. He ihpught they have a school on Sundays and thought that was the intent. Greg Hastings: Slated the original intent was Lhat it not be within a multi use industrial park. When ii was originally issued this wording was carried over into the Specific Plan which now exists On the property. Chairman Messe: Had a concern about the compatibility of a school this size in an industrial area. ACTION: Determined Shat the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved revised plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 3726 Modified Resolution No. PC94.147, adopted in cgnjunction with the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. as follows: Modified Condition Nos. 5 and 6 to read as follows: '6. That subjpct property shalt be developed substantially inaccordance with plans and specifications submittetl to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans ere en file wilh the Planning Depar*-men! marked Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3 and Revision No. 1 to Exhibit Np. L' '6. That the student enrollment shall not exceed 660 students at 6370 East La 03-17-97 Page 78 Palma Avonue.- Added tho follewin0 conditions: -18. That prior to commencement of use of the proposed Playflround, a fonce enclosure of the playground shall bo construtted of wrought iron wherever the fence is visible from La Palma Avenue with the remainder of She fence constructed of chain link, as repuested by the petitioner.' '19• That within a period of sixty 160{ days from the date of this resolution, the proposed parkin0 spaces along CambridOe Circle (a private street) shall be str'~ped to match Revision No. t to Exhibi[ No. 7." '20. That within a period o} sixty (601 days from She date of this resolution, a plan shoot for solid waste stora0e and collection and a plan for recycling shall be submitted to the Public Works 9epartment, Streets and Sanitation Division for review and approval.' '27. That the applicant shall submit a si0ned statement, approved by the City Attorney's Office, aeknowledpin0 that industrial uses am permitted, and may be located immediately adjacent io this silo. The statement shall indicate [he eurrem Codo permitted primary uses and conditionally permitted uses of the SP94-t (Development Aroa 21 Zone and acknowiedoa that the uses may be subieet to chan0e by Specific Plan Adjustment without further notice to the subieet Property owner. Said si0ned statement need not be a recorded document, Selma Mann, Assistant Ciry Attomev, presented the 22-day appeal riohts. VOTE: 4-1 (Commissioner Messe voted no and Commissioners Mayer and Peraza were absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes OS- i 7-97 PaOa 19 ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA -CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 13 1997 ORDINANCE NO. 5597: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING _ TO ZONING (RECLASSIFICATION No. 96-97-09) Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5597 for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Lopez, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Zemel The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5597 duly passed and adopted. D1. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL'USE PERMIT NO. 3726 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: VINEYARD MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL, 5300 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: FAIRMONT SCHOOLS, INC., Attn: David Jackson, 1557 West Mable Street, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 5310 East La Palma Avenue (Fairmont Private School). Property is approximately 23.08 acres, having an approximate frontage of 1,238 feet on the on the south side of La Palma Avenue, :located approximately 2,370 feet west of the centerline of Imperial Highway. Petitioner requests review and approval of revised plans (Revision No. 1) to permit the conversion of an approximate 8;292 square-foot area of an existing auditorium ihto a total of nine addiiionat classrooms, to convert a portion of an existing parking lot area into an approximate 12,475 landscaped play area for students and modification or deletion'of a condition of approval to increase the maximum student enrollment from 450 to 850 students for a previously-approved private educational institution (an accessory use of an existing church). ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: APPROVEDYevised plans for CUP NO. 3726 (PC97-26) (4 yes votes, 1 no vote, and 2 absent). Negative Declaration previously approved. MOTION ----- CEQA FINDING: Negative Declaration previously approved. RESOLUTION NO. ---- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3726. HEARING SET ON: A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Council Member McCracken and Council Member Lopez at the meeting of April 8, 1997, Item 83, and public hearing scheduled this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in North County News -May 1, 1997. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet -April 24, 1997. Posting of property -April 25; 1997. STAFF INPUT See staff report to the Planning Commission dated March 17, 1997.. 11 ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA -CITY COUNCIL MINUTES N1AY 13 1997 City Clerk Sohi. Letter dated May 12, 1997 was received from David Jackson, the Executive Director of Fairmont Private Schools, requesting a continuance of the subject Public Hearing to Tuesday, May 20,, 1997 listing the reasons for the request. Mayor Daly. He asked if anyone was present to speak on this matter, either members of the' public or the applicant; no one came forward to speak. The Mayor noted that Mr. Jackson was present. He (Daly) asked the City Attomey if comments should be invited or the matter just continued. City Attorney White. He suggested that the matter be continued without comments. MOTION: Mayor Daly moved to continue the subject Public Hearing to Tuesday, May 20, 1997. Council Member Tait seconded the motion. Council Member Zemel was absent, MOTION CARRIED. C1. 105: REVISED COUNCIL POLICY -BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: To consider the adoption of a Resolution which presents a revised Council Policy No. 117, and is a strong guideline for limiting terms to two four-year terms for members of the Boards and Commissions. (Continued from the meeting of March 18, 1997, Item C1.) RESOLUTION NO. =---- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CITY COUNCIL POLICY NO. 117 RELATING TO BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS: Mayor Daly. He suggests that they continue the matter for 30 days or so; however', Council Member McCracken raised a point earlier that they may want to provide some direction to the City Clerk in the meantime because they are approaching the time of year where they customarily invite current members of Boards and Commissions up for reappointment to reapply. Council Member McCracken. The current Council Policy is that the City Clerk by the first week in June of each year, notify in writing, those members of committees, boards and/or commissions whose terms will expire on June 30 of that particular' year requesting that the member indicate whether he or she wishes to be considered a candidate for the ensuing term. She feels there will be confusion if the Clerk proceeds along those lines and there is new direction coming out of the proposed resolution more like informing them that their term has come to an end and if they want to be reconsidered that they file another application. Mayor Daly. He asked if it was her point that no matter what decision they make regarding term limits for appointed boards and commissions that it may make sense to adjust the direction; Council Member McCracken answered, either way. Council Member Tait. He noted that Council Member Zemel is in Washington, D.C: on an INS matter. He believes they need to move forward and would suggest simply aseven-day continuance since Council Member Zemel will be back next week. They can then address the issue and be done with it one way or the other. Council Member McCracken. If they are going to consider the matter next week, at that time they can give direction to the City Clerk. MOTION. Council Member Tait moved to continue action on the subject policy revision to Tuesday, May 20, 1997. Mayor Daly seconded the motion. Council Member Zemel was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 12 ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA -CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 20 1997 D5. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3726 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: VINEYARD MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL, 5300 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: FAIRMONT SCHOOLS, INC., Attn: David Jackson, 1557 West Mable Street, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 5310 East La Palma Avenue (Fairmont Private School). Property is approximately 23.08 acres, having an approximate frontage of 1,238 feet on the on the south side of La Palma Avenue, located approximately 2,370 feet west of the centerline of Imperial Highway. Petitioner requests review and approval of revised plans (Revision No. 1) to permit the conversion of an approximate 8,292 square-foot area of an existing auditorium into a total of nine additional classrooms, to convert a portion of an existing parking lot area into an approximate 12,475 landscaped play area for students and modification or deletion of a condition of approval to increase the maximum student enrollment from 450 to 650 students for a previously-approved private educational institution (an accessory use of an existing church).. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: APPROVED revised plans for CUP NO. 3726 (PC97-26) (4 yes votes, 1 no vote, and 2 absent). Negative Declaration previously approved. Review of the Planning Commission's decision requested by Council Member McCracken and Council Member Lopez at the meeting of 4/8/97, Item B3. Continued from the meeting of May 13, 1997, Item DL HEARING SET ON: A review of the Planning Commission's decision was Yequested by Council Member McCracken and Council Member Lopez at the meeting of April 8, 1997, Item B3. Public Hearing was continued from the meeting of May 13, 1997, Item p1 to this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in North County News -May 1, 1997. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet -April 24, 1997 Posting of property -April 25, 1997. STAFF INPUT: See staff report to the Planning Commission dated March 17, 1997. Mayor Daly asked staff to summarize the request Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: He briefed the staff report to the Planning Commission which outlined the details of the project. He also referred td the May 7, 1997 memo to the Council prepared by staff providing information pertaining to the property as well as to other schools in the City. Staff is available to answer any questions. Council Member Lopez. This is an industrial area and an exception has been made to allow a church and a school at the subject location. Joel Fick, Planning Director. The existing designation on the General Plan is industrial. It is covered by the Specific Plan and generally has industrial uses both on the property and adjacent properties. As Mr. Hastings previously mentioned, there was an approved CUP for a permanent church on the site and for the two schools that presently exist. Council Member Lopez expressed his concern over the industrial type uses that could be allowed adjacent to the school and the safety of the children. 16 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA -CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 20 '1997 Joel Fick. He explained that Development Area 2 within the Specific Plan has a number of both permitted uses and also conditional uses that could apply. He gave examples of permitted uses. All the uses were reviewed by the Planning Commission. One of the questions was the size of the property. It is 23 acres in size and as a result does have some protection just because of its size. Council Member Lopez asked if they approve this request, is the City liable if there is a disaster next door or some kind of traffic problem. City Attorney White. The answer is no. The California Tort Claims Act provides that any public entity that has discretion to issue a permit, if there is any damage or injury that occurs as a result, the entity is immune from any liability. Council Member McCracken. She thought the zone which the school is on and the properly across the street is one zone and the property west of that is a different zone; Joel Fick. The zoning is the same. This particular property or the adjacent property is outside the Redevelopment Project Area but is within the Specific Plan zoning area. Council Member McCracken. It is indicated even taking 33 parking spaces, there would be sufficient parking for along-range development of the church. She has travelled by the churches in the area that are 15 and 20 years old and does not think any one of them has sufficient parking. She is concerned that CUP after CUP is taking a little bit of parking every single time and in time with all the play areas will not have sufficient parking for the church. Additional questions were posed by Council .Members McCracken, Tait and Zemel for purposes of clarification which were answered by Mr. Fick. The Mayor opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent David Jackson, Executive Director, Fairmont Schools, 1557 W. Maple Street, Anaheim. The school has four other locations in Anaheim. The next item on the agenda (D6.) also pertains to the Fairmont Schools and some of the background information he will give pertains to both.. He then gave the historical background on Fairmont School which was established in Anaheim 44 years ago. They do not receive any public funding and are strictly a private school. They pay over $60,000 in property taxes and City licensing fees along with other State and Federal taxes. There are approximately 1,550 students and, along with their families, contribute a great deal of revenue to local businesses. With respect to the planned expansion at 5310 LaPalma, they are not expanding any buildings or adding square footage but converting some of the square footage already there. They have found being in an industrial area, there is a greater degree of safety with no vandalism, graffiti, or problems with neighbors. The facilities are unique for an industrial area. The property is quite beautiful and the grounds are well kept. What they are doing there will enhance the education process. Safety is their top responsibility along with education. The location is quite accessible to all of the parents that live in and around the Anaheim Hills and Yorba Linda area. As a private school., funding is extremely difficult -- to purchase the property and then to build schools is prohibitive. Industrial areas are prime areas because there is enough property to be used for parking and play areas and it is much less expensive to convert into classrooms. The schodl has already accepted enrollment based upon the Planning Commission's approval. Any delay will cause a problem in having the facility ready to open on August 19, 1997. Stephen Behrens, 625 Rockridge Plaza, Anaheim. He has three children attending Fairmont Private School at the subject site and is very happy to date with the facilities. It is the best location he has seen for a private school. Academics al Fairmont are outstanding. He shares the viewpoints relative to safety of the children which is a primary concern. He encouraged the Council to approve the request to enable the. Fairmont experience to be shared by other students 17 ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA -CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 20 1997 Dr. Mark Grossman, 1080 S. Taylor Court, Anaheim. He has two children attending the school (7 and 4). If he thought there was any danger to them, they would not be attending the school: He is incredulous that this is even an issue and pointed to the other uses in the area -- across the street, the Yellow Brick Road School and KIPS Gymnastics which caters to children. He does not find any problem in this campus as far as exposure to unnecessary risk. One of the reasons he moved to the area was to be close to the school. He urged the Council to allow them to expand. Vince Pergoso, 2630 Tundra Circle, Corona. He is speaking as a concerned parent and his experience as a professional planner. Relative to the compatibility issue, when the Specific Plan zoning was approved, it was determined school uses were compatible provided they obtained a CUP. These uses have operated harmoniously in the past and they do not expect any problems in the future. He hopes the Council will consider the actual needs of the community and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission, Charlotte Russell, 1012 E. Miramar Place, Fullerton. She has been a Fairmont "Mom" for the last eight years. They love their campus at Anaheim Hills. It has grown from 175 students to 400 ptus. She has a child in second and fifth grade, the two grades they need to add to keep up with the demand. She asked that the Council give serious consideration to the request and think about the families and students of those attending the school Summation by Applicant: David Jackson. They are asking for approval of the proposed expansion which will occur over the next several years. He :knows that one of the issues is the proposed playground closest to the building. He does not see any detriment in that use. They would discontinue using any playground or anything else that might be in jeopardy dependent upon the use. He hopes that if any other issues arise, he will have an opportunity to answer any questions. He requested that the Council vote in favor Extensive discussion followed wherein the Mayor and Council Member Lopez also posed questions and/or expressed concerns which were addressed by Mr. Jackson. Relative to the plans for the school in the next 5 to 10 years, Mr. Jackson stated if they are able to work things out with both Vineyard Church and City Planning and Zoning, they envision expanding Fairmont through Junior High School Council Member Lopez reiterated that his main concern, as a parent and former School Board Member, is the play area on the west side and the uses that might be adjacent to chat area. He would feel more comfortable if in the immediate future the school would consider moving the play area to the north or somewhere away from the west side of the property. Also, if a business wanted to locate adjacent to the west side, they should not have to face concerns relative to children next to their business, Mr. Jackson. They will continue to work with Vineyard to improve every area they can. He assured Council Member Lopez chat they will monitor that situation closely. They would discontinue using any playground or anything else that might be in jeopardy or any possibility of contamination. Council Member McCracken. The history of that property is that the zone was created for the church and its associated school. The ordinance was written for that particular entity: If the property is divided and there is a private school by itself, that is a whole different issue. She is concemed that the school will be investing money in the property depending on the fact that the church still exists and also the safety of the youngsters -- is it safe either from an environmental or social. impact.. They are now looking at two schools with almost 1,100 kids and if eventually there is a Junior High, about 1,500 youngsters. Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing. Council Member Zemel. He agrees that they need to be concemed but this situation is one of the business of education and the parents decide where their kids go. It is a place of choice. It would be different if what was being asked was totally irresponsible. The customer should decide. It is a simple issue for him.. 18 ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA -CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 20 1997 Council Member Lopez. He has expressed hls concerns and hopes that Mc Jackson will take them into consideration. Apparently the parents feel it is safe. He urged that everything possible be done to make sure it is a safe environment for the students. He will support the expansion. Council Member McCracken. She moved that they accept the report of the Planning Commission for the approval of the CUP but with alive-year time limit; Mayor Daly asked that she explain the rationale. Council Member McCracken. Her concern is if that particular area continues to gel more and more industrial, that in five years, it has changed. She still has concerns for the safety of the youngsters, for Fairmont School, the parents, and the investment in the property when it may not be something that can be a permanent home. They would have to come back in five years and the Council at that time would have to look at it again and be assured it does not continue to grow where youngsters may not be safe. Council Member Zemel. If there is a five-year limitation, the investment that they make in the property will be less than substantial not having enough time for a return. The safety factors they want built into the school could not be there. He would prefer to let the parents decide six years from now. Council Member McCracken moved that there be a 5-year time limit on Conditional Use Permit No. 3726 covering the requested expansion. Mayor Daly seconded the motion. (Council Member Lopez stated he was going to second the motion as well.) Before a vote was taken, Mayor Daly asked if the church is not the exclusive use, what is the status of the permit for the Vineyard Church and for the permanent use of the 23 acres. City Attorney White. Reading all of the past actions together, what currently exists, there is a CUP without a time limit for the church notwithstanding the limitation that requires the church to be the exclusive use of the property. It is necessary to consider that with the existing CUP for the Fairmont School as well as the CUP for the Vineyard School. The issue tonight is the Fairmont School. His opinion is that the school is legally in existence because of the CUP that it has, again notwithstanding otherwise limiting language in the CUP for the church itself. Under the existing law, the Fairmont School has a right for 450 students to remain in perpetuity so long as it complies with the conditions of approval or the permit is not otherwise revoked. If the Council places a time limit on the additional approval, the only way they can legally do that is to apply that five-year time limit only to the request under consideration tonight --the expansion of 450 to 650 and conversion of the building and play area. At the end of that time, the most onerous thing would be to revert back to what exists today. The City Council does not have the legal ability tonight to convert a 450 student permit that can last indefinitely to a 650 CUP that could be gone in five years. He confirmed for the Mayor that the Council action only deals with the 200 student addition. Council Member Tait then posed questions that were answered by the Planning Director relative to the Planning Commission approval at the conclusion of which he stated that he has a problem with a time limit since the applicant is looking at investing a substantial amount of money. To limit it would be impractical and basically be a denial: He feels it does not make sense. With the safety issues already having been addressed by professional staff, he would not support afve-year lime limit but an unlimited CUP. Council Member Lopez. He appreciates Council Member McCracken's concerns but he agrees with Council Member Zemel. The school is there permanently so they are only talking about the addition. It makes sense to him chat they should go ahead and lei them stay more than five years. Mayor Daly. He intends to support the motion to put a time limitation on the permit. He recognizes it could create a hardship on the operation. Considering all the permits on the property already and the question marks that exist about the ongoing uses makes the five-year time .limit reasonable. The larger issues they are dealing with -- one of Anaheim's most prestigious assets is this 1,000 acre commercial zone in Northeast Anaheim which is a job center for all North Orange County. It is part of their mandate to preserve and ,protect the City's economic assets. The challenge is when legitimate uses want to enter what is acommercial-industrial zone. He was one of the Council Members to allow Vineyard Church. 19 ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA -CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 20 1997 It was not an easy vote and at the time, there was athree-year limit. This is one of the largest master planned business areas in Southern California. It is an important economic asset not just for Anaheim, but also for surrounding communities. There is more to this decision than simply what may be appropriate for this year or the year following. It is necessary to take along-term view. Industrial zoning is precious because it is part of the City's economic backlog. They owe it to the citizens to preserve as much industrial properly that is appropriate for the City. Preserving and protecting the General Pian for the City has to be balanced :against legitimate requests and this is one. It is not an easy decision for him because of the great operating track record of Fairmont Schools. He will be supporting a time limitation for the reasons explained. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Tait, the City Council finds that the Negative Declaration previously approved in connection with C.U.P. No. 3726 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation, that it has considered the previously approved Negative Declaration together with any comments and evidence received during the :public review process and that there are no additional impacts in connection with the subject action. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member McCracken thereupon offered Resolution No. 97R-70 for adoption subject to the findings of the City Planning Commission but including afive-year limitation on the expansion under Conditional Use Permit No. 3726. RESOLUTION NO. 97R-70: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3726 AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. PC94-147. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 97R-70 for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Lopez, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait, Zemei ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 97R-70 duly passed and adopted. Council Member Zemel. He believes there could be some confusion relative to the vote. He explained that if a Council person did not support the five-year limitation, the vote should have been no. The final vote is inconsistent with the comments made by a majority of the Council Members. Council Member Lopez. He stated this is what is great about being on the Council. Members can make decisions right up to the last minute. The bottom line is, the school will be there for another five years and in five years when the Council looks at it again, they can make a decision based on the circumstances at that time. 20 46. CONDRIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3720 (READVERTISED) OWNER: Vineyard Ministries International, 5300 E. La Palma Avenue. Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT; Fairmont Schools Inc., Attn: David Jackson, 7557 W. Mable Street, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 5310 East La Palma Avenuo -Fairmont Private Schools. Property is 23.06 awes located on the south side of La Palma Avenue, 2,370 feet west of the centerline of Imperial Highway. To permit the conversion of an existing warehouse and office into 9 classrooms for the expansion of an existing private school and to amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to the maximum numberof students. Approved, as readvertised Continued from the Commission meeting of February t, '1999. CONDRIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC94.28 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 Applicant's Statement: David Jackson, from Fairmont Private Schools, 100 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim. CA: He is present regarding their campus al 5310 East La Palma Avenue. They have made a few changes from what they had firs[ asked for, They areasking to cgnvert approximately 5.695 square feet of existing space adjacent to their curtent facilities into 7.classroomsinslead of 9 classrooms and a library. They have withdrawn the request to raise their maximum student count and leave It at 650 which means there will ba no increase in the number of students.' This campus has proven to be one of their more successful pmpuses being in an area where their families and parents are very pleased with the location and it s very convenient for them. They have more parking than they can possibly ever use which is rare Tor most schools. They have a great relationship between the Vineyard Church and Fairmont Private School in sharing the facilities. They seem to work together extremely well. Many of the parents work in the area aRordtng them the opportunity to drop in during the day and in some eases have lunch. The changes they are making are stric0y inside the building. They are not making any changes to the outside so there is no noticeable changes and they are simply improving some of the existing area into some classrooms so they can adequatety hold the number of stude::;s that they are expecting. They hope to be at that site as lono as the parents, the CIN and the Vineyard Church work with them, Ghairnan Bristol: Asked Mr. Jackson if he had any questions on the recommendations to the staff report? David Jackson: There are some mings in the staff report that pertains to some of the property vehicles they have no wntrol over and they just have to work with the Vineyard Church to make any Utanges or corrections. He is concerned with the wording of the time limit that was put on by the Giry Council and It does co before the CiN Council. it is his undarstandino Ilia: ha should bring ii uo at that time. Chairman Bristol: It was actually brought up al the morning session antl it will be cladFied at this public hearing, rn, w_oo David Jackson: He was glad to hear that It was not a comforable level for him the way It was worded. He understood it was going to be reviewed in the 5 years and not that automatically they were going to .revert back to the 450 students. They will make sure there are no probe?ms, so they can continuewilh 65D students. Commissioner Napoles: Stated for the record that he had a meeting with Mr. Jackson regarding the expansion of the office. David Jackson; Wanted to know how they could move parking from this propeRy moved down to Mable Street. Ghairnan Bristol: Asked if anyone else wanted to speak on behalf or against project. Seeing none, he closed public hearing. Commissioner Bostwick: Asketl If Condition No. 23 on page 6 of the staff report was to be removed Cheryl Flores: Staled it depends on what Commission wants to happen with the classrooms on June 20. 2002. It could be eliminated but it should be made clear what they want to happen with those classrooms. Commissioner Bostwick: If it reverts hack to the church, the church has the option to use them.. and it they have a lower student body, there will be fewer kids per classroom. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated it doesn't affect the outside. Commissioner Bostwick: Stated it doesn't affect the square footage of the builCing or the outside or the parking. Chairman Bdstol: Stated approval to increase We classrooms shall expire concurrently with the previously approved increase in students on June 20, 2002. The staff wants to make sure David Jackson understands what happens in the year 2002.. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked If he woultl have to apply for a new CUP to remain at the 650 students? Cheryl Flores: The condition is worded that on June 20, 2002, the school has to resort back to 460 students. They could continue to use the Gassrooms provided the area is still leased to them. If they wantetl 4o have more than 450 students, it would require further Commission approval. If the Vineyard Church wants to use the Gassrooms, they would have to ask permission to expand their school use. Cnainnan @nstol asked if Commission wantedto stop at 2002 antl Commissioner Bostwick statetl he didn't think it matters since it has no physical effect. Commissioner Esping: Stated he didn't understand if they were operating at 650 and functioning at 650 students, why would they have to go back to 450. Commissioner Bostwick: Advised Council did that on their resolution. Cnairrnan Bristol: StatedCOUncil did that so Mc JaCkSOh has to CAme baCK in a couple of years and reapply. Commissioner Bostwick: The condition tvas that the maximum number of permitted children snail revert to 450 studenL^ effective June 20, 2002. Chairman Bdstol: Stated if Comm(ssioh doesn't care about the increase in the classrooms and he has to come pack unto ms plans at toot time anyway, so tneyll know now many classrooms mey nave. rte asked if Lhey really needed iL Commissioner Sastwick: Stated to take it ouL n2_+zaq ', Cheryl Flores: Pointed out that condition ~ 6 rs also shown on two prior resoNlions. 1l requires a plan sheet for solitl waste slonge and collection, and a plan for recycling to be submitted to the Pubilc Works Department It has not been done yet, so she asked tharMr. Jackson contact the Public Works Department David Jackson: Statetl he thought it had been taken care of and he will wntact them. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental dacumenlaliou for subject request Approvetl Conditional Use Permit No. 3726 as follows: Denietl the request to amend or delete the condition of approval pertaining to maximum number of stutlents on the basis that the request was withdrawn by the applicant; and, Approvetl the request for seven additional classrooms, a storage room and one office and the amendment tc Resolution No. 97R-70 by modifying the conditions of approval and expand the physical limits of the school within an existing building. Modfied Resolution No. 97R-70 as follows: Amentletl Condition No. 5 to read: 'S. The subjett property shalj be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submlttetl to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Revision No. 2 of Exhibit Nos. 1 and ?..' Addetl the following conditions of approvaP '14. That all sewer and stone tlrain improvements shall be privately maintained. n2_~7_00 76. That trash storage areas shall be provided and malntalnetl In a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, SVeets and Sdnitalion Divislon and in accordance wim approved plans an file with said Department. Said storege areas shall be designed, located and screened so as no[ tp be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum 1-gallon silo Dinging vines plantetl an maximum 3-foot centers of tall shrubbery. Sold Information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted far building partnlls. 16. That en on•site trash truck Wm-around area shall he provided per Engineering StandaW Detail No. 610 and maintained to me satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitagon Division. Said turrl•arountl area shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. t 7. That if a fire line is requested by the Pire Department, the water baekgow equipment shall beabove ground outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screenetl From ail public streets. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Divislon in e1Ner underground vaults or outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets. Said information shall be specigcally shown on plans and approved by the Water Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department and the Cross Connectipn InsPOCtor. 78. That the an-site tandsceping and irrigation system shall be reWrbished and maintained In compliance with Ciry standarls. 19. That all existing maWre lantlsdping shag ba maintained and immediately replaced in the event that It becomes diseasetl ortlies. 20. That the two posts Ideated In the landscape planterwest of the easternmost driveway on La Palma Avenue shall be removed. 21. That the parking lot shall be maintained free of tlebris or loose gravel at aIi times. 22. That within sixty (60) days from the data of this resolution. condition nos. 18 and 20 above mentioned, shall be cpmplietl with. 23. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of ono (1) year from the dale a(lhis resolution, whichever ocpurs first. Condltlon Nos- 16, 16, and 17, above-mengoned, shall be complied with. F~densions for Wrther erne to complete said conditions may be g2nted in accordance with Section 78.03.09D of the Anaheim Municipal Code" VOTE; SD (Commissioner Williams absent) Selma Mann, Assistant Clty Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 13 minutes (2:30-2:43) 02-17-9D Page 16 JUNE 3, aooa PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12a. CEOA NEGAYIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY- APPROVEDI 12b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMfi N0.3728 (TRACKING CASE NO. CUP2002-045501: OWNER: Christian F. vineyard, 5340 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92607 AGENT: C 3, Attn: H. E. Sampson, 24722 Avondale Drive, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 LOCATION: 6340 Eaat La Palma Avenu®. Property is approximately 23.1 acres having a frontage of 7,238 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue located 2,370 feet west of the centerline of Imperial Highway (Fairmont Private Schooq. Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modfication or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a tlme limihatlon (approved on April 27, 1998 to expire May 16, 2002) to retain apre-school through 8'" grade school in conjunction with apreviously-approved church. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to June 17, 2002... SR8313KB.DOC „ ,,, ,, <;;' ..F„OLLQIVING,'IS gSUMMARy;~pF;THEPL,CNNI,NG COMMISSIOtJ,A"CTION-;; .,,,,,,,,s!. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the June 17, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to readvertlse the item and to advertise the reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3506 (Vineyard Christian School), which is also located on the same site so that both permits may be considered by the Commission at the same publ'~c hearing. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This Rem was not discussed. 06-03-02 Page 57 JUNE 17, auoa PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10a. CEOA NEGATNE DECLARATION tPREV10USLY- APPROVED] 10b. CONDRIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3725 IREADVERTISED]: (TRACKING NO. CUP 2002-OM1550) OYNPBER: vineyard Christian Fellowship, 5340 East Le Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: C 3, Altn: H. E Sampson, 24722 Avondale Drive, Laguna Hills, CA 92853 LOCATION: 5310 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 23.1 acres having a frontage of 1.,238 feet on the south aide of La Palma Avenue located 2,370 feet west of the centertine of Imperial Highway (Fairmont Prvate Schooq. Requests reinstatement of lh~ permit by the modfcation or de~Uon of a eondiUon of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on May 20, 1987 to expire June 20, 2002) to retain a maximum enrollment of 650 students for apreviously-approved private school accessory to an existing church CONDfffONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-99 Approved Approved reinstatement with deletion of Ume IimitaUon SR83301CB.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No: 10 as Conditional Use Permit No. 3726 (ReadveNsed), 5310 East Le Palma Avenu®-Fairmont Private School, a r~uest for reinstatement of the permit by the modification or deletion of a condfion of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on May 20, 1997 to expire June 20, 2002) to retain a maximum enrollment of 650 students for a previoustyapproved private school accessory to an existing churoh Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval of the reinstatement as recommended in the staff report without lima Iimffations. Chairperson Arnold states Item No. 10 is somewhat related to Item No. 11 and he hopes to move through Orem together relatively quickly. ApplicanPs Testimony: David Jackson, 7975 VVerrtck Rd., Corona, CA, representing Fairmont Private Sch~ls, states he has reviewed the staff report and they are very pleased with it Part of the reason they are in Anaheim is t~auee of the way they are treated and are able to work with staff, Planning Commission end the City Council. That Is very helpful and why they have bean tfiero for the last 50 years. Therefore, he states he agrees and is very pleased with the report and is present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~~';-~'"'F,OLL~O,WING'IIS~ASUMMARY~OF„lHE'PL'I,kNNINGCOMMiS510N~A"CTION ,~~r_~ " DPPOSmoaa: tdone ACTION: Commrssioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bdstol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby ~-17-02 Page 42 JUNE 1T, 2~2 PLANNING COMMlSS1ON. MINUTES detennlne that the previousy-approved Negative DeGaration is adequate to serve as the requ(red environmental documentaflon for subject request. Approved the request for reinstatement of Condi8onel Use Permit No. 3726 (l'racking No. CUP2002.04550) to retain a maximum enrollment of 850 students for a previously~epproved private school accessory to an exlsOng church without a time limitation. Incorporated the conditions of approval contained in Resoiutkm Nos. PC94-147, PC97-26, 97R-70 and PC99-28 hto a new resolution which InGudes the following condi8ons of approval: 1. That the sutrject conditbnal use permit shat) remain in effect only es long as k remahs as an accessory use 4o the primary church user of the property (currarr8y Vheyarcl Chris0an Fellowship). 2. That the properly ahaA maintain conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 438, B01 and 802 pertalnhg to paridng standards and driveway locations. 3. That any proposed freestanding sign on subject property shall be a monument-type not exceeding eight (8) feet in height and consistent with exhibits approved under Variance No. 2~2-04372. Said sign shall be subject to the review and approval ~ the City Traffic and Transportation Managerto determine adequate Imes-of-sigtrt. 4. That subject property shall be developed subsfantialty in accordance wkh plans and ep~ifications submitted to the Cky of Anaheim by the pe8tloner and which plans ere on file with the Planning Department marluxi Revision No. 2 of F_xfribit Nos. 1 and 2 and F~rhibit No. 3, and as conditioned herein. 5. That the school enrollment shall not exceed six hundred ikty (650) students at 5310 Fist La Palma Avenue. 6. That a wrought Iron fence enGosure of the playground shall be malnffihed whwa the fence Is visible from La Palma Avenue; and that the remehder of the terxxs may be conaWctad of chain link. 7. That all saws and stem dreh improvements shall be privately maintained. 8. That trash storage areas aha8 be mahtahed h a bca8on acceptable to the Publh Works Deprelment, Streets and Sanitation Division and h accordance wkh approved plans on flla with saki Department Sad stored arms shall be deelgned, Dated erg screened so as not to ba read~yy ktenfifiable from adjacent atreeffi or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffltl opportunkffis by fire use of plant rrreterlals such es minimum 1-getter size dhghg vines planter on maximum 3-f~t centers or tall shrubbery. 9. That an wr-site trash truck Wmaround area shall ba mahtahed per. Engineering Standard Detail No. 810 and maintained to the satistadbn of the Publh Works Departrr~nt, Streets and Sankadon Divhion. 10. That all exis8ng mature landscaping shah be mahtained and immediately replaced in the avant that k las:omas dfseas~l or dies. 1~-17-02 Page 43 JUNE 17, awa PLANNING COMiMISS10N WIINUTES 11. That the parking lot shall be maintained free of debris or loose gravel at all times. 12. That the property shall lie pem~nently makrtained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and , removal of greffitl within twenty-four (24) hours from time of oceurrence. 13. Thal approval of this appficatlon c~stitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that It cwnplies with tha Anehei<rr Munldpal Zoning Code and arty other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not indude any adios w findings as to compilarrce or approval of the request regarding any other applipble ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (4:111.4:12) OS-17-02 Page 44 FE®RUARY 10, 2003 PLANNING COMNI3tilON IOINUTES Ba. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 8b. N R (TRACiONG NO. UP2002-04850) OWNER: Vineyard Christian Fellowship, 5340 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92007 AGENT: Sam E. Sampson, C3 C~sultants, 25802 Alicia Parkway, #234, Capone Hilis, CA 92653 LOCATION: 5390 East Le Palma Av®nus. Property Is approximately 23.08 saes having a frontal of 1,238 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, located 2,370 Peet wrest of the centerline of imperial Highway (Fekmont PrNele Schoa!). To modify prevtously-approved exhibits for an existng prfvate school and to amend a conditlon of approval partaindng to the pennlti~ number of students.. CONDITIONAL USE PERMR RESOLUTION NO. PC2003.'t0 Approved Approved modification to previously-aPProved exhibits and amendment to conditons of approval SR8552VN.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 8 as Conditicnai Use Permit No. 3728, 5310 Fist La Palma Avenue -Fairmont Private Sdiool, a request to modify prevlaisiy-approves exhibits for en existing private school and to emend a condition of approval pertalntng to Ure permitted number of students. Applicant's Testlmony: David Jackson, 7975 Weniclc Road, Corona, CA, representing the Feinnont Schools, states he has reviewed the staff resort and appredatee very much the adlats of the planners and all the wrork they have put krto tl and how well Grey contlnue to wmk wNh thean. Theme are a couple of minor erase on the conditions: Item No. 4, the school twure are from 8 e.m. to 3 p.m. (tern No. 11, the City has bey meeting wdtlt Vstayerd Christlan Felbwship ntatives regerdktg the tretfk s~rral and the Dory rbrreem N they wanted to ensure that the rxxxlit~r wand net stop them from gaffing a buBd~g perrrtft In the next 30- 45 days, and that N would also net stop tltem from ~upyktg Ihs additional dassrooms m September. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Aifr~ Yalda, Prmc~al Tranepatatbrr Planner. states itsme should not ba a problem because the way Conditiar No. 18 is wrclden stwuid e0ow them up to one year. ® • ~ ~ ue: • e ~.. ®uu s. a ®. ACTION:.. Approval CEOA Negative Dedaretlon FE8f8UdRY 90, 2003.. PLAPININO COMMIS31ON MINUTIcS Incorporated condk~ns of approval txtnteln~l In Resolution No. PC2002-99 Into a new resolution which Indudea the fdlawkig cwrdkions of approval (Condklon Idos. 6 and 1 t era new condkbna; and Condition Noe. 4 and 90 wore modified at today's mseUng): 1. That the sub}eet eondk~al use parmk shall remain in effect only as long ea N remains as an use to the primary church user of the property (currently Vineyard ChrisUen Fellowship). 2. That the praperiy shall maintain conformance with the wrrent version of F~gin~rir~ 3landaN Plan Nos. 436, 501 end 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway IocaUons. 3. That Ore pnsposel shall cwnply with all si®nhp r~uirementa of the SPS4-1 (5Cj; DA 2) Iona unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the Planning Cwnmisa~. My addk~al signage shall be subject to review and approval by the Plannbtg Commissi~t es a Reports and Rec~nmendation Item. 4. That the hours of operation, as st~uleted, by the petitbner, shall be the same as the origkial approval for the existing private school es follows: Classes: 5;50 8:tm a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday School otPica hours: 7:~ a.m. fo 8 p.m., Monday itrough Friday 5. That any proposed freestanding sin on subject property shall be a monum~t type net exceeding eight (5) feet In height and consistent with euh~ks approv~t under Varlanoa ido. 2002-U4372. Said sib shall ba subject to the rev~w and approval of the City Treftte and Transportation Manager to determine ad~uate Unes-af-sight. 6. That the school enrdlment shall not exceed seven hundred seventy-flue (775) FEBRUARY 10, 2003 Pt.ANNIPIti COMMISSION IdINUTES trensffts of realigning driveways ~dlor signalizing driveways. This analysis is to bs canpleted to the satlsfactlon of the Traffic & Tranaportatlon Manager wdh~ 80 days of project approve. A borut shell be posted for the full costa of e fraff~ signal and related drNaway racorrfiguratbn/realignment, k e wartanted tocatkxr is ~antifted In the above traffic analysle. The traffic signal and associated driveway recarflguratiar shall be canpleted for acceptance by the Cky wkhin one year of cortrpletiar of the a~ve traffic analysis. 12. That sit existing mature landscaping shall be maintained and Immediately replaced In the event that k becomes diseased or d{es. 13. That the parking lot shall be maintained free of debris or loose gravel at aA times. 14. That the property shall be permanently ma~tafned in an orderly fashion by providing regulariarxiscape.ma~tenanca, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffltl within twenty-four (24) halite from lima of occurrence. 15. That subject property shale be developed eubstantleky In accordance with plane end specMkatlons submkt~ m the Clly of Anaheim by the petltloner and wh~h plans are on file with the Planning Departrnent marked Revision No. 3 of Exhibk Nos.1 and 2, end ae condltloned herein. 16. That prbr to final building and coning Inspectbns or prior to canmencement of the activity authorized by this resoluton, or prior to issuance of s building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever oaarre first. Condition No. 15, above-mantbned, shall be canpl~d with. Extensl~s for further time to complete said eonditloms maybe grenled ~ accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Mun~ipel Code. 17. That approval of ibis application carsikutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that k compl~s with the Anaheim Munidpal Zoning Code end any other applicable CHy, State end Federal regulatbns. Approval does not Indude any actlon or flndkrge as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other appikable ordinance, regulatlon or requirement. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (3:47-3:52) 02-10-03 Page 25 Attachment -Item No. 4 RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. PC94-147, AS AMENDED, ADOPTED IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0: 3726 WHEREAS, on October 31, 1994, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did, by its Resolution No. PC94-147, grant Conditional Use Permit No. 3726 to expand apreviously-approved private educational institution as an accessory use to ah existing church facility at 5300 East La Palma Avenue; and that certain conditions of approval were adopted therewith, including approving Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3 (Condition No. 5) and limiting the maximum enrollment to 450 students (Condition No. 6); and WHEREAS, on May 20, 1997, the Anaheim City Council did, by its Resolution No. 97R-70, amend certain conditions of the aforementioned Resolution No. PC94-147 to approve Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No. 1 (Condition No. 5), to Increase the enrollment from 450 to 650 students provided that the increased enrollment was permitted through June 20, 2002 at which time the maximum number would revert to 450 students (Condition No.6), and to add certain new conditions (Nos. 10 through 13); end WHEREAS, on February 17, 1999, the Planning Commission did, by its Resolution No. PC99-28, further amend the aforementioned Resolution No. PC94-147, as amended by Resolution No. 97R-70, to expand the existing private school at 5310 East La Palma Avenue by conversing an existing warehouse and office into seven classrooms, to approve Revision No. 2 of Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 (Condition No. 5), and to add certain new conditions (Nos. 14 through 23); and WHEREAS, this properly is developed with church facilities including two accessory schools at Vineyard MinisUies and Fairmont Private School (which had a maximum enrollment of 650 students through June 20, 2002); that the property is located in .Development Area 2 (Expanded Industrial Area) of the SP 94-1(SC) (Northeast Area SpeciflcPlan -Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone; that the Anaheim General Plan designates the property for General Industrial land uses; and that the Fairmont Private School portion of fhe properly is located within the'Project Alpha (NortheasQ Redevelopment Area; and WHEREAS, the petitioner has requested amendments to Conditional Use Permit No. 3726 to increase the maximum number of students to 775 at the Fairmont Private School and to revise the exhibits under authority of Code Sections 18.03.092 and 18.110.070.050.0528; and WHEREAS, the proposed plans (Revision No. 3 of Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2) show conversion of a 9,122 sq.H. bookstore and storage area into six classrooms and assembly area, conversion of a 5,430 sq.ft. storage area into a gymnasium and two classrooms for a total of 37 classrooms, conversion of 17 parking spaces into a new playground area on the west side of the existing building, and conversion of 9 parking spaces on the east side of the'building to a new outdoor basketball court; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing al the Clvlc Center fn the City of Anaheim on February 10, 2003, at 1:30 p:m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required bylaw and fn accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 16.03, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed amendment and to investigate and make findings and recommendations In connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due Inspection, Investigatloh and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: Tracking No. CUP2002-04655 crWC2003-030.doc -1- PC2003-30 1. That the proposal to expand the school enrollment and to amend the exhibits Is conditionally permitted in Development Area 2 (Expanded Industrial Area) of the SP92-1(SC) (Northeast Area Specific Plan -Scenic Corcidor Overlay) Zone. 2. That the traffic generated by the use, as emended, will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because there will be little or no additional Vaffic generated from this expansion and increase in student population. 3. That amending this conditional use permit, under the wnditions imposed, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 4. That the amendments to this conditional use permit are reasonably necessary to protect the public peace, health, safety and general welfare, and necessary to permit reasonable operation of the approved use. 5: That the proposed expansion of the school will not adversely affect surrounding land uses because it consists of improvements to existing :buildings; and that the location of the new classrooms Is not any closer to adjacent industrial land uses than the existingblassrooms. 6. That the size and shape of this property Is adequate to support this use, as amended, In a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety and general welfare. 7. That no one indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition to the proposal; and that no correspondence was received in opposition. