Loading...
Minutes-PC 1993/04/19 ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1993, AT 11:00 A.M. PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING (PUBLIC TESTIMONY) 11:00 A.M. 1:30 P.M. PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have five minutes to present their evidence. AddRlonal time will be granted upon request ff, in the opinion of the Commission, such additional time will produce evidence Important to the Commission's consideration. 2. in contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be given ten minutes to present their case unless additional lima is requested and the complexity of the matter warrants. The Commission's considerations are not determined by the length of time a participant speaks, but rather by what is said. 3. Staff Reports are part of the evidence deemed received by the Commission in each hearing. r-, Copies are available to the public prior to the meeting. t 4. The Commission will withhold questions until the public hearing is closed. 5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing if, in fts opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned will be served. 6. Ali documents presented to the Planning Commission for review in connection with any hearing, including photographs or other acceptable visual representations or non-documentary evidence, shall be retained by the Commission for the public record and shall be available fcr public Inspections. 7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on Items of interest which are within the Jurisdiction of ttia Planning Commission, and/or agenda Items. Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (5) minutes to speak. AC041993.WP II ta. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISED) I Approved ^ 1b. WANER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied 1 c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3592 (READVERTISED) Denied OWNER: JEAN K. FOGARTY, 6671 Canyon Hills, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: RON JOHNSON, 6757 Leafwood DrNe, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 2880 East Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 1.34 acres located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and approximately 330 feet east of the centedine of Rlo Vista Street. To construct aself-service car-wash facility in conjunction with an existing commercial retail center with waiver of minimum landscape setback abutting an arterial highway, minimum landscape setback abutting asingle-family residential zone boundary and maximum fence height. Continued from the March 8 and April 5, 1993 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. P e FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: 3 - Submitted a petition with 63 signatures against subject proposal. PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Ron Johnson, 6757 Leafwood Drive, Anaheim, CA. He stated at the previous hearings they discussed issues of water conservation and the current condition of the property which is considered blighted. He elaborated. He showed a colored rendering of what they are planning to do. He referenced the noise Issue and explained they are putting a sound barrier extending 440 feet from one side of the property line all the way down. It will be 8-foot high. He spoke with staff as to what the City wanted and he went back to his designer. They have a 10-foot planter area in the rear cf the property. He elaborated. He stated they have a planter in the front of the property exending from the entrance into the property approximately 300 feet. This is what the Cfry required them to do and they complied. They have reduced the vacuum stations to 5 vacuum areas. He stated they had 4 hems that the Planning Commission were contrary to. They have met and in some cases went well beyond what the Commission wanted. He elaborated about the landscaping, the block wall and the noise referencing the exhibits. 04/19/93 Page 2 l„/ ,; He explained they are the ones that are responsible for the maintenance. It is in their Y r agreement that in order to acquire the rights to this piece of property, that they do this and ff t they do not, they have no more rights. ~ He has g(ven everyone pictures of car washes he has owned in Santa Ana; h was once a ~ blighted area, but in all portions of the City there era services that are needed. He came in when that place of property was vacant with tall weeds and graffiti. He stated for four years he maintained and serviced the community in an effective manner. He has not had one complaint on City record that he is in anyway in violation of the rotes and regulations of the City as it applies to noise and keeping up his property_g is In tip top shape. He stated he will have a full time attendant. A clean and orderly piece of property will attract business. He stated the size and shape of the site is not adequate to follow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to adjacent sensflive land issues. i He stated he spoke wrih Altred Yaida, Traffic Engineering. Mr. Yalda told him by closing the planter off, making ft one-way with the flow of traffic In, k would be compatible wRh the City. He went to Sanflation and talked to Joe McCray. He explained rather then have the dump in the rear of the property, they are going to fence the area off and make k a nice trash enclosure. He referenced the exhibft and stated they wanted them to have a recycling center. He stated that was no problem as they believe 10096 in recycling. He referenced the exhibits and spoke about the odor of the trash drifting into the neighbor's yards. Mr. McCray measured everything out and stated h is compatible for the trash trucks. He stated this is not the normal type of property, h has special circumstances. There are low demands for this piece of property because k (s an eye soar. He gave some history on the location. He stated he has done everything what has been requested and beyond. He has gone to all of the neighbors and discussed this project with them. He explained he will have a full time attendant there with a 24-hour emergency number and they can call him at home. He even has his home address available. He has met the rules and regulations of the City which includes noise and as a person that has controlling interest in this property, he has the right to build his project on his property. He stated there are six different types of block walls; fences and different types of conditions on this piece of property. He elaborated. George Leighton, Certffied Acoustical Consultant, 146 East Emerson, Orange, CA. Residential address is 923 Park Circle, Anaheim, CA. He prepared an acoustical analysis of the staff review of this project which was dated today. He went Into detail on this report and copies were submitted to staff and the Planning Commission for their review. 04/19/93 Page 3 ~„J i OPPOSITION: ~' Dale Bradford, 2841 Gerald Circle (submitted a petftion wfth 63 signatures in opposftion to this '~ pmJect); Betty Miller, 2857 Gerald Circle; Cliff Kaywood, 522 S, Janine. R MaJor concerns are: Distressed and unsafe areas; alcoholism; gangs; vandalism; noise and lighting. REBUTTAL: Mr. Johnson made comments relative to the above listed items of concern. He stated this area is in strong need of another facility of this nature. The Planning Department did not require them to submft working drawings showing them he had a bathroom in his equipment room. They went from Ficus to Junipers and he did that because he wanted to go beyond what was being demanded of him. ~ People say he is threatening them-he is not. He would not have given out t~is 24-hour emergency phone no. Also, other people will not glue their home address. Thera is noway that this propo~ty is Invfting or allowing gangs. This would only hurt his business and he wants to enhance his business. He stated that will not be tolerated as he has a full attendant on the sfte. Alcoholism and gangs were brought up. He did not care where you go, you will find a beer can and you cannot escape that. It is his guarantee that this property will be maintained 100°6 at all times as he will have an attendant there at all times. The rear of the property will be closed and no one will be allowed back there-they will maintain ft. He is the one who is responsible for that rear area being clean. If he does not clean ft, cfte him and ff he still does not clean ft, then yank his permft. He elaborated. There is another car wash that backs up to a residential area and they have had no problems. ~. People keep telling him there Is trash. The people dlrertly behind the sfte, no matter what you put there, they are going to object. They would like to have the Cfty buy the piece of property. At Mistime they are proposing something that will add beauty Into the area. Mr. Hayward stated we were threatening this area and wfth his project, they are depriving the value of the property. He stated quite to the contrary. He has a full time attendant. In the rear of the retail, there is no more traffic; no more burger buns; no more papers, etc. He cannot guarantee that no one will break in. However, with a chain link fence ft will reduce the problem. Mrs. Miller commented about the lights. If ft Is a problem, he will change the location of the lights in order to meet her needs. After he submitted his plans, the Cfty recommended that he have a sound consultant. Recommendations were made to him by his consultant and he Incorporated ft irto his project. He went to the neighborhood and asked for Input from them. Some were not going to allow anything. He stated he has complied well and beyond with what the Planning Commission is requiring from their last meeting. This will be a beauty In the area from what was considered blighted from the rear of the properties. 04/19/93 Page 4 ~' THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. f"~ Mr. eorcego stated they do not disagree wffh the fact that Mc Johnson Is going to run a clean operatcon. Staff is more concerned wfth the long term impacts that this type of use could have on the neighborhood and those residences in the event that Mr. Johnson no longer operated the car wash and while k is true that a conditional use permk can be pulled, k is a very longthy and expensive process to ao through and even ff ff were pulled, they would then quite possibly have an abandoned car wash sitting on the site which would probably be much more of a nuisance then the property poses now. '~ Chairman Henninger asked Mr. Bradford to approach the podium. He asked him what sort of use did he see as appropriate for this little piece of land? Mr. Bradford stated he was not against the landlorcJ making a dollar and everything so far teas been very bad. He suggested a small nursery or something similar that would have decent hours. He ~"anted something that was more unobtrusive then a car wash. He is speaking about the beauty of a car wash, but Forest lawn is beautiful and who wants to go there? Melanie Adams stated she wanted to clarity one point. The site of the car wash is not a separate legal parcel of land. It is a portion of a bigger site. Chairman Henninger stated he understands that the graphic which is included with the staff report is Incorrect, that the Imes shown between the words auto repair and the word vacant does not exist as a property line. Ms. Adams stated that is corcect, h was only intended to show the vacant portion of land. Commissioner Peraza stated Mr. Johnson indicated he spoke with the neighbors, but did anyone support it? Mr. Johnson stated yes. Lot 31 had no objections to this project at all. Chairman Henninger asked ff anyone offered to write him a letter of support? Mr. Johnson stated he does have a letter of support from Lot No. 31. He submitted the letter. He stated several other people on B and 9 gave their support as well. Commissioner Caldwell asked for clarification on the noise issuo •±;id how ff affects CEQA. He asked what we have done (as a lead agency) regarding this noise issue? The applicant has his ; report and is this the report we are using? Greg McCafferty, Planning Department, stated typically on a private development project, the applicant bears the burden of supplying the technical reports, so In this case, that is true? Commissioner Caldwell asked ff they have evacuated the applicant's report and does it meet the criteria-does he feel it Is a fair and unbiased analysis of the implications of sound? 