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to amend the conditions of approval pertaining to the maximum number of students and revised exhibits for en existing private school on property consisting of 23.08 acres having a frontage of 1,238 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and a depth of 860 feet, being located 2,370 feet west of the centerline of Imperial Highway, and further described as 5310 East La Palma Avenue (Fairmont Private School); end does hereby find that the Negative Dedaration previously approved in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3726 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation in connection with this request upon finding that the declaration renects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has wnstderad the previously approved Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the env'vonment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby amend, in their entirety, the conditions of approval adopted in connection with Resolution No. PC94-147, as amended by Resolution Nos. 97R-70 and PC99-28 and as adopted in connection with Conditional Use Permit'No. 3726, to read as follows: 1. That the subject conditional use permit shall remain in effect only as long as it remains as an accessory use to the primary church use of the property (curcenUy Vineyard Christian Fellowship). 2. That the property shall remain in conformance with the curcent versions of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. 3. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of Development Area 2 (Expanded IndusUial Area) of the SP 94-1(SC) (Northeast Area Specific Plan -Scenic Corcidor Overlay) Zone unless a variance allowing sign waivers Is approved by the Planning Commission or City Council. Any additional slgnage shall be subject to review end approval by the Planning Commission as a 'Reports and Recommehdation' Item. -2- PC2003-030 4. That the hours of operation, as stipulated to by the petitioner, shall be the same as originally approved for the existing private school, as follows: Classes: 8:00 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday. School Office Hours: 7:00 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday 5. That any proposed freestanding sign on subject property shall be a monument-type not exceeding eight (6) feet in height and shall be consistent with the exhibits approved under Variance No. 2002- 04372. Said sign shall be subject to review and approval by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager to determine adequate lines-of-sight. 6. That the enrollment at 5310 East La Palma Avenue (Fairmont School) shall not exceed seven hundred seventy five (775) students. 7. That a wrought Iron fence enclosure of the playground shall be maintained where the fence is vlslbte to La Palma Avenue; and that the remainder of the fence maybe constructed of chain link. 6. That all sewer and slonn drain improvements shall be privately maintained. 9. That trash storage area(s) shall be maintained in location(s) acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division., and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storege area(s) shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage area(s) shall be protected From graffiti opportunities by the use of plants such as minimum one (1) gallon sized clinging vines planted on maximum three (3) foot centers or tall shrubbery. 10. That an on-site trash truck turn-around area shall be maintained in accordance with Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 and maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. 11. (a) That a traffic analysis shall be prepared for the three (3) drNeways searing this church/school property and the post office driveway near the easternmost church driveway (total four (4) driveway directional counts) to determine whether warrants are met with the Increased school traffic and to determine public benefits of realigning driveways andlor signalizing driveways. This analysis shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution. A bond shall be posted with the City for the full cost of a traffic signal and related driveway reconfiguration/ realignment, if a warranted location is identified in the above traffic analysis.. (b) That, if warranted, the traffic signal and associated driveway reconfiguration shall be completed for acceptance by the City within one (1) year of completion of the above traffic analysis. 12. That all existing mature landscaping shall be maintained and immediately replaced in the event that it becomes diseased or dies. 13. That the parking lot shall be maintained free of debris and/or loose gravel al ail times. 14. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion througri the provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 15. That subject property shall be developed substantially In accordance with plans and specifications submitted lp the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department labeled Revision No. 3 of Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, and as conditioned herein. _3_ PC2003-030 16. Thal prior to final building and zoning inspections, or prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or within a period of one {i) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition No. 15, above-mentloned, 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. 17. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of February 10, 2003. tOrt~inal siene~by Paul Bost,:.;;;;) CHAIRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: (Original aigned ~~ Eluttor 4Aorrisl STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on February 1 D, 2003, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, EASTMAN, KOOS, ROMERO, VANDERBILT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of .2003. IOrir~inal ei~ned by Eleanor Morriol SENIOR SECRETARY. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION -4- PC2003-030 Item No. 5 V -I l3 ~ ~ 4`4 0 1 ~` SOA,1 4 ®®~ RC~CI. gE fi a < R CUP 2i ®r a CUP R a ~4~ 1XFD~ •. 9q 9 SP 91-1 DA1 t SdPLL IND. n p FlRMS m E 'm ~ pl N 4 vg as Sm 4 zl m., 7 I a ,41 a ? a ° ~ m ~ RIVERSIDE FREEWAY FRONTERA ST 44 ' Q~ O V Q ~P SP 93-1 Q DA 1 !V SMALL IND. FlRMS Sp X4,1 OP 3~ ~t51 RCl6B-fig.69.396. 9 1yC ZOOq.04 GU CUP ''3857 VP cOMM.I MOF DOE US. ~v TPM N0.99-1 fig SP 84-1 DA s RCL 70-71-07 (21) RCL 66-69-92 .RCL 70-71-06 (1) CUP 1631 VAR 3657 MIXED COMM./ OFFlCE USE JPR 15b7)) CCU P 7yeb1 ~N p0. ~OM7M.1 M~~F~CE USE. TPMN0.99-169 SP 94-1 DA1 RCL 70-71-47 (21) RCL 68-69-92 RCL 70-71-46 (1) CUP 1631 VAR 3657 fPM NO. B9-169 ~ SP B4-1 ~ DL 70.71-47(27). Q~ RCL 66-69-9 = 2CL 70-71-06 (1 CUP 2006 ~~Q CUP 7831 VAR 365 MU(ED CO M! SP 93-7 DA1 CUP 2003-04611 SMALLIND. ARMS DA'1 SMALL IND. FlRMS ~~OL. ~ ~FlCE E FR{~ ~ SP D. ~O ~* SP 94-1 DA 7 e RCL 70-77-0fi ® 4 CUP 4080 RCLCUP 3453(38) o~ ADJ0170 MALL IND. ~ SMALL IND. FIRMS FlRMS SP 844 DA 7 VACANT NURSERY (Res of lnl hi RS-2400) RM<i(O) RM~1 RM-4 RCL 65-66E4 RCL 7576-15 RCL70.71-61 RCL7671-6 " ` RCL 86-87-18 66-64 RCL 65- RCL BS66-84 RCL 6F VAR 4149 .. VAR 2757 yAR 7271 VAR n FRONTERA EASTWOOD // \ \ WOODS APARTMENTS APARTMENTS ! / ~ 1 APA ~S 108 DU 960U 4DU Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05246 Requested By: HEARN REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 1000 North Edward Court 10367 Subject Property Date: September 17, 2007 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 133 ,; Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05246 Requested By: HEARN REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 1000 North Edward Court Subject Property Date: September 17, 2007 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 133 70367 ITEM NO. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENIDA REPORT 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Faz: {714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.nel City of'Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.2007-05246' LOCATION: 1000 North Edward Court. APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Paul Klukas, representing Kl Speed/Heam Revocable Living Trust REQUEST: The applicanfrequests approval of an indoor go-kart Facility. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission take the following actions: (a) By motion, approve a CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class L (b) By resolution, approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05246. BACKGROUND: This 4.1-acre property is currently developed with a concrete tilt up building. It is located within the Northeast Area Specific Plan, Industrial Area (SP94-1, DA 1). The General Plan designates this property and surrounding properties for Industrial uses. PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to establish an indoor go-kart facility within a vacant industrial building. The facility would consist of asingle-indoor track, electric. go-karts and observation azeas. The main clientele would be corporations for company team building events, but the facility would also be open to the public. To complement the use, the facility would include a small concession azea with fast food which is catered from off-site. Operating hours for the facility would be from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m., Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. on Saturdays and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays. A maximum of 8 employees would be needed per shift. ANALYSIS: The project has been evaluated against applicable development standazds and is in compliance. Code permits indoor recreational facilities in the Northeast Area Specific Plan subject to approval of a conditional use permit. This site was formerly occupied by an indoor roller hockey facility as well. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05246 September l7, 2007 Page 2 of 2 Code requires a pazking study to determine the pazking demand for this type of use: A study prepazed for an existing KI Speed facility was submitted by the applicant and ' reviewed for adequacy by the City's independent pazking'''consultarit. The City's consultant field checked the pazking demand during peak hours and identified a demand. of 1 space per 1,337 squaze feet. Based on this rate, the proposed facility would require a total of 43 parking spaces. The site, which'is shared by an industrial tenant which requires 30 spaces, includes 162 parking spaces. The proposed landuse would provide adequate pazking and be compatible with. adjacent. industrial uses; therefore, staff supports this request. Respectfully submitted, Concurred by, AcJting Pnncipal Planner Planning Director Attnch~ents: 1, Pazking Study [>DitA>FT~ RESOLUTION NO. PC2007-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05246 BE GRANTED (1000 NORTH EDWARD COURT) WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as: PARCEL A PARCEL 8 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 99-126, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 311, PAGES 22 TO 25 INCLUSNE OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCEL B: AN APPURTENANT, NON-EXCLUSNE AND PERPETUAL EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS PURPOSES OVER PARCEL A OF PARCEL. MAP NO. 99-126, AS SHOWN ONA MAP FILED IN BOOK 311, PAGES 22 TO 25 INCLUSNE OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AS AID EASEMENT IS SET FORTH IN THAT CERTAIN DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND GRANT OF EASEMENTS FOR BEDROSIAN BUSINESS CENTER RECORDED DECEMBER 30, 1999 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19990881890 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 17, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required bylaw and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection; investigation and studymade by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: L That the proposed indoor go-kart facility is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.120.050.0531 (Private recreational facilities, indoor or outdoor); and 2. That the proposed indoor go-kart facility would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is located; and Cr~PC2007-0 -1- PC2007- 3. That the traffic generated by the facility would not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because adequate parking is provided on-site; and 4. That granting this conditional use permit, under the conditions imposed', will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim; and 5. That *** indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: Planning staff has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities), as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby grant subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit, upon the following conditions which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health and safety of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim: Prior to issuance of a building permif or within a period of one (I) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, the followine conditions shall be complied with: That four (4) foot high rooftop address numbers shall be painted flat on the roof in contrasting color to the rooftop material and shall not be visible from ground level. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits: 2. That landscape plans shall be submitted, showing a minimum of eight (8) new 24-inch box broadheaded, evergreen trees to be planted along the southerly property boundary. Prior to final building and zoninE inspections the followine conditions shall be complied with: 3. That new landscaping described in condition no. 2 shall be installed. 4. That a Fire Emergency Listing Cai•d, Form APD-281, shall be completed and submitted to the Police Department. The form is available at the Police Department front counter. 5: That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications .submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3, and as conditioned herein. General Conditions: 6. That the facility shall not be operated as an amusement device arcade and the maximum number of arcade games shall be limited to four (4). That no alcoholic beverage shall be sold or consumed on-site. -2- PC2007- 8. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from the time ofdiscovery. 9. That timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition(s), (ii) the modification complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. 10. That extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval maybe granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal. 11. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all chazges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shat] result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 17, 2007. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60, "Zoning Provisions -General" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIItMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -3- PC2007- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Moms, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Flanning Commission held on September 17, 2007, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of 200'7. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -4- PC2007- Attachment -Item Plo. 5 July 9 2007 TO: Elaine Thienprasiddhi FROM: Timor Rafiq, Rafiq & Associates, Inc. SUBJECT: First Screencheck Review of the Parking Analysis for the Kl Indoor Kart Track in Anaheim prepazed by LLG, dated June 30, 2005 COMMENT 1 The LLG study from June 2005 was prepazed to establish pazking rates for an indoor go kart facility in Irvine. In the LLG study, the pazking rate determined was 1 space per 1,672 squaze feet. Applying this rate to the proposed Anaheim facility results in a requirement for 35 parking spaces. COMMENT 2 This facility has since opened in Irvine, and we have conducted pazking counts to verify the adequacy of continuing to use this pazking rate established in the LLG study. The Irvine facility contains 86,882 squaze feet. The new pazking counts taken on Friday June 29, 2007 resulted in a maximum pazking demand of 65 vehicles. The pazking ratio based on this higher count is one space per 1,337 squaze feet. COMMENT 3 Applying the new pazking ratio of 1 space per 1,337 squaze feet to the Anaheim site of 58,000 SF results in a forecast pazking requirement for 43 spaces. This is somewhat higher than the result in comment 1, above, using the original pazking rate. COMMENT 4 Based on the letter of justification, the proposed Anaheim site contains 162 pazking spaces. This will be sufficient to accommodate the forecast pazking demand of 43 spaces, for the new use as an indoor go-karting facility, based on the rates observed at the Irvine facility. The LLG study has been verified, and with updated counts taken in June 2007, the study is adequate to establish the parking requirement for the Anaheim site. Should you have questions, please contact me at (949) 633-5440. J •~f . i,, SEP ] 7 2007 CITY rLAili~di~l6 C (? iVl tlii I ~ ,~, ~ ;a iii CUP NQ. 2007 - 0 5 2'4 6 June 20, 2005 . Engineers $ Planners 1Vlr. Pau] Klukas -rrani~ Plannin S stems g Y Transportanpn parking 1530 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100 Carlsbad, Califomia 92008 Linscatt, Law $ LLG Reference No. 2.05.2629.1 Greenspan, Engineers 1580 Corporate Grive Subject: Trip Generation and Parking Rate Analysis for the Proposed soils Iz2 K-I Speed Indoor Kart Track Cash Mesa, CA 92fi46 Irvine, Califomia 714.641.75871 714.641.0139 r Deaz MI. K1llkaS: www.llgenpineers.cam Pasadena As requested, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this coats Moaa Trip Generation and Parking Rate Analysis Letter Report for the proposed K-1 Speed san oiegB Indoor Kart Track project, located in Irvine, Califomia Las vegan This letter report summarizes the traffic generation rates and pazking demand rate for the proposed K-] Speed Indoor Kart Track project based on a trip generation study and parking survey study conducted at an existing indoor kart racing facility in the City of Carlsbad, which is similar in size to the proposed project. Briefly, the results of our trip generation study at the existing facility in the City of Carlsbad revealed an average weekday daily trip generation rate of 8.13 trips/1,000 squaze feet (SF) and an average weekday PM peak hour trip generation rate of 0.472: trips/1,000 SF. In addition, the parking survey study at the existing facility revealed a pazking rate of 1 space per 1,672 SF. The aforementioned trip generation and pazking rates will be applied to the proposed K-1 Speed Indoor Kart Track project to satisfy City of Irvine requirements. Our method of analysis, findings, and conclusions aze described in detail in the following sections of this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION The project site is an existing 86,882 SF warehouse building located at 17221 Von Kannan Avenue, in the City of Irvine, California. The project site is located within PhilipMlinscon, PE Un4am1 the Irvine Business Center (IBC) and is identified as Project No: 668 within the City Jack M. Greonspan, PE of Irvine IBC