04/19/93 Page 5 x ~'~ Mr. McCafferty stated he does not doubt the integrity of the report. Mr. Leighton is a qualified acoustical consultant. Staff is concerned about the noise that cannot be engineered and that is ^ the noise from radios and the human component of the noise and that really cannot be controlled. That is why in the staff analysis they put that the enforceability of an on-site attendant at all times during operations Is very questionable. It would put a burden on the i Code Enforcement staff to see that that was monftored. With regard to Implementing the design measures, staff understands that that is In the building plan check phase, but they Just wanted to make sure that what the sound engineer Is proposing for the noise abatement will work. All they have had to date is block wall enclosures and a sound wall but no details or sample material or boards to make sure that what he was using is the proper sound rated materials for that sort of use. Chairman Henninger referenced section 19 of the staff report. He understands that in the testimony CNEL was inappropriate because it could average the period where they are closed with the normal daytime operation and come up with an aberrant result. Understanding that, did they ever produce an estimate of the CNEL level from this operation? Chairman Henninger asked H they ever gave them an estimate of the CNEL and Mr. McCafferty answered no. Discussion took place regarding the a-foot block wall. Their assertion is with this 8-foot high wall, the homes that are directly behind where the 8-foot high wall would be will have less noise then they currently experience because ft will block some of the noise from Lincoln Avenue. He asked Mr. McCafferty ff he agreed or disagreed or had no opinion on the matter? Mr. McCafferty stated he is not a sound engineer, however, 2 more feet of wall will not make much of a difference in terms of how it is blocking the noise now. ~ I Commissioner Messe asked Code Enforcement what their posftlon is on the empty area behind the present commerclai center? Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement, stated in the past they have had extensive problems with the business operations in that strip center; they continually want to dump their waste material; used tires; auto parts, etc. It has also been a haven far fumfture dumping in the alley. It Is open all the way to Rio Vista and people do drive through there and there is nothing to stop them. Commissioner Messe asked ff that would change if it were closed off or would those commercial uses still tend to use that 'no mans land" as a dump she? Mr. Freeman stated the commerclai industrlos, in the past, N K is a fenced orf area they want to use it for storage. Commissioner Messe asked what ff ft were landscaped? Mr. rreeman explained it would be more of a buffered area, however, h is an area that is open anti Is not being utilized for any purpose at all. Even if it is for a day or a week, they seem to flncf a way of storing materials out there. Any commercial strip center where there is a vacant area behind them it becomes a storage area. 04/19/93 Page 6 Commissloner Taft asked about the 8-foot wail. J !~'~~ Mr. Johnson indicated he would adhere to whatever the Planning Commission recommends. { Discussion took place regarding ;he 8-foot wall. i Commissioner Caldwell stated they are going to be asked to approve or disapprove a Negative Declaration and he was wondering how in guorl conscience could ha approve or disapprove a Negative Declaration without hard evidence. It appears that the staff report is a lot of speculation. Chairman Henninger stated they do have a certified acoustical consultant. Commissioner Caldwell stated the acoustical engineer feels there is no noise impact, however, it is based on information that is not In the report on specific types of storage facilities for this equipment to control the noise. Mr. McCafferty stated the sound engineer is the professional. He is saying based on his professional opinion that the noise can be mitigated. Staff is referring to things that ere not controllable and that is from the radios. in the design phase and the p•.an check phase, ff the sound engineer works wfth the applicant they can accommodate the noise control measures. Commissloner Messe stated one of the things that they normally see wfth a Coln operated car wash Is that they are normally unattended. This applicant says he will have an attendant for all hours of operation. You then begin to suspect ft is not the right place for such a use. It takes a special attendant and ff the property were sold to someone else, and ft became operated by somebody else, there would be problems associated with this use on this piece of property. Mr. McCafferty stated ff they did a CNEL analysis, he would imagine that they would ,neet the General Plan requirements. The only window thsy are looking at is 7:00 to 10:00 (he did not mention a.m. or p.rn.) and there will not be much activfty between that time. Commissioner Messe stated ho has that feeling also and he also knows that the study did not address car