Database. Figure 1, located at the end of this letter report presents a WlniamA Law, PE lnnl Vicinity Map, which illustrates the general location of the project and depicts the PaWwwdkinapn. PE SllI70nIlding Street System. John P. Reodn0, PE Oevid S. Shender, PE John A. Boennon, PE Clare M. teak-Jaeger, PE f8chard E. Baneno, PE n,~rwec_.._. ~.., .... Mr. PaulKlukas June 20, 2005 Page Z Figure 2 presents the site plan for the proposed project prepared by Davy Architecture. As shown, the proposed project will re-occupy the existing 86,$82 SF. wazehouse building with an indoor race track (approximately 1/3 of a mile in length), viewing/gathering areas, meeting/changing rooms, administration areas and a concession area serving fast food and non-alcoholic beverages. The proposed facility will operate seven days a week with the following hours of operation: • Monday (11:00 AM to 9:00 PM) • Tuesday through Thursday (11:00 AM to 10:00 PM) • Friday (11:00 AM to 11:00 PM) • Saturday (9:00 AM to 11:00 PM) • Sunday (9:00 AM to 6:00 PM) As shown, the proposed project will not be in operation during the typical AM peak hour (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and therefore the AM peak hour traffic generation will not need to be evaluated. Vehiculaz access to the proposed project will be provided via two existing driveways along McCaw Avenue and one existing driveway along Von Karman Avenue. Pazking will be provided via an on-site surface lot with a total of 120 spaces. DATA COLLECTION AT EXISTING FACILITY Traffic and parking counts were conducted at an existing indoor kart racing facility similaz in size to the proposed project. The existing facility is located at 6212 Corte De] Abeto in the City of Cazlsbad. The existing indoor kart racing facility is housed within a 70,220 SF industrial building and consists of an indoor race track (approximately 1/3 of a mile in length), viewing/gathering aeeas, meeting/changing rooms, administration areas and a concession area serving fast food and non-alcoholic beverages. The existing facility operates seven days a week with the following hours of operation: • Monday (11:00 AM to 9:00 PM) • Tuesday through Thursday (11:00 AM to 10:00 PM) • Friday (l 1:00 AM to 11:00 PM) • Saturday (9:00 AM to 11:00 PM) • Sunday (9:00 AM to 6:00 PM) Vehicular access to the existing facility is provided via one driveway located along Corte Del Abeto. Parking is provided via an on-site surface lot with a total of 147 spaces. Vehicular counts (ins and outs) and parking counts were conducted at the existing facility by Transportation Studies on Wednesday June 8, 2005, Thursday June 9, 2005, Mc Paul Klukas June 20, 2005 Page 3 Friday June 10, 2005 and Saturday Tune 11, 2005 during the aforementioned hours of operation. The vehiculaz counts were conducted in fifteen-minute intervals .and the parking counts were conducted in thirty-minute intervals. Appendix A summarizes the vehicular counts and pazking counts conducted at the existing facility. Tables A-l; B-I, C-1 and D-1 present the vehicular counts and Tables A-2, B-2, C-2, and D-2 present the pazking counts for the four count days. TRIP GENERATION STUDY AND PARKING STUDY RESULTS Table I, located at the rear of this letter report following the figures presents the results of the trip generation and parking study conducted at the existing indoor kart facility in the City of Carlsbad for a typical Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday. As shown in Table I, a daily trip generation rate and a PM peak hour trip generation rate was calculated for each day of the trip generation study. The maximum observed peak parking demand for each day is also shown. An average of the three calculated weekday daily and PM peak hour trip generation rates was calculated, which identified an average weekday daily trip generation rate of 5.13 trips per 1,000 SF and an average weekday PM peak hour trip generation rate of 0.472 trips per 1,000 SF. Please note that the average weekday trip generation rates aze used even though they are less than the Saturday trip generation rates because ambient traffic in the area is much greater on weekdays. Also note that an AM peak hour trip generation rate was not determined because the proposed project will not be in operation during the typical AM peak hour (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM). Further review of Table 1 shows that a maximum peak parking demand of 42 spaces was observed on Saturday, which was the peak attendance day of the four count days. A parking rate of 1 space per 1,672 SF (70,220 SF divided by 42 spaces) was calculated based on an observed peak parking demand of 42 spaces at the existing indoor kart racing facility. Appendix B presents the detailed calculations for the aforementioned trig generation rates and the pazking rate. CONCLUSION The results of our trip generation study at the existing facility in the City of Cazlsbad revealed an average weekday daily trip generation rate of 5.13 trips/1,000 SF and an average weekday PM peak hour trip generation rate of 0.472 trips/1,000 5F. in addition, the pazking study at the existing facility revealed a parking rate of 1 space per 1,672 SF. The aforementioned trip generation and pazking rates can be used to forecast the potential daily and PM peak hour trips of the proposed project as well as forecast the parking demand of the proposed project. Mc Paul Klukas June 20, 2005 Page4 We appreciate the opportunity to provide this trip generation and parking assessment. Should you have any questions or comments, please call me at (714) 641-1587. Very truly yours, , LINSCOTT, LAW GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS Keil D. M , P.E. Daniel A. Kloas, P.E. Associat rincipal Transportation Engineer III soot-e~-ro tssia~ am TABLE 1 EXISTING FACILITY DATA SUMMARY ADT Rate PM Peak Hour Rate Count Date (Trips per 1,000 SF) (Trips per 1,000 SF) Peak Parking Demand Wednesday Tune 8, 2005 4.06 hips/1,000 SF 0.471 trips/1,000 SF 32 spaces Thursday June 9, 2005 4.57 trips/1,000 SF 0.315 trips/1,000 SF 27 spaces Friday June 10, 2005 6.76trips/1,000 SF 0.629 trips/1,000 SF 38 spaces Saturday lone 1 ], 2005 7.73 trips/1,000 SF 0.495 trips/1,000 SF 42 spaces Average Weekday Rate 5.13 trips/1,000 SF 0.472 trips/1,000 SF - Peak ParldngDemand - - 42 spaces ~~ ., t' i tr , x -r. '_i .z ~ a,. i ., ~1 K ' S x .' 3 3 .. t,~`~r <t, _ r' _ . .f ' ~ ~,, 6 " 4 a in 8 N m N A O ., a ~ ~ OBEi a 9 -~; EXT g ` ;/~ EMCz OFF i ~"~ OFFICE ~ ~~~ N / EXT 9 OFF m N Q N O O b N ~' ~NO SCALE FIGURE 2 PROPOSED SITE PLAN K1 SPEED INDOOR KART TRACK, IRVINE 14PPENDIX A EXISTING VEHICULAR COUNTS AND PARKING COUNTS LM$CdTT, LAW 8 Gt+Ffl+SPnN, eigfneew LLO Ref 2-OS-2629 Kd Speed Indoor Kart Track, Uvine r+:uauanszeav~nm~nan;v a~ •au. r~r rims a,4~ Table A-1 A-l Trip Generation Study Trni'Sc Data Wednesday Jnnc 8, 2005 (11:00 AM to 10:00 P]VI) Table A-2 Parking Study Trafiic Data WednesdayJune-8, 2005(]1-:OO~AM~to 10:00-P14n ft-Z A'3 Table B-1 Trip Generation Study Traffic Data Thursday June 9, 2005 (1]:OD ANt to 10:00 PM) Table B-2 Parking Study TralTic Data 'Fhuradayduue~9;3005{1i~:00-kM~toi0:00~PM} A-`~ ~-5 Table C-1 Trip Generation Study Traffic Data Friday June 10, 2005 (17:00 AM to 11:00 PM) .Table C-2 Parking Study Tvaf[ic Data Friday June-lA, 2005(11:00 AM to-1dsOD PM) L 1:OD AM 21 11:30 AM 19 12:00 PM 2l 12:30 PM 25 1:00 PM 32 2:00 PM 30 2:30 PM 27 3:00 PM 26 3:30 PM 32 4:00 PM 32 4:30 PM 25 5:00 PM 27 5:30 PM 28 6:00 PM 30 6:30 PM 25 7:00 PM 26 7:30 PM 25 8:00 PM 28 8:30 PM 27 9:00 PM 19 9.30 PM 19 10:00 PM 18 10:30 PM 14 17:00 PM 9 A-~ Tahle D-1 Trip Generation Sludy Tra(Lc Date Saturday June 71, 2005 (9:0~ AM to 11 aID PM) Table D-2 Parking Study Traffic Data June 11 2005 (9:00 AM to 17 e00 PRTj Pt-b APPENDIX 6 TRIP GENERATION AND PARKING STUDY CALCULATIONS LMSCOTT, tnw 8 GREEN6PAH, engineers ~ ~ 11G Ref. 2-05-2629 K-I Spced Indoor Kart Tack, Wine N:Le(#JL'OS.6]9ieepuT3E:9 AYC~rdir Tiilr J-IA-0.S.C,r T0."=P GEN EIi AT=ON SZV-~`( L\t-\ S4EED CA0.L56A01 ~ Cyr\ab>.~ Fn.c-•\~4W ~IO~iZo 5 F w tea-. J...e..-~ - Su.~ ` b Loo s AoT e 2.4,s ~.~re t`aaR, nd e.~.,~ a...L \v~ ou4b e.,,,. a„~ ,.. I_ AbT r~k~ = Z65_... Llpppl Y.OU 4~;e, 90 ,i2o to oo s F -PM Pray Ne.a 0.ohL = 33 n 11. U'/. =~j 0V9\. -,e= 2s5 IoooSF I' eue,X Pa_r K: r•~'e ..__..~ 3Z ,«_`•,~~ .<Q_wz __ ~ 'AE Z a.•..r a 2..0_.,, - 7.~n ~ y. 2 0 0 5 ~~ hVT •~ .- = 3Za (,,a oo o' ^ Y.59 +r:~s 40 ~LLO 1DD0 SF .. i 4M P~sY. Ws.~r 0.~kL - -ti __ 1a.i'I. _~ 0.315 }r:Qa ...,..i 3t\ bo oo zF F~e.Y 4•.<K.. a.9 V......_.. L• = L9 ett.~e l..l.. s`....~i } -~ - AVT c `195 +rles `LYY \nb e.~..~ ~.n:L Z3\ a...\-b ou.•+~~ . - ALT ce..\~ _ `145 l,\o ool = V•'\u +•:e• ': 1 40 ,Li0 loos Sf Y9 5 ~VLA }-,~=~y ~ooaSF Ptv.~ ?t< ~'. ~,, 9a... ~.~~ 38 eca...~'•~~. aeaua ,..~ - A9T c Sy3 4cCQ1 LLU31..b e.+.. ~,... a... 1~ t'!O o..,~\a e...-. ~,~ ..I - AoT r }` iY8 Laoool < 9.93 4-c'.es. 9D .2L0 1p OD SF I - Yt`+ P~,~V~ 11a~r 0.x_4 ~. '~ \ppp SF 5 4'3 Pva. Oar V-.: ~. ~' '~ \J ~`/. D.,,e,y~ Av~a d~~ Aa.~~ = Y.oa. 4 Y.5~1 + 1+.9U c 5.13 +r,e: 3 \ooo s F yk PM 4a~..Y \leur Aver ~~ @.ah t_ = O'`19\ 4 0.3\3 t O.u2y O.V9L i-.~ps 3 loo0 5F ~{ F yak. Q e.c V" r.~ 0.e.} ~.. `t 0 .2L0 ~ 1 s ea.ta a ~.r \ b'li S F ( ¢ - a u, ttem No. 6 a~~ -- Conditional Use Permit No. 3693 TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05247 Requested By: CALVARY CHAPEL OPEN DOOR 1011 North Harbor Boulevard Subject Properly Date: September 17, 2007 Scale: 1 " = 200' Q.S. No. 60 10368 ~I` Conditional Use Permit No. 3693 TRACKING NO. GUP2007-05247 Requested By: CALVARY CHAPEL OPEN DOOR 1011 North Harbor Boulevard Subject Property Date: September 17, 2007 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 60 10368 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suile #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5260 www.anaheim.net ITEM NO. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT City of'Anahem PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3693 (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05247) LOCATION: 1011 North Harbor Boulevard: APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Roger Stahlhut/Calvary Chapel Open Door REQUEST: The applicantproposes to amend'apreuiously-approved conditional use `permit to permit the interior expansion of an existing church. RECOMMENDATIONC Staff recommends that the Commission take the following actions: (a) By motion, approve a Categorical Exemption, Class7. (b) By resolution, approve an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 3693. BACKGROUND: This property is developed with the Calvazy Chapel Open Door Church. It is located within the General Commercial (C-G) zone. The General Plan designates this property and the properties to the north, east and south for General Commercial land uses, and the properties to the west across Gilbert Street for Low- Medium Density Residential land uses. Conditional Use Peimit No. 3693 was approved by the Planning Commission in 1994. This permit allowed a church as well as onsite food collection, distribution and storage facilities in conjunction with church activities. The approval included waivers to reduce the number of required pazking spaces and to allow pazking spaces to' encroach into setbacks, The CUP was approved with' an expiration date, which was deleted by the Planning Commission in 2000. Conditional`Use Permit No. 2003'-04679 was approved.. in 2003 to permit a parking lot for church overflow parking on the adjacent property to the west of the church. This property is owned by the City of Fullerton and is used as a water well and pumping Facility. The church has had an ongoing agreement with the City of Fullerton to lease the parking lot for the church. This pazking lot contains 79 , spaces. A copy of the minutes from the prior hearings is attached for reference: PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes interior modifications to the existing building to increase the assembly area and offices. The proposed floor plan modification will CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3693 September 17, 2007 Page 2 of 2 convert existing food storage and recreational uses to approximately 1,300 square feet of additional assembly area and approximately 1,500 square feet of office pace. ANALYSIS: The project has been evaluated against all applicable development standazds and is in compliance. However, the conversion of accessory area into assembly and office azea will require additional parking beyond'the spaces provided on the church property. Issue: Parking A total of 108 pazking spaces aze required for the church modification. The existing pazking lot for the church provides a total of 33 spaces. As previously-approved, the church is proposing the full time use of the adjacent City of Fullerton,pazking lot to accommodate the parking needs created by the expansion. The total spaces provided from both the subject property. and adjacent lot is 111, spaces,: which meets the Code requirements for the church. The church has recently entered into an agreement with the City of Fullerton to extend the lease of this, property. for a period. of 5 yeazs, with the option to renew the lease. for 4 addifional 5 year terms: The draft resolution includes a condition requiring that the church provide parking at an off-site location and any such off-site pazking arrangement shall. be subject to review and: approval by the City.. The existing Calvary Chapel Open Door Church has been operafing withouf complaints from the community. The proposed modification would be contained. within the existing building and parking is provided for the expansion. Staff believes that the proposed amendment to expand the church is appropriate and recommerids approval of this request. Respectfully submitted, Concurred by, Agin Princi al Planner _ Plannin Director __g P g Attachments• L Original Planning Commission Resolution 2. Gity of Fullerton Lease Agreement 3. Prior minutes SR-CUP2007-05247gsk ATTACFIIVIEIVT Pt®. 1 PR®.)ECT SLTIVIIVIAIt4' Ci1P 3693 (CiJP2007-05247) IDevelo naent Skanctard Pr® osed Pro'ect :C-G cone standards Site Area 0.8 acres N!A Parking 108 spaces required 112 spaces provided* Landscaping (existing) Adiacent to: Feet Feet Hazbor Blvd. 16-32 15 North 8** 10 South 0 0 Buildings setbacks Adiacent to: Feet (existing) Hazbor Blvd. 18-32 15 North 100 0 South 10 0 Signs No sign plans submitted Will comply with Code re uirements *Includes the property leased from the City of Fullerton **Waver of setback approved with CUP3693 [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2007- A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-82 ADOPTED IN CONECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3693 (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05247) (] 011 NORTH HARBOR BOULEVARD) WHEREAS, on August 16, 1994, the Anaheim City Council adopted Resolution No. 94R-207 to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 3693 for three (3) yeazs, to expire on June 27, 1997, to permit a church including on-site food collection, distribution and storage facilities in conjunction with church related activities with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on the property located at 1011 North Harbor Boulevard (Calvary Chapel Open Door); and WHEREAS, on August 18, 1997, the Anaheim City Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC97-120 to amend the conditions of approval pf Resolution No. 94R-207 and reinstate Conditional Use Permit No. 3693 for an additional three (3) yeazs to expire on June 27, 2000; and WHEREAS, on June 19, 2000, the Anaheim City Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC2000-82 to amend; in their entirety, the conditions of approval of Resolution Nos. 94R-207 and PC97-120 approved in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 3693 and reinstate and remove the time limitation of Conditional Use Permit No. 3693 to retain a church at 1011 North Harbor Bou]evard; and WHEREAS, this property is currently developed with a church; that the facility is zoned General Commercial (C-G); and the Anaheim General Plan designates this property for General Commercial land uses; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 3693 to amend exhibits to permit the interior expansion of an existing church, adding approximately 1,300 square feet of assembly area and 1,500 square feet of office use, pursuant to Code Section 18.08.030.040:0402 (Community and Religious Assembly) of the Anaheim Municipal Code; and:. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 17, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required bylaw and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the Following facts: Cr\PC2007- -1- PC2007- 1. That the proposal to amend apreviously-approved conditional use permit to pennit the interior expansion of an existing church is property one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.08.030.040.0402 (Community and Religious- Assembly). 2. That the proposed expansion of the existing church'would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area because there is no change in use and the existing church is operating with no adverse affects to adjoining land uses. 3. That the size and shape of the site for the church is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to health and safety. 4. That granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and will continue a land use that is compatible with the surrounding area. 5: That *** indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: Planning staff has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15303, Class 1 (Existing Facilities), as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission for the reasons hereinabove stated does hereby amend and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 3693 (Tracking No. CUP2007-05247) to amend exhibits to permit an expansion to an existing church. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby amend the conditions of approval of City Council Resolution No. 94R-207, pertaining to Conditional Use Permit No. 3693, as follows:.. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following conditions shall be complied with: That the. subject property is required to maintain a minimum of 33 parking spaces on-site at all times. Said information shall be specifically shown on plan submitted for building permits. In addition, the applicant shall maintain an agreement recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder with the City of Fullerton for 79 off-street parking spaces at 627 West La Palma for this use as required by the City, and in a form approved by the City Attorney. The number of pazking spaces shall be in excess of that which is required by Code for the water related uses. Prior to final building and zoning inspections the following conditions shall be complied with: That an Emergency Listing Cazd, Form APD-281, shall be filed with the Police Department. -Z- PC2007- That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the revised plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans aze on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 Rev. No. 1, Exhibit No. 2 Rev. No: -- 1, Exhibit No. 3 Rev. No. 1 and previously approved Exhibits 4 through 8, and as conditioned herein. General Conditions: 4. That there shall be no on-site food collection, storage or distribution permitted at this location. S. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage azeas shall be designed., located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum one-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum three-foot centers or tall shrubbery. 6. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, .and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from the time of discovery. 7. That :adequate lighting of parking lots, driveway, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses and ground contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and vehicles onsite. 8. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 9. That timing for compliance with conditions of approval maybe amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition(s), (ii) the modification complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. 10. That extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval maybe granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal. 11. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regazding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, except as amended herein, Resolution No. 94R- 207 shall remain in full force and effect. _3_ PC2007- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition" or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall lie deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within I S days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 17, 2007.. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60, "Zoning Provisions -General" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) . COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Moms, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission held on September 17, 2007, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of 2007. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -4 PC2007- Attachment -Item No. 6 ~. WAIVER ~ CAE REQUIREMEPfT Approusd se. caNOmoNAL usE PERafn• Na. a®ao Grar8r3d OWNER: PAUL &AR77UANN AND RAARGARt:T ANN PdrtTAAAIdN, 14501 Ph®Ipiana.~Soaxxa.CA 85370 AGENT: RQLiER S7AFOJiLR, 621 S. Qom. Ar~treirn, CA 925; PAUL K07T C/O PsW Kdi Rashes, ~ K STate Crepe Blvd.. Aa4 CA 9~ LOCATION: t09j N. Propmty B 0.76 I-an tt~ ~ls d F and laud ~ f swath of ~ ~ ~ Paltt~ AvWa~. To psandt a dxeeh an-st® and ~ eonjta vr8h dwach a! ndntrrsear raard d pain and n snd yard srr$ss for r t~tDRtOHAL 1~E PER~1T RESOLUTtOH q0. ~ A ~ THE G C~SS81 ~ a Pa,~ ~. Amt 122s vv Ltrx~ Avetp~, Csdv~y m C~a ttre deeds tram ~ Sslmol on ta~dsys Prate Ropes . 6215. ttsstr thffi s p aP t!m aRw ®raed l,a P PWk and thsp m . tt~ jrador hr ttw peas ~ m sad a twaaw . t~ a~a a /ch ffi Hb~ Sdmol. erd ~ abas the to Ls P Peek rd flee t tl d~lraa+ Urem ~d wat•d teas m t ap. food Psi nmaa tars ~ t an peat d d ~d tt~y d to ~ awtF prdh tin tlrat t1~1 do aw¢ bus ate t~ w+ ser W8 aup~rt ads ~ ttry tmn Mdp ttrs tl ~/af~ 98 v~aW+~ ~ ttmy tt~t tree ~ a ~a ttdna t~tt~ .. . Pa18 Win, 871 .~!®~: . aaaA~ ffiafed Im teas t ~ dds to au~ 40 y~ta and s 8 a~- and t atd Ise ffi 41~ aueM Lo tip She ald tt~y m ~ ~ llfdafps n m (~ How Stat~R ~ 4Jffi lhty <b trot p~ to ~. a I~r ftmy >n t7Q tl~ prk ~d 17sdp . RAr 91~y~Ad brNp tlaDk ~ tlu paikaad ~ t}n N~4mlt tl~ ~oe~~re~Pmw tna ewddptayet~ Bvydsma~ tidy ~ 8 ID tlu~ ePaBNf r8a9 ~Od. F'ast~ g7~r do 7~ p~ ~o P at Um Wmi~, aad @ a Y 9n tlN CRast~ ~d toad. ~ 8 9UD tlN tt~ay eta 9ultp and tm8 ~ . ~y ~Y~+m ~ and tlaga S~tdfma oaoa a! ttt~ they m ~otp tat not daaeh Bee 7 ~ F+~Y diah+0 teaaoa and Pam rtamy ~ ~+ a and ty{et ~ 7. (Paeoot tte~ ~ abaa so 77~ prs ) ~!a/~ is Mr. Stshlhut ~ 4hat ~ s rim srx! ~Y do ~ have pens to do drat every 8tpxlsy Bard they wrarld plan to to ttrs park ebart 2 p.m.. r~ right oPtsr syowrirp 4srn9 m ®o hors srxi txkrp tlrslr Poad srxl supper trmok to tha perk for ties sw~x. H hamr many pmOpls wotmd ~ krv! h tlrs mar~N 0 group Mr. Ststdlxat B to 1b psops wra~d ~ 4rvoNed srrd k aauld ~ trs4dnp the2 rr of Ihalr wBSrod®d wank to dare on other ekes by srrreii t~ ~ Y~ hkt eaxsm ~ rrxairdy Isrxt use erxt hs dkl rat thkrk this la the ptreo 4a s ka~ df sr~ k etauid ~ to s fts wa6d ~ tnp to wrotid ~ fo ~ trl~ mrtd ~ ho dki rat krxsw thro poik;s tlass ~ trips perm ACTION: N drs r~lar, dY Tstt erg! MOTION CJtRRi[~ ( m &rs N 94 of ri rat). s rratla4 try Tmk sax! MOTION I,AFiRIt~ arx! srxl wotlra8 ra) to 11rs ~ Cod® (Plrxlkstas 6r Petra ~ exxf 29 d tla a r~aq. Pesrre@ No. i h 22 ~ i+9 04 ipro t t~~ 40 1 srd wklr 9Pra Mrs ttiar Nas.1 sax! 4 to rte: t. ?Imt xu!?J~t r~ b epproVSd to s period d ilxos (3) years srxJ shag err Jurre 27,.17. x/29/@3 18 9?a (PREUIOUSItl-l1PPpOifED) .' tae. ca~amaa~. use air wa. ®) " n~rt to ova:. ea~acr~i~, ~oPadn:~rrri.. ' ~ 09 . . . 96509' PP~p I~re®, Smema. CA 85370 ' . . . AOEAIT: .. CdI.VARY CFUBPEI:.OPEN DAR, Stec, aop~ St®f~wrt,t327SaWh Cd'>i28~ LQCWTfO4i: t0iv Noe1h PIS ~ Cnlatsrv CMS! , t 0«x : Property k 09b osro on tl~ ~® of F Badev~td. ?5D faeY -wi4h of tPw of la A To or a d to a tbrm : . m' a eluoelt. . C~ID171 It,RE P R W6:SQLUTIOAI aO: ' PC®9.120. SR1008fW.~C '. _ I-~ ~,.. .. _.L ~I~.. L.i.~_'~. ~I i 1 1~t I a i y ~~ , ~ X19 .'rs.IR~ ~ I .. q: aYaa~. ^ wa..vr~r `.~LeJ - 'a~l.~lrs`L~ __+. Y;. <.i iv9 I ~ SF...e.i „1 _e. . . _ .~}.'.:-. _ - .. .. ~.1.L: ^~':T't:~'n~ ,'~Zfi'1~viCi TT':1 ~~.{~a9' -<'1 ]~. ~':Lc - i:t-% ~`'SA Sc i-3'~:'.'.:~.'^z..'.~ir T- {~~..-~3C-' -Si. :Y -A:•. - 3a-.. _e,. <ze .:i ~` tis 'iri'i:i:d•`•a'~::i+'t3a5n i+i ;~i;f ia~~... a; =1. s~sd~~3•~~'+t,2~4'iti:~a~~p'=i . ,~" Y,r ztil:~%3%)~yi.Syp:f~jy -'daLL'`TC~_.9 s;i.• _ _..i .ta ~_,3-y:;~ik y.5 ~:gye -}'-} .-.4y:~~ '~ ~ ? T j.t Y~ 3yt ~nj'i~[is~add~.°,i31-i-~4 ~'~'~~d ~~3*.,- -i 4- -i d ~ r.w ~.3 ~~Y~1.~iF}tJ[~^~ 11 ~. .pia ~ ~3Ty Sf~~zgid;t~,,t~~~r•~~~~M~~3-~~Y',€3c'S3<. ti 2 i 9 #iY~ tg .Y~ a to i1. ]3S,j [ ..3a_ i'f~~s vey~~~ 1Y'. a$-;'~i-ts"e.9~ ~~~3;; v ~o(( ~~-j L~ ~i -~i~{{ y .[y?.F iM((-~ ~y 11 iy;.27 iFf~~' ~fi{ '~-i - ~.>ai "$d'~4y{ ~~gj(. q7 }~~9II1~I.b ~~R3:. ~~J+i7„~.yC t..~;~k1 ~{.~if l~4[.1?. ~5~8 ~~`~~~~~~:{~3ly~vt...~~-19,T2~,-jw3}4 ~~~iYi~l .... _, ~ ~ ~ i.r A,9 w •: S`: Y'1 :~. 'i'L.a'14~'iii :^i 1. '..C t f ~ ~ { ti t ~1 .r ..a. z :.., -. ^_ > . .:: . 1 ,.. . ,~.. ~ .tl 3~i (COPY - .. ~.i ,.. i3: - : OA29~ 88~ 6:94f3-,dUT_ . yam. ~ _ _ .. . . 6G4t1 .- r., r.. t _ i~ - .. :: , ;. .>. ` .- ~ _ .. i ,: - .. r F. ~.2"1. 1 ' L ~ sr t "f~ t; l+' _ . C -. ~.d :: ~' ~ i i .... .. .. u Y:. k ~' `= ~ ~'. ~ ~ ,lam) ~_' ~ r ,, ~. ~.. ; . r .;. ` wi8ds ~ 1 hams~90~ .r i ~. ~ ~ ~' i ~: L x + cp stir . - ~;~ ~~ _ ~: 13 1 .. _. 1 ~- _ 1 ... .. .:.y, ~..~~..-.. . i., .'. is ~: ;}:: ~~ ~'~f:~~14:[~`~.L':.:>): '. 1 ` MAV s, aoo3 PLANNING COMMISSION Sa. CEQA CATEGORICAL t~CEMPTION -CLASS 11 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04679 OWNER: John Cerison, City of Fullerton, 303 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92832 AGENT: Roger Stahihut, 621 South Clementine Street, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 627 West La Palma Avenue. Property is approx(metely 5.8 acres having a frontage of 569 on the north side of La Palma Avenue, located 570 feet west of the cenledine of Harbor Boulevard. To construct a parking lot accessory to an existing church wfth waiver of setback for institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERMR RESOLUTION NO. PC2003.64 Concurred with staff Approved Granted sr8593vn.doc Chairperson Bostwick Introduced Item No. 5 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04679, 627 West La Palma Avenue, a request to construct a parking lot accessory to an existing church with waiver of setback for institutional uses adjacent to a residental zone. Applicant's TesOmony: Roger Stahihut, Pastor of Calvary Chapel Open Door, Anaheim, CA, states they request additional parking adjacent to the present church locetlon. Chairperson Bostwick asked if he read the staff report and agrees with the conditions. Mr. Stahihut responded he has read the staff report, but has concerns with Condition No. 4. Chairperson Bostwick explained Condition No. 4 should have stated 6-foot high instead of 8-fool Mr. Stahihut states wrrently there are Doty two properties that do not have a 6-foot high wal{. He asked if staff is stating he should install an additional 6-toot high wall beyond what is currently on the adjacent properties. Mr. McCafferty states staff wants him to fill in areas where there Is not a chain link wall. Chairperson Bostwick states he should fill in where there is not currently a 6-foot block wall on any of the properties adjacent to the subject property with a &foot block well. Mr. Stahihut states concern with Condition No. 11, regarcting Iightlng. Presently, the guidelines states there would be no evening parking unless there is a special event, end the gates in the additional area are to be locked so that noane would be permitted in. So, it seems unnecessary. Cammissioner Koos clarified that Condition No. 11 does not state that he must install lighting, but that lighting should be decorative. Mr. McCafferty clarifies bemuse It backs to residential, staffs primary concern is that ff Iightlng is put in, it should be decorative and at the height that complies with Code, which is 12 feet. Chairperson Bostwick wished to clartiy fF It would be a problem if the applicant installed decorative lighting at the ends of the turnaround, etc.; to ensure people saw the curbs. 05-05-03 Page 25 MAY 5, 2003 PLAPJNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. McCafferty clamed it would not be a problem. o ® e ® e o OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Eastman absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur wkh staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11 (Accessory Structures), as deflned In the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and Js,lherefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditlonal Use Pennk No. 2003-04679 (to construct a parking lot accessory to an existing church), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated May 5, 2003, with the following modification: Modified Condition No. 4 to read as follows: 4. That anaight-(S}4seta six (6) foot high decoratNe masonry block wail shall be constructed and maintained along the north property line for those residences that wrrently do not have a block wall sapareting their rear yards from the proposed parking lot. Clinging vines to eliminate greffdi opportunities shall be planted on maximum 3-foot centers, irrigated end maintained, adjacent to said wall. Said Informa0on shall he specifically shown on plans submitted for Zoning and Building Division approval VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Eastman absent) Selma Mann, Assistant C(ty Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal fights. DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (3:033:10) 05-05.03 Page 26 Attachment -Item No. 6 SECOND AMENDMENT OF LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF FULLERTON AND CALVARY CHAPEL OPEN DOOR CHURCH This Second Amendment of Lease Agreement ("Amendment") is entered into this 17 day of July 2007, by and between the Cfty of Fullerton, a California municipal corporation ("LESSOR") and Calvary Chapel Open Door Church ("LESSEE"), pursuant to the authority of Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code, and Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution. 1. Recitals. LESSOR and LESSEE previously entered into a Lease Agreement dated as of July 16, 2002. The parties desire to amend the Original Agreement on the terms and conditions more specifically set forth below. 2. Amendment of Section 4 "Term" shall replaced in the Original Agreement in the following form: 3. The term of this Lease shall be five (5) years ("Term") commencing on the date LESSEE begins construction of the LESSEE Facilities (as defined in Paragraph 6(a) below) or no later than two (2) months following execution of this agreement ("Commencement Date"), whichever occurs first, and terminating on the fifth anniversary of the Commencement Date unless othenNise terminated as provided in Paragraph 9. LESSEE shall have the option to renew the lease for four (4) additional five-year (5) terms (the "Renewal Term") upon a written request 180 days :prior to lease termination. 4. Amendment of Section 5 add a paragraph (d) in the following form: d) Notwithstanding subsection 5(b) above, at the commencement of each Renewal Term, the Rent will also be subject to review using current fair market value analyses for comparable facilities in Orange County. LESSOR and LESSEE shall meet sixty (60) days prior to the commencement of each Renewal Term and confer in good faith to arrive at a mutually agreeable fair market value amount. Limitation of Amendment. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this amended Agreement as of this date first above written. C~ °~bq3 CITY OF FULLERTON CHURCH By: ~~ Donald K. Hoppe Director of Engineering Date:.-J u ~v 2 U , 2~? By: C~L~, Beverley White City Clerk Date: ~ ~~0-0"1 Richard .Jones City Atto ey CALVARY CHAPEL OPEN DOOR Printed Name: ~ 4~ .S1~G-4c-~F~~ Title: ~~ rile o 2 Pig ~'~ Date: ~ ~- / ~ ~ 0 7 By: _ Printed Name: r1tL~ Lo,hG^`y Title: .dss,s>,~„<< Adw1<,~r.~sih~aTo~ Date: ~~~9~? T Tax ID#: -~3-a~~dZav Attachment -Item No. 6 RESOLDTION NO. 94R-207 A RESOLDTION OF THE CITY COIINCIL OF' " THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL IISE PERMIT NO. 3693. " WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive an"application for a conditional use permit with a waiver of certain provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code to permit a church including on-site food collection, distribution and storage. facilities, with church-related activities upon certain real property located within the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, legally described as: ' THAT PORTION OF"LOT 13 OF THEMILESRANCHO, AS PER NAP RECORDED IN"BOOK 4, PAGE 7 OF MISCELL•e*~'OIIS NAPS, 24J THE OFFICE OF THE COIINTY RECORDER OF SAIDCOIINTY, TOGETHER WITS THAT PORTION OF SPADRA ROAD, VACATED BX ORDER OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF SAID CODNTY, A "COPY OF WBICH WAS RECORDID MAY 16, 1917 IN BOOR 11, PAGE 176"OFDEIDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 2'~AS SHOWN ONA PARCEL~NAP FILID ZN BOOK 52, PAGE 41 OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE'OFFICE' OF THE CODNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COIINTY; and WSERFRF.AS,'the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing upon said application at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim, notices of which public hearing were duly given as ze~llTed by law and the provisions of Title 18, Chapter 18.03 of the Anaheim Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and studies made by itself and in its behalf and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, did adopt. its Resolution No. PC94-83 granting Conditional IIse Permit No. 3693; and WHEREAS, thereafter, within the time prescribed by law, an interested party or the City Council, on its own motion, caused the review of said Planning Commission action at a duly noticed public hearing; and WHEREAS, at'tbe time`and place fiiced for said public. hearing, the City Council did duly hold and conduct such hearing and did give all persons interested therein an opportunity to be heard and"did receive evidence and reports; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after careful consideration o! the recommendations of the City Planning Commission and all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, that: 1. The proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Anaheim Municipal Coda. 2. The proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located. 3. The sire and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of.the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety and general welfare. 4. The traffic generated by the proposed"use will not ' impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area.. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. WSEREAS, the City Council does Further find with regard to the hereinafter specified proposed waiver(s)"of Anaheim Municipal Code requirements, other than the proposed waiver of off-street parking requirements, as follows: 1. That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity; and 2. That, because of special circumstances shown in (1) alwve, strict application of the zoning code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed'by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity; and WHEREAS, the City Council does further find and determine with regard to the proposed waiver o! certain ' off-street parking requirements that:. 1. The variance will not cause a!f increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect the adjoining land uses: and 2. The granting of the variance under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety or general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of t$e City oP Anaheim that Conditional IIse Permit No. 3693 be, and the same is hereby, granted permitting on the hereinabove descibed real property with a waiver oY the following provigiot:s oP the Anaheim Municipal Code: -a- (A) Sections 18.06.050.0266 - Minimum nu be gg,Parkino BDaC@B. ]ls.o6.oeo (Zg, required; g~ existing and recommended and 18.44.066.050 by approved parking demand study, as concurred to by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for this specific usE and site) (8) .Sections 18.04.042.020 - MiniIDUm setback and areas for institutional uses. and 18.44.063 {15-foot minimL~ landscaped setback adjacent to single family residential zone' boundaries to north and west requited; s-feet'@xisting along north property line and none existing along west property line) subject. to the following conditionse ~1. That subject use is hereby approved for a period of . three (3) years and shall ta~~*+ate on June 27, 1997. ~2. That there shall be no on-site food distribution permitted. 