radios and loud noises, etc. It was addressed by having an attendant on duty and that is what they arE` basing their whole plan on. Chairman Henninger stated he would like to see this piece of property cleaned up, but he thinks that could bo done wfth some use that was fully enclosed wfthin the building as it could with this use. He referenced the two existing car washes and stated they were not that encouraging In terms of what this might look like. More discussion took place regarding the block wall. Commissioner Mayer stated she vlsfted a Coln operated car wash on Sunday morning eady to see the Impact. She is somewhat hearing disabled and she parked a fair distance away to Judge the sound levels. It was incredibly noisy wfth i*q unmeasured noise which were the ghetto blasters and a gathering place for activfties. She stated in another location this may be a very goad business and the applicant has done a tremendous amount of homework to bring a nice business into the comrnunfty, but she cannot see ft on this sfte. 04/19/93 Page 7 ~,/ Commissioner Taft stated this is a tough one for him. The attendant probably could mftigate some of the user noise as far as radios, etc. He stated the loudest noise would be the noise of the water hitting the vehicles. He asked ff that was addressed? Mc Leighton stated k is addressed in the report. The noise calculations were based upon noise ~ surveys made at aself-service car wash which is very near his residence and they were extrapolated here, so he took the maximum noise values and used them at this property. ~~ He alluded to the wall and stated ff you have a 2-foot drop on the resident side, a 6-foot wall would have the same acoustic effect as an 8-foot wall, so the wall could be restricted to 6 feet and h would have the same effect as an 8-foot wall. ACTION/VOTE: E A Negative Declaration (Readvertised) -Approved 4-2 (Commissioners Mayer and Caldwell voting NO) Waiver of Code Requirement -Denied Waivers B and C (Waiver A deleted) (No real reason to go to an S-foot high wall and based on the findings on page 5 of the staff report) ~ondkional Use Permit No. 3592 IReadvertised) -Denied 5-1 (Commissioner Taft voting NO) ~- 04/!9/93 Page 8 u a ;~ ~~''§ 2a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved (~ 2b WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3591 Granted OWNER: WEST ANAHEIM COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, ET AL, 3033 West Orange Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 3033 WeM Oranae Avenue (Humana Ho40itel West Anahefml . Property Is approximately 11.2 acres located on the northwest comer of Orange Avenue and Beach Boulevard. To permit a moblle medical (MRI) trailer wfth waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the March e, 1993 and April 5, 1993 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC93-46 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: David Culberson, Executive Director of the West Anaheim Medical Center, 3033 West Orange ~_ Avenue. He stated he is here to ask the Planning Commission's approval of the Negative Declaration regarding their moblle MRI equipment. There were her approximately 6 weeks ago to ask for approval of a prior site. Based on the Commission's recommendations, they have reassessed where they would like the MRI equipment to be placed. They have now placed h inside :~~a wall adjacent to their loading area. The trailer is now not v(sible to anycne driving along Orange Avenue nor along Beach Blvd. He explained they find that the present sftuatlon is very workable; they have tested ft for about ten days and k seems to be working for the patients, the physicians and their employees. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Chairman Henninger stated he noticed there was a condition regulating their hours of operation. He asked ff they would like to extend the hours? Mr. Culberson stated the only problem they might have is around 7:OOp.m. He explained the scheduled use Is to end at 5:OOp.m., however, there are times they run it up till 7:OOp.m. based on a number of factors, i.e., physician and patient availability. If the unit is busy during the day, they may need to extend their hours, however, k is very infrequent. 04/19/93 Page 9 Commissioner Messe stated he did not see any reason for Condkion No. 1. The trailer has been moved to a spot that does not infringe on anyone. He explained you cannot see k and no one can hear k. He suggested they eliminate the condkion in ks entirety. ACTION: CEOA Negative Declaration -Approved Waiver of Code Requirement -Approved Condk(onal Use Permk No. 3591 -Granted (Delete Condkion No. 1 In ks entirety regarding time Iimkations) VOTE: 7-0 ~.., L_J ~'<.. J. 04/19/93 1 ` Page 10 ~/ t 3a. c`EQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISED) Approved 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT (READVERTISED) Approved 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3679 (READVERTISED) Granted for 5 years (To expire OWNER: ORVAC ELECTRONICS, 1645 E. Orangethorpe Avenue, Fullerton, CA 4/19/93) 92631 AGENT: PASHTOON SUBAT, 6441 Fair Lynn, Yorba Linda, CA 92686 LOCATION: aS31 East La Palma Ave. Property is approximately 0.34 acre located on the north side of La Palma Avenue and approximately 340 feet east of the centedlne of Lakeview Avenue. To permit an 8,360-square foot automotive repair facilfty wfth waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the April 5, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC93-47 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED i OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Pashtoon Subat, 17045 Imperial Hwy., Yorba Linda, CA 92686. He stated there is a condition that states this CUP is to be reviewed in 3 years and he felt ft would be difOcult to invest the amount of money he is investing and go through this process for the application to be only for three years. He asked that the application be extended to five years. Chairman Henninger asked if the had a lease on the propertyd Mr. Subat stated he has already signed a five year lease. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. I, DISCUSSION: Mr. Borcego, Senior Planner, stated the applicant did pencil In same potential parking areas with the building in order to illustrate where some of the automobiles may be stored within the Interior of the building. 04/19/93 Page t1 d.,,J John Anderson, 729 Cameo Highlands Drive, Corona Del Mer, CA. He Indicated he was helping Mr. Subat wRh his project. He stated h was Indicated to him by staff, Just before the meeting, that ~ the Commission may have some concern with respect to the magnkude of the parking waNer and discussions with the Traffic Engineer, he suggested we show some additional parking spaces within the building on site. He pointed out that the 83,000 square-foot building would require 46 spaces ~ as determined by staff. He gave some background an the parking and some further statistics relative to the parking ratios. Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated the additional parking should help to reduce the required parking. He elaborated. Commissioner Messe referenced the 8 parking spaces they were going to provide inside the building and asked Mr. Yalda H he was going to have them stripe the parking stalls and post signs saying 'NO STORAGE, FOR PARKING ONLY?' Mr. Yalda stated if that is their preference, that is fine. Commissioner Messe asked about the 3 spaces that encroach into the driveway? He asked if they were part of the 9 spaces in front and Mr. Anderson indicated that was correct. Commissioner Messe asked Mr. Anderson H they would restripe those spaces, thereby, making it more obvious that they are parking spaces and not part of the drive? Mr. Anderson explained that had not been previously discussed, however, they would take it Into consideration right now. Mr. Yalda stated if ft is the Commission's desire, iliey could work wfth Mr. Anderson on the parking layout. i^ ACTION: CEQA NegatNe Declaration -Approved Waiver of Code Requirement -Approved Condkional Use Pernik No. 3619 -Granted for 5 years (To expire 4/19/98) Modified Condition No. 5 to read 5 years instead of 3; add: And stripe the 8 inside parking spaces; no outdoor storage of cars over night; outside parking lot to be restriped wfth approval of the Traffic Department. VOTE: 7-0 04/19/93 Page 12 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3195 (READVERTISED) OWNER: ANAHEIM BUSINESS CENTER, Attn: Ken Rinker, P. 0. Box 17899, Irvine, CA 92713 AGENT: LA CELLULAR, Attn: Linda Paul, P.O. Box 6028, Cerritos, CA 90702 LOCATION: ~'+3 West Cerritos Avenue (Suite 3331. Property Is approximately .43 acres located at the western terminus of Cerritos Avenue and approximately 1,088 feet west of the centerline of Anaheim Boulevard. To permit a cellular telephone facility with a 60-foot high (previously 45-foot high) monopole tower. Continued from the April 5, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. Continued to 6/2/93 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PIANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. ACTION: Continued to June 2, 1993, at the request of the petitioner. ,M~~ 04/19/93 Page 13 V ~~ Approved Granted 5a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. 1CONDITIONALOSE PERMIT N0.3599 OWNER: KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, 393 E. Walnut St., Pasadena, CA 91188 LOCATION: 441 North Lakeview Avenue. Property is approximately 9.2 acres located at the northwest comer of Riverdale Avenue and Lakeview Avenue. To expand an existing hospital to construct a600-square foot magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC93-48 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Judfth Whfte, Medical Group Administrator for Kaiser Permanents in Orange County. Their business address is 441 Lakeview Avenue in Anaheim. They are requesting approval for replacing their mobile MRI unft wfth a stationery unft on their property (on the west side and not visible from La!<evlew Avenue). The reason they are requesting this is because the resolution is much better; there Is a better quality of Image wfth the higher powered equipment; ft allows the physicians to make a better diagnosis then you can make wfth a mobile unft; the unft does not require additional energy nor does ft require additional staff and ft does have a slgniflcantty lower cost. Thay have had a parking study done and both from a medical and traffic standpoint, they will be better off having something fixed on the she. They are asking the Cfty to grant approval for the mobile unft to be permftted rfntil the end of the year and then replace ft wfth a fixed unft. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Mr. Borrego stated there Is a condition requiring them to immediately remove the unpermitted MRI unft and to file an application to retain k in the interim. Chairman Henninger asked about the proposal to keep the existing unft until the end of the yea(! Ms. Whfte explained they Intend to file an application to keep the mobile unft until they are able to Install a permanent unft. ACTION: CEOA Negative Declaration -Approved Condftional Use Permit No. 3599 -Granted VOTE: 7-0 04f19/93 Page 14 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3621 Granted OWNER: FIRST INTERSTATE MORTGAGE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Attn: Beth Fischer, VP, 633 W. 5th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90071 AGENT: COMPUTER LEARNING CENTER, INC., Attn: Mary Langdon, Director, 1240 S. State College Bivd., Anaheim, CA 92668 LOCATION: 222 South Harbor Boulevard Property is approximately 0.83 acres located at the northeast comer of Broadway and Harbor Boulevard. To permft a computer training center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC93-49 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: One PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Kevin Leonard, 2400 E. Kateila, Anaheim. He stated this is in regards to the Computer Learning Center at 222 S. Harbor Blvd. (the First Interstate Bank building). He stated the Commission had two concerns-the use and the parking. He stated they are planning on having between 150 and 175 people per day and in the evenings from 175 to 250. A goad portion of their day time actNity takes place regarding retraining of corporate executNes; they have a lot of aerospace clientele. They are taking about 22,000 square feet. The space is completely self contained, I.e., the students will not be using the common areas of the building; it has Its own exterior entrance; k has its own stairwell. He explained the only time they will be using the common areas are for delNeries and handicapped access. He added the restrcoms are also contained in this unft. He referenced the parking. He staled they have done a complete traffic study on the building and on the parking structure. Their Traffic Engineer feels that the parking they require will be no problem within the structure. They are currently starting at 8:30a.m., however, they are looking at starting at 9:OOa.m. He elaborated. He stated the staff report called for 250 parking spaces; they would like to have the CUP conditioned for 180 spaces. They do not need anymore than that. He explained. 04/19/93 Page 15 U OPPOSITION: Chris Paul Qast name not spelled for the record), Laguna Hills, CA He Is Vlce President of Finance ~\` for Wildan and Associates. They are a tenant at 222 S. Harbor, the property in question. Tfioy have been a tenant in this building for about 5 years. Ha opposes the granting of this CUP due to the impact it will have on parking. He referenced the staff report along with a~ome statistics regarding the parking. He expressed his concerns regarding the safety of the structure and the additional demands K will Impose. He explained there are no markings Inside the structure for the tra`flc. He expmssed further concern about a blind spot when you exit out onto Broadway. He explained you cannot see cleady until you are too far out and as a result 3 pedestrians have been hit. He stated during the heavy rains there have been at least 3 to 4 times when the botton: level of the structure flooded and you cannot park down there. As a result, they had to park on the upper levels. REBUTTAL: Mr. Leonard explained there will be less traffic at 9:OOa.m. in the structure. They w611 also end at 1:30p.m. and most people wi!I be back in their offices working. Although they have a lot of students, the top level is designated for parking and they will be exfting at different hours. It was clarNied that the letter that was previously submitted stated the hours would start at 9:30a.m., however, that was an error on Mr. Leonard's part and classes will start at 9:OOa.m. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: ~-. Mr. Borrego stated he would like to point out a corcection. In paragraph no. 13 where ff says "code ~ requires 2,677, that should read 1,605 spaces. Commissioner Peraza asked what could be done about the bottom floor being flooded? Rob ZurSchmiede, Community Development. He stated the structure is owned by the agency and it is master leased to First Interstate Mortgage and they operate the structure. Commissioner Caldwell asked it the agency was responsible for maintenance and upkeep and the safety of the people that use h? Mr. ZurSchmiede explained they have the full responsibility for the parking operations. The agency retains management of the retail spaces (there are 3 retail spaces in the ground floor of the structure). Chairman Henninger asked ff it does flood on occasion? Mr. ZurSchmiede explained during periods of inundation, there has been a leak on the east end of the parking structure. There has been some correct(ve work performed by Cole Management Services to move the water away from the building and there has been a problem in the past. 04/19/93 Page 16 t./ Commissioner Boydstun asked ff this would be cured when they develop the lot to the east? n Mr. ZurSchmiede indicated ff would. He explained when they have a heavy downpour, there is not adequate grade from the structure to get all of the water away. Apparently ft has built up and made its way Into the lower level of the structure. In the past they have rectified ff wffh sand bags and sump pumps and there have been some drains Installed. Chairman Henninger asked ff it was his impression that the flooding problem Is now correct? Mr. ZurSchmlede explained h is his impression that h is corrected except in a period of highly unusual downpour like we recently experienced. Measures have been taken to try to audress the problem. The complaints came from First Interstate. Commissioner Boydstun asked when the new building goes next to it7 ~YiII ff be taken care of and drained properly? Mr. ZurSchmiede stated that is correct; that she Is slated for the relocation of the new Post Office. Commissloner Messe stated there was some testimony today relative to the safebj of the public in the parking structure and outside the parking structure. There is no real striping for traffic to go to the top floor where students will ba parking. He asked ff the agency takes care of that? Mr. ZurSchmiede explained when this particular application came through, they looked at it for parking adequacy. He stated they really did not examine ft for operational Issues. He stated ff would be appropriate to place a condffion, subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer or the agency, to review and approve some new routing signs on the interior of the structure. He