3. (a) That a m+n;nn,n, forty five (45) on-site parking .spaces shall be provided; (b) That a m9t+;im+m eight (e).foot fully landscaped setback be maintained along the north property line abutting the single family residential properties; and (c) That a m++++~*+^^ of eight (8) 15-gallon tre@s of a rapid growth variety shall be installed and maintained at not more than twenty (20) feet on- center to provide an effective visual screen between the proposal and adjacent residential uses. 4. That the.number of people in attendance at any worship service or church-related activity shall be limited to a maximum of aevemy (70) parsons on Sundays and twenty (20) persons at all other times. This condition maybe modified by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations itam upon recommendation of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. 5. Delated. - 3 - 6. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordanca.vith 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 through 5; except as otherwise.required in connection with Condition Nos. 3, 11 and 12, herein.. 7~. That prior to commencement of activity authorized by this resolution, or prior to final zoning inspection, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 3, 5, 6, 10, 11 and 12, herein-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 Coda. 8. That the trigs generated by the food distribution activity shall be limited to a maximum of fifty (50) trip ends . per week. 9. That all food deliveries, .both to and from the site, shall be done with small delivery vehicles. 10. Deleted. 11. That the location of the freezer shown on the approved exhibit shall be shifted so that the freezer is located to the east of the refrigeration unit. 12. That canopy trees shall be planted along the north property line oa maximum twenty (20) foot centers. 13. That approval of this apglication constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with try 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 regardu~g.a~ other applicable ordinance, regulation or zequirement. HE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find and determine .that adoption oP this Resolution is expresslp predicated won applicant°s compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should airy such waditioxts, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court o! competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. - ~ - TBE FOREGOING RESOLDTION,is approved and adopted by the city Council oP the City oP Anaheim this ~~ day of ° Auaast 1994. OF .! 0 ANAS'EIt[ BSTEST: ~- CITS! CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANASEIP4 Item No. 7 RIVERSIDE FREEWAY a z a ~ o J D A ANAHEIM CITY L/MITS~®"v. A35 C-G RCL 2007-00209 RCL5537-13 CUP 2007-05247 VACAM 0o v~i~v°rm ~6'vo~~v "S~~q ooa 4 pm"~~OON O~~~~ a O1°>o•~oN o0 UUJ~'~Na7 NN CY~Ua ]U a Kd,~o;7U ]~ U l-U< M F> ~ r~~L ~ ~ ~' '~ '~ ~ °i ~ ~ ~ _ VAR 1946-24 '~4 x'~. .L~, ~.b k~ 7E j A KWSBURBKY INC ~, ,, ~ ~y ~,~ ' ' ~ S /~ . .^~ .~xA ~ ~~ ~ ~~ I M y ~ ~sxu ~, r ~~ ~' "~' COMMERCIAL STREET ~ s ~ RCL 76-77-18 r~ yy ° ,x ' ~~:: a # : RCL 56.57-13 ~ , sue: €? ~,;, ._ ~~_T CARL KARCHER COMMISSARY E%« `r ; ~+ I a ~N = =~' & INSTRIBl1TION CENTER ,,~ , , , . '" CARL KARCHER COMMIBSARY -, & DISTRIBUTION CENTER ~~~~~ ' t I ALLIED BUILDING ~ ~ ~ , PRODUCTS CUP 1438 ~ C-G W RCL 86-87-06 -I 8 RCL 51-52-2 I RCL 67-06 RCL 51-52-2 RCL 51-52-2 O RCL 73-74-57 CUP 3518 CUP 1438 m CARL KARCHER OFFICES ~ W CUP 2839 INDUSTRIAL FIRMS Q A Q AL L PROPERTI E S ARE IN THE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL (N ORTH CENTRAL AREA) REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Reclassification No. 2007-00209 Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05241 Requested By: KARCHER PARTNERS `` -~ Subject Property Date: September 17, 2007 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 70 1325 North Anaheim Boulevard 10369 ITEM NO. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 2007. FROM: ' ' PLANNINGbIRECTOR SUBJECT: RECLASSIFICATION NO. N0.2007-00209 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.2007-05241 LOCATION: 1325 North Anaheim Boulevazd and 401 Carl Karcher Way. APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: DMJM Design / Karcher Partners, CLP. REQUEST: The applicant proposes to reclassify the subject property from the General Commercial (C-G)'and Transition (T) zones to the Industrial (I) zone. The proposal also includes a request for a conditional use permit to construct an office building:..The applicanf proposes parking and vehicular accessways within the required landscaped 'setback adjacent to Anaheim Boulevard and the SR-91 Freeway. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission take the following action: (a) By motion, continue the hearing to the October 15; 2007, Planning Commission meefing to allow the applicant to revise the proposed elevations. BACKGROUND: The existing building has been demolished. The property is located in the General Commercial (C-G), Transition (T) and Industrial (I) zones: The General Plan designates this property and properties to the south,' east and west for Industrial land uses. The Riverside Freeway (SR-91) is located to the north of the property: The property is located within the Merged Redevelopment Area. PROPOSAL: The'applicant proposes'to construct a 3-story, 93,360 square foot 'professional office building:: The building is intended to become the corporate headquarters for Carl Kazcher Enterprises (CKE) Please refer to the project summary chart attached to the staff report for project details (Attachment No: 1). ANALYSIS: The proposed office building complies with code with the exception of 'the two requested waivers relating to setbacks.' To create'aparcel with consistent zoning, the applicant requests o change the zoning of the property:` Thischange will implement the existing General Plan land use designationof Industrial.. This site is very visible to the Riverside Freeway and is a part of the gateway into the City: Staff has 200 S. Anaheim 91vd.. suite alsz concerns with the proposed architecture of the building especially because of its Ananeim, ca szao6 location. Staff has provided the following analysis and recommendations. Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00209 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNO. 2007-05241 September 17, 2007 Page2of3 Issue: Proposed Industrial Zoning' The property is located in three (3) zones. The applicant requests to change the zoning of the property to the Industrial (I) zone to create one consistent zone for the development. The proposed zoning would implement the General Plan designation of Industrial for the property. The proposed zoning is also compatible with the zoning of properties to the south, east; and west:' The Industrial (I) zone permits offices subject to approval of a condifional' use permit: This proposed building would be the headquarters for the company and would serve the administrative needs of the company:' Issue: Waiver of minimum landscaped setback adjacent to Anaheim Boulevard Code requires a twenty (20) foot landscape setback adjacent to'Anaheim Boulevazd; but the applicant proposes a fifteen (15) foot setback. In order to reduce the required setback, the Commission must find that the code deprives the property ofprivileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity or there are special circumstances that apply to just that property. The property is unique because it is irregularly shaped. with frontages on two (2) public rights-of--way. These characteristics. significantly limit the amount of usable land azea which further limits the ability to provide the minimum setbacks; required parking, and adequate circulation: The property to the south ha5an existing landscape setback. of 10 feet. A 10 foot setback would be consistent along this portion of Anaheim Boulevazd. Considering the special`eircumstances affecting this propertyand privileges enjoyed by similazly-zoned properties in the azea; staff recommends approval of this waiver. ; Issue: Waiver of minimum landscaped setback adjacent to the Riverside Freeway (SR-91) Code requires a fifteen (15) foot landscape setback adjacent to the SR-91 Freeway: The applicant proposes a landscape. setback ranging from ten (10) to fifty-nine (59) feet. The portion of the property adjacent to the SR-91 Freeway has an irregular shape. The widest portion ofthe landscape planter is adjacent to the freewaybn-ramp where it will be most visible. The portions of the landscape planter that aze only 10 feet wide are adjacent to freeway right-of--way which has landscaping ranging. from sixty (60) to seventy (70) feet,. The landscape plan provides more trees than required by code and a mixture of landscape plants to compensate for the reduction in depth. Due to the irregular shape of this property, and its proximity to a landscaped freeway,' the intent of the code is satisfied, so staff recommends approval of this waiver.. RECLASSIFICATION N0.2007-00209 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNO.2007-05241 September 17, 2007 Page 3 of 3 Issue: $uilding Architecture Staffhas concerns over the proposed architecture given this property's highly visible location. Staff believes it is extremely important for the building to be well articulated in a manner that is consistent with the Community Design Element of the General Plan. It is important for the building to be designed to include a visible main entrance, a complementary range of building colors and materials, breaks in the vertical and horizontal building lines; and treatment of the roof screen to be better incorporated with j the design of the building. The City's consulting azchitect concurs with staff s concerns and has provided some recommendations to alleviate these issues. These recommendations have been provided to the applicant, but they could not be addressed in time for this meeting. Staff is supportive of this request to construct an office building. The proposed building would be compatible with adjacent land uses in the area. However, staff does not believe that the proposed elevations will enhance the surrounding neighborhood. This is a very prominent corner of the City and is highly visible to vehicular traffic along the freeway. Therefore, staff recommends a continuance of the hearing for the applicant to redesign the elevations: The applicant believes the proposed elevations incorporates a variety of colors and the incorporation of horizontal and vertical reveals help to break-up the horizontal mass of the building. The applicant would like to move forward with this request and defer any outstanding elevation issues to staff for review and approval. Respectfully submitted, Concurred by, I /~~ 2/l~ Cam, ~ r }'~ , ,~,~ Acting Principal Planner Planning Director Attachments• 1. Project Summary 2. Justification of Waiver Form 3. Draft conditions 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan A'I"I'ACIINIEN'I' Pl®. i PIt®.TECT SUIVINIAR~' RECLASSIFICA'TI®1V N®.2007-00209 I)evelo ment Standard Pro osed.Project I done Standards Site Area 5.4 Acres N/A Pazking 373 s aces 373 s aces Landscaping Setback Adjacent to Anaheim I5-59* feet 20 feet Adjacent to SR-91 10-38* feet 15 feet Interior 10 feet 0 feet Building Setback Adjacent to Anaheim 93-128 feet 50 feet Adjacent to SR-91 78 feet 25 feet Interior 64 feet 0 feet Floor Area Ratio .39 N/A Building Height 56 feet 100 feet *Waiver requested. [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2007-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00209 BE GRANTED WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified petition for Reclassification for real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as follows: THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 2 AND 3, TOGETHER WITH THAT. PARCEL OF LAND DESIGNATED AS (RESIDUAL). IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FIELD IN BOOK 110. PAGES 30 AND 31 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL L• BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2 WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF ANAHEIM. BOULEVARD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LEMON STREET); THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINEN 0°02" 38"W 394.60 FEET; THENCE 89°51'22" E 5.00 FEET; THENCE N 00°02'38" W 100.00 FEET; THENCE 8°34'28"W 101.12 FEET; THENCE N 9°49'32" W 82.89 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL DESIGNATED AS RESIDUAL; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL N 85°43'02" E 76.78 FEET; THENCE 82°56'35" W 63.32 FEET; THENCE S 63°37'53" W 138.10' FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINES 63°55'29" W 57.391 FEET; THENCE S 52°29'39" W 128.50 FEET. THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINES 26" 22' 12" E 144.94 FEET; THENCE S 0°O1' 12" E 368.54 TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2; THENCE ALONG SAID .SOUTHERLY LINEN 89°54'00" E 387.19 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION IN FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED JANUARY 23, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 20010039326 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL 1 CONTAINS 5.682 ACRES CR\PC2007-0 -t- PC2007- PARCEL 2 PARCEL 2 AND 3. TOGETHER WITH THAT PARCEL OF LAND DESIGNATED AS (RESIDUAL). IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FIELD IN BOOK 110, PAGES 30 AND 31 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF. THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, EXCEPTION THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING PORTION OF LAND: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2 WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF ANAHEIM BOULEVARD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LEMON STREET); THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINEN 0°02" 38"W 394.60 FEET; THENCE N 89°57'22" E 5.00 FEET; THENCE N 00°02'38" W 100.00 FEET THENCE 8°34'28"W 101.12 FEET; THENCE N 9°49'32" W 82.89 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL DESIGNATED AS RESIDUAL; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL N85°43'02"E 76.78 FEET; THENCE S 82°56'35" W 63.32 FEET; THENCE S 63°37'53" W 138.10 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINES 63°55'29"W 57.91 FEET; THENCE S 52°29'39"W 128.50 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINES 26"22'12" E 144.94 FEET; THENCE S 0°Ol' 12" E 368.54 TOA POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLX LINEN 89°54'00" E 387..19 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION IN FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED JANUARY 23, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NO.201 1 003 93 26 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL 2 CONTAINS 4.05 ACRES NOTE: BEARING AND DISTANCES HEREON ARE FROM RECORD INFORMATION PER PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1 t0 PAGES 30 AND 31 OF PARCEL MAPS BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE BEARING OF CENTER LINE OF ANAHEIM BOULEVARD BEING N 0°02'38"W PER -2- PC2007- PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 110 PAGES 30 AND 31 OF PARCEL MAPS. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a puhlic hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 17, 2007 at 2:30 p.m., notice of said.public hearing haying been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 "Procedures", to hear and cpnsider evidence for and against said proposed reclassification and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; .and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That the applicant requests for reclassification ofsubject property from the C-G (General Commercial) and T (Transition) zones to the I (Industrial) zone. 2. That the Anaheim General Plan designates subject property for Industrial ]and uses and the proposed I (Industrial) zone is an appropriate implementation zone for this land use designation. 3. That the proposed reclassification ofsubject property is necessary and/or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community. 4. That the proposed reclassification ofsubject property does properly relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in close proximity to subject property and to the zones and their permitted uses generally established throughout the community. 5. That *** indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to subject petition. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and does hereby approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the associated Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. X upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study, including the .analysis of potential aesthetic, air quality and utilities and service systems impacts and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE I'I' RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby approve the subject Petition for Reclassification to authorize an amendment to the Zoning Map of the Anaheim Municipal Code to exclude the above-described property from the C-G (General Commercial), T (Transition) Zone and to incorporate said described property into the I (Industrial) Zone upon the following conditions which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the -3- PC2007- proposed use of subject property in order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find .and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicants compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such conditions, or any part thereof, be declazed invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall not constitute a rezoning of, or a commitment by the City to rezone, the subject property; any such rezoning shall require an ordinance of the City Council, which shall be a legislative act, which maybe approved or denied by the City Council at its sole discretion. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declazed invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionazy case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 17, 2007. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 "Procedures" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and maybe replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -4- PC2007- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim .Planning Commission held on September 17, 2007, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of 2007. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -5- PC2007- Attachment - ]rem No. 7 ATTACHMENT NO. I DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECLASSIFICATION N0.200'7-00209 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE SUBMITTED BY VARIOUS CITY ASSOCIATED WAIVERS ARE APPROVED. Prior to issuance of a buildine permit or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, the followine conditions shall be complied with: That adequate lighting of pazking lots, driveway, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses and ground contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and vehicles on-site. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Police Department, Community Services Division approval: 2. That an on-site trash trackturn-aoound shall be provided per Engineering Standard Detail No. 476 and maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. Said turn-around area shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits: 3, That a plan sheet for solid waste storage, collection; and a plan for recycling shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Street and Sanitation for review and approval. 4. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department; Said storage aeeas shall be designed, located and screened as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum one-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits, 5. That 4-foot high street address numbers shall be displayed flat on the roof of the building in a color that contrasts with the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the streets or adjacent properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 6. That all new backflow equipment shall be located above ground and outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets. Any other lazge water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division in either underground vaults or outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be specifically.. shown on plans and approved by the Water Engineering Department. That all requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonment of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department, 8. That since this project has a landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet, a separate irrigation meter shall be installed in compliance with Chapter 10.19 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 9. That all existing water services and fire lines shall conform to current Water Service Standards Specifications. Any water service and/or fire line that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded if continued use is necessary or abandoned if the existing water service is no longer needed. The owner/developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water service of the fire line. 10. That the developer shall improve Anaheim Boulevard with a 8-foot wide parkway and 5-foot wide sidewalk. The curb may remain in place and does not need to be relocated. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 11. That the parkway and sidewalk along Anaheim Boulevard shall be constructed with the parkway irrigation connected to the on-site irrigation system and maintained by the property owner. A bond for the required improvements shall be posted in an amount approved by the City Engineer and a form approved by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a building permit. A Right of Way Construction Permit shall be obtained from the Development Services Division for all work performed in the right-of--way. The improvements shall be constructed prior to final building and zoning inspections. 12. That the locations for future above-ground utility devices including, but not limited to, electrical transformers, water backflow devices, gas, communications and cable devices, etc., shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits. Plans shall also identify the specific screening treatments of each device (i.e: landscape screening, color of walls, materials, identifiers, access points, etc.). 13. That any existing public or private easements on the property that conflict with the building footprint shall be abandon prior to issuance of building permits. 14. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer's expense... I5. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public street. Installation of any gates .shall conform to Engineering Standard Plan No. 609 and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager prior to issuance of a building permit. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 16. That plans shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and approval in conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, and 470 pertaining to parking standards and driveway location. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. 17. That all plumbing or other similar pipes and fixtures located on the exterior of the building shall be fully screened by architectural devices and/or appropriate building materials. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 18. That street improvement plans shall be submitted for the modified traffic signal and related traffic circulation improvements at the intersection of Commercial Street and Anaheim Boulevard to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division for review and approval. 19. That a bond shall be posted for all traffic related street improvements, including, but not limited to, traffic signals(including modification of the signals and relocation of signal poles and equipment), directional signage, striping, and median islands as required for said project. 20. That a performance bond shall be posted to guazantee installation ofright-of--way improvements in an amount approved by the City Engineer and a form approved by the City Attorney. ARight-of--way Construction Permit shall be obtained from the Development Services Division for all work performed in the right-of--way. The improvements shall be made prior to certificate of occupancy. Prior to issuance of a eradina permit, the followine conditions shall be comalied with: 21. That grading plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division to improve Anaheim Boulevard in conformance with Public Works Standard Detail No. 110-B and the Department of Public Works Landscape and Irrigation Manual for Public Streets, Highway, Right-of--way and Easements. 22. That a Drainage Study shall be prepared be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in the State of California. The study shall be based upon and reference the latest edition of the Orange County Hydrology Manual and the applicable City of Anaheim Master Plan of Drainage for the project azea. All drainage sub-area boundaries per the Master Plan for Drainage shall be maintained. The study shall include: an analysis of 10 and 100-yeaz storm frequencies; an analysis of all drainage impacts to the existing storm drain system based upon the ultimate project build-out condition; and address whether off-site and/or on-site drainage improvements will be required to prevent downstream properties from being flooded. 23. That it shall be demonstrated that coverage has been obtained under California's General Permti for Stormwater Dischazages Associated with Construction Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Boazd and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste:..,. Discharge Identification (WDID) Number. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (S WPPP) shall be prepared and implemented. A copy of the current SWPPP shall. be kept at the project site and be available for City review on request. 24. That prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division for review and approval a Water Quality Management Plan that: • Addresses Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or "zero dschazge" areas, and conserving natural areas. • Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area Management Plan. • Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in DAMP. Describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs. • Describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs. • Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. Prior to final building and zonine inspections the followine conditions shall be comalied with: 25. That prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall: • Demonstrate that all structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP have been constmcted and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications. • Demonstrate that the applicant is prepared to implement all non- structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP. • Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Projects WQMP are available onsite. • Submit for review and approval by the City an Operation and Maintenance Plan for all structural BMPs. 26. That al] street improvements shall be installed for the modified traffic signal and related traffic circulation improvements at the intersection of Commercial Street and Anaheim Boulevard. 27. That fire lanes shall be posted with "No Parking Any Time." 28. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans aze on file with the Planning Department mazked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 10, and as conditioned herein. General conditions: 29. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor "storage uses. 30. That all trash generated from this office building shall be property contained in trash bins located within .approved trash enclosures. The number of bins shall be adequate and the trash pick-up shall be as frequent as necessary to ensure the sanitary handling and timely removal of refuse from the property. The Community Preservation Divisipn of the Planning Department shall determine the need for additional bins or additional pick-up. All costs for increasing the number of bins or frequency of pick-up shall be paid by the business owner. 31. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through the provision of regulaz landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from the time of discovery. 32. That any tree or other landscaping planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 33. That timing for compliance with conditions of approval maybe amended by the Plamming Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition(s), (ii) the modification complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress towazd establishment of the use or approved development. 34. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. ti O 2 d C d L V Q r~r ` ~s v ~' rN ~a /~ ~v/ Gzd r~ NW U ~NiC' `O ~ I jt ~ '~ ~ ~ i 4~ 'o ~O Ana ' Q 5 w U w w Q a Ul 7 o a 0 F `O M ~ a Q ~ ~ z Q O U w O z A W V O ~F+ F~ G U O G Q W Q ~ O U a 7 F w a r z 3 w m Q F Z G:. W A A C 5~ W °^ N T w CJ y r C ~ SCU N ~ d O .. ay '~ . 300 _ '°t° w y N G N N ~ _ 3 N~ u a . . ~ .N n E ~ °. c ~ E '° c ~ C . ° E.~ ° ay E " E ° N•o ^~ 'C U C w ~ v '~ y 7 a m y V. ;C ~ m~ v -'" .E y a - ~ m ~ 5 E .y 3 o m ~ E'~ p; oaa _ v _ v °' 0. 3 ~ v .v v v a m o ~ E y o ~ . c ° u c a. - c v .° 7 O C y ro E N .G CJ y c 3 U tq v v c 'o ttl y+ °°'.. v E v ~. E~ c ~ m v~ c `' 3 'o v E E.~ c v .~ ~av ~ ~ u~ ° E a F v y = C_ Q m v m v c 3 ~ w p. 3 d a . . a o N a v , o E v> O C •O U W m~ cGa ~ y y ~' ttl o E 3 v 3 w c m s 'S a ~ m ,G s e .. E v E 0 3 . ~ T ^ y w . ~ O ~.~w _ o° :: O ~ E o w v y ' y m m~ ~ a. ~F4 d ~ ° OO d E ~ ' O y mT.OC C m y . O 0. J _ O N C_ v~ v m v a E > T v ~~ c G ~~ ~ O N~ S. U O W O~ E O.t ` y bU .. C •p .~. N C . ~" b O U p ". O w ~E ~ O C N C N N O O U L O N y N G M : C v m m C O .Q d C ~ v. N ~ (37 ~~ F" E~ ' " O d C y y ~ w'O v ~: " E ~~~~~ °a~° s ~Ao c ~ o .? a i y .vc E~ d c 3 ~. c~ •= c v E a c .. ~. y a ,~ y o v'E'-% w. U~ o v n v o ~ 2 ~ o .y c~ m ~ . . ~ ; ~~ ~ ° E ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ U c v E s _ W C'C C ~ E~ G ~~~ ~~ R T N ~ y A ~ ~: 'O ... C ~ ~ V 7 v' ~ °p'~ v ~E E v .c C ~ 'C v . C v a i ° v E 'a i~3 ~a ,a.~m sa .. a~ ~ E E m ° m 3 t m tO a • v y A u ~ c v .~ ~~~'Sa ade~° °°' €E~m ~ G c 3 W m m y'o ° h y o `o ~ v C o 0 C , Li' yN cc C 'L' 'J ~~ C C ,C C W .v. v v `a F v~ '.^.. °_ C w O E A E o N e~i Q Vi b N ~ W v 2 °' E p c C W 4 O C O Gp a` a m m cO~ U Attachment -Item No. 7 SECTION 4 PETITIONER'S STATEMENT OF Page 1/3 JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE/CODE WAIVER (NOT REQUIRED FOR PARKING WAIVER) - --- REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION: Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter iO.tU, Building Setbacks 78.10.060 (A separate statement is required for each Code waiver)" PERTAINING TO: 18.10.060.020.0201, Street Setbacks /Arterial Highways =setback not less Than 50', fully landscaped or a min ni 20' landsraped antl remainder used for parkiny and I nr vehicular circulallon ' Sections 18.03.040.030 and 18.12.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code require that before any variance or Code waiver may be granted by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, the following shall be shown: That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topogmphy, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity; and 2. That, because of such special circumstances, strict application of the zoning code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. In order to determine if such special circumstances exist, and to assist the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to amve at a decision, please answer each of the following questions regarding the property for which a variance is sought, fully and as completely as possible. If you need additional space, you may attach additional pages. 1. Are there special gircumstances that apply to the property in matters such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings?_/Yes _ No. If your answer is "Yes," describe the special circumstances: Curronl Property oonsisled out of 12 parcels which were consolidaletl into 3 parcels under LLA H OOOOfi2fi TPM to be fled to allow for a Clean GPA 2. Are the special circumstances tkt t apply to the property different from other properties in the vicinity which are in the same zone as your property? Yes _ No - If your answer is "yes," describe how the property is different: Current Site is comprosed of 3 tlllTerenL zones,; I, C-G 8 T. GPA 2007-0461 has been filed for the entire site to consolidate all zones to C-G with the intention or office space development along Anaheim Blvd 8 future retail space development along Harbor Blvd. The propoesd site devolpment is hosed on a Re-Classificallon io C_G. 3. Do [he special circumstances applicable to the property deprive it of privileges currently enjoyed by neighboring properties located within the same zone? Yes _No If your answer if "yes," describe the special circumstances: Current Site Zoning of I, C-G 8 T make tl difficult to propose harmaneous new development 4. Were the special circumstances created by copses beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property owners)? ~/ Yes _ No EXPLAIN: Due to the fact tharlhe GPA process lakes longer than anticipated (see city planning sommunicallon enclosed) the city suygested to additionally apply far a CUP (lo allow general offce in an I zone). This triggers Iheapplication for setback variaocas. Varianco applications are temporary to bridge fhe GPA process (GPA 2007-0467 ) The sole purpose of any variance or Code waiver shall be to prevent discrimination, and no variance or Code waiver shall be~ approved which would have the effect of granting a special privilege no[ shared by other property in the same vicinity and zone which is not otherwise expressly authorized by zone regulations governing subject property. Use variances are not permitted. Signature of Property Owner or Authorized Agent 37625\DECEMBER 12, 2000 Date CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE NO. cup N0. 2007 - n ~ ~ f~ i Attachment -Item No. 7 SECTION 4 PETITIONER'S STATEMENT OF Page 2/3 JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE/CODE WAIVER (NOT REQUIRED FOR PARKING WAVRER) REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION: Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter tn.t0, Building Setbacks 16.10.060 (A separate statement is required for each Code waiver) PERTAINING TO: 18.10.O6U.020.0202. Street Sethacks !Abutting Collector Streets =setback not less than 2v, fully landscaped or a min of 15' landscaped and remainder used for parking and / or vehicular circulation. Sections 18.03.040.030 and 18.12.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code require that before any variance or Code waiver may be granted by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, the following shall be shown: That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity; and 2. Thal, because of such special circumstances, strict application of the zoning code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. In order to determine if such special circumstances exist, and to assist the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to amve at a decision, please answer each of the following questions regarding the property for which a variance is sought, fully and as completely as possible. [f you need additional space, you may attach additional pages. 1. Are there special gircumstances that apply to the property in matters such as size, shape, topogmphy, location or surroundings? ~ Yes _ No. If your answer is "Yes," describe the special circumstances: Current Property consisted out of 12 parcels which were consolidated Into 3 parcels under LLA ll 0000626 TPM to be filed to allow For a Clean GPA 2. Are the special circumstances th t apply to the property different from other properties in the vicinity which are in the same zone as your property? Yes _ No If your answer is "yes," describe how the property is different Cunanl Site iscomprosed of 3 different zones,; I, C-G 8 T. GPA 2007-0461 has been filed for the entire site to consolidate all zones (e C-G with the inlen6on of office space development along Anaheim Blvd 8 lufure retail space development along Harbor Blvd. The propoesd site develpmenl is based on a Re-Classifcalion to C_G. 3. Do the special circumstances applicable to the property deprive it of privileges currently enjoyed by neighboring properties located within the same zone? Yes _No If your answer if "yes," describe the special circumstances: Cunehf Slle Zoning of I, C-G & T make it difficult to propose hartnoneous new development 4. Were the special circumstances created by causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property owners)? ,y/ Yes _ No EXPLAIN: Due to the tact that the GPA process takes longer than anticipated (see city planning communication enclosed) the city suggested to additionally apply for a CUP (lo allow general oflice'in an I zone). This triggers the application for setback variances. Variance applications ere temporary to bddge the GPA process (GPA 2007-0461) The sole purpose of any variance or Code waiver shall be to prevent discrimination, and no variance orCode waiver shall be approved which would have the effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other property in the same vicinity and zone which is not otherwise expressly authorized by zone regulations governing subject property. Use variances are no[ permitted. Signature of Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date J7626tDECEMBER 12, 2000 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNARIANCE NO. CUP N0. 207 - 0 5 z /~ 1