gave some further details. it He stated from the agency's standpoint, they think it is a goad use; h will bring people into the downtown area. They are also working with UCi on an extension office for the downtown and these types of educational uses are a good thing. Commissloner Peraza asked ff they needed some extra parking in one of the lots, would they pave or gravel it? Mr. ZurSchmiede stated any surface lots that would be built would need to be Improved. He stated ff the parking were a problem, their first effort would be to meet wfth the applicant and see if they couldn't work out some kind of contractual allocation using their existing parking structures. He stated they have a lot of excess capacity in those today. He explained they do have plenty of parking, ff is a matter as to whether or not ff is convenient and will people walk that far. He stated that is the type of arrangement they would recommend to the Redevelopment Agency. Chairman Henninger asked how fully occupied is this building currently? Mr. ZurSchmiedA stated he was not certain as to the current lease. He thought h was a very high percentage. Mr. Leonard gave some details on the percentages and stated it Is approximately mid 80°h. 04/19/93 Page 17 Chairman Henninger asked on a normal day, how full le the parking structure? ~, ~_ Mr. Leonard stated the oritire third floor would be vacant ff you drove through today as well as a number of vacant places on the first and second floors as well. He explained that is why they were originally attracted to the building. Commissioner Caldwell asked ff it does become a problem for the people who curcently lease spa :e in that building, does the Commission have the option to condffion it? Do they see ft again, i.e., does ft come back to them? Will Redevelopment take care of that problem? Who do the people In the building go to ff a parking problem does arise?. How do they mitigate the problem? Mr. ZurSchmiede stated the agency is prepared today to use their good faith best efforts to alleviate any parking operational problems as ft relates to quantity of parking provided with the applicant ff that instance arises. Chairman Henninger stated Mr. ZurSchmiede gave testimony that the agency has gNen a letter to that effect to the applicant? Mr. ZurSchmiede stated for clarification they have given the applicant a letter from the staff, not from the Agency Board. Any arrangement they would work out with the applicant would be subject to approval by the Redevelopment Agency and City Council. He stated because they view this use in a posffive way, they are willing to step up and work out that kind of a Joint parking arrangement. Commissioner Messe asked ff they were still doing their marketing and student interviewing at this facility and Mr. Leonard indicated they were. Commissioner Messe stated that would require some extre parking during the day and Mr. Leonard again indicated that was corcect. Mr. Leonard stated most of that takes place after hours and ft is a very small amount of people that come through on a daily basis. Commissioner Masse asked ff changing 4he hours to 9:OOa.m. had anything to do with bus schedules and carpools? Mr. Leonard stated he originally made a mistake and indicated they were going to start at 9:30a.m. He explained that was Just his mistake. The people they are retraining have time to check Into their current offices and then carpool to the she. Chairman Henninger asked ff he was proposing 9:OOa.m. to 1:3op.m. for the day and 6:OOp.m. to 10:OOp.m. and possible 10:15p.m. to 10:30p.m. Chairman Henninger addressed the parking with the Traffic staff. He stated they are within 10% of the required parking. Mr. Yalda stated also there is a section for fast-food at 16/1000 which is approximately 19.58 parking spaces which in reality is zero. He explained further. 04/19/93 Page 18 Chairman Henninger stated that gets them closer. Rather then the extreme number that they see in the staff report, the realistic deficiency is maybe 5 or 796 and Mr. Yaida agreed. ~ ~. Chairman Henninger asked if the parking structure could be restrlped or era there physics! constraints to the layout of the parking structure that would prevent h from being restrlped to standard size spaces. Mr. Yaida stated he deflnffely could take a look at ft. He explained usually in parking structures, it is very difficult to change the parking from compact to regular size due to the columns between the spaces. Commissioner Messe stated the top floor is fairly open and there are very few columns, therefore, the top floor certainly has a chance of eliminat!rg a lot of the compact spaces. Mr. Yaida stated the aisle width may be a problem, otherwise, the width could be corrected. It was agreed that he would take a look at ft. Commissioner Boydstun stated over the years they have had 2 sizes of compact spaces. She asked ff this was the larger size? Mr. Yaida stated he believed these were 7-1 /2 by 56', therefore, ff they make some changes, they would lose very few depending on how wide it Is. Chairman Henninger stated they will probably find there is not enough room to restripe them. Commissioner Mayer stated the safety Issue was brought up. She suggested the bubble mirrors at the exff. Chairman Henninger stated they also have a buzzer system that warns the pedestrian that a car is coming. ACTION: CEQA Negative Declaration -Approved Waiver of Code Requirement -Approved (Parking is within 1096 and Redevelopment will provide mare parking ff they need It). Conditional Use Permff Mo. 3621 -Granted subJect to the following: 1. That the hours of operation shall be limited to 9:OOa.m. to 10:OOp.m. with classes running from 9:OOa.m. to 1:30p.m. and 6:OOp.m. to t0:00p.m. 2. That the interior strip(ng of the parking structure shall be renovated and signs posted to safely direct traffic. 3. That the mitigation measure to safely exft the parking structure (example: bubble mirrors or buzzer) shall be brought back to the Planning Commission for review as a report and recommendation item. 4. That Condition No. 2 shall be modfi'^d to include em I~r uses parking on the top level until ft is full and then and only then they can park on other levels of the structure. Enforcement of this condftion shall be the responsibility of the applicant. VOTE: 7-0 04/19/93 Page 19 ~J ~\ 7a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 7b. RECLASSIFICATION N0.92-93.06 Granted OWNER: TOKIKO NAKAMURA, 8430 Pebble Beach Court, Buena Park, CA 92621 AGENT: ELLIOTT WAINER, 13234 E. Palm Place, Cerritos, CA 90701 LOCATION: 2825 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately .85 acres located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and approximately 395 feet west of the center+,ine of Magnclia Avenue. Yo reclassffy subJect property from the CG (Commercial, General) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limfted) Zone. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC93.50 FOLLOWING IS A SUhii~ )ARY OF THE r^IANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPt7SITI0N: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Elliott Wainer, 13234 E. Palm Place, CeMtos, CA. He agrees with the staff report. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: CEOA Negative Declaration -Approved ReclassfBcation No. 92-93.06 -Granted Uncondftionally VOT*_~: 7-0 04/19/93 Page 20 l..J e. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS /~ A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3556 -REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAN Approved plans. REVIEW: Request for final plan review of roof•mounted equipment, exterior elevations and materials for apreviously-approved service station/canxash faclltty. Property location is Savl Ranch Business Park. Continued frum the April 5, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. ACTION: Approved (Exterior color and design of tiles are subject to further Rob ZurSchmlede, Community Development. This was continued from the last meeting in order to allow Mr. Dick DeBeikes to finalize several of his color material selections. He referenced a change In the staff report, page 2, paragraph 8. It indicates that Mr. DeBeikes' building permtt would be conditioned upon approval of his landscaping plans. He explained his landscaping plans will be returned to the Plan~rng Commission as wel! as the Redevelopment Commission and Redevelopment Agency. ` .stated there Is no condition that they be approved prior to Issuance of a building permtt. He stated they would prefer not to condition the Issuance of that on approval of the landscaping plans. They would find it acceptable prior to his C of 0 (Cortiflcate of Occupancy). He stated since the last meeting the Redevelopment Staff and Planning Staff have discussed the color selections with Mr. DeBeikes. He explained basically all of the items that the Commisslon had expressed some concern about have been finalized wtth the exception of the checkerboard pattern shown on a portion of the building. They were asking the Commission to approve the elevations as submitted with the colors and materials that are shown on the color board and allow the applicant to return with the final checkerboard pattern. They would like to have some time to do some comparison of some final colors as it is a fairly significant element of the overall building archttecture. Since they were trying to rush to meet a submittal deadline to make this meeting, they would like to hold that off and spend some more time to think about tt. The final selection will return to the Planning Commisslon, the Redevelopment Commisslon and Redevelopment Agency as well as the landscaping plan, precise grading plan and his sign program. As part of the sign program, one of the elements that the Commission had expressed some concern with the last msoting, were the flag details which were not finalized. Those have been removed from the current elevation. If they are to be proposed in the future, they would come back as part of his sign package and would be considered by separete action at that time. Chairman Henninger asked for clariflcatlon ff they wanted the Planning Commission to approve the building plans wtth the exception that they are wtthhoiding apprcval because they do not have the final colors of the tiles. He stated from his personal point of view, he thought there was too nwch of the black and whtte checked pattern on the building as tt was shown to them at the last meeting. 04/19/93 Page 2t 1a,/ He stated he was not sure ff the correct solution was to change the color of the tiles and havo sort of an earth color on earth color checkerboard because it ruins the marketing concept of it being the 9 ~ checker flag car wash. + In addUlon to looking at the checkerboard pattern, one of the solutions would be to limit the location of the checkerboard, Le., keeping h black and white and having some other material to replace some of the checkerboard pattern. He stated it could be used as a trim and carried through Into the waiting room and the cashier's area. He added h would probably work wail that way. Mr. ZurSchmiede stated that is exactly the type of thing that they have discussed with Mr. DeBeikes and they would like to have the opportunity to Uteraily take the elevations and try some different solutions and see what works out best. Chairman Henninger stated there was too much black and whfte checkerboard and so he sees either changing the color or limiting the black and whfte to less of the area of the building. He added he wanted to make it clear that those two options were available. Commissioner Mayer stated she would like to see them come back with some essence of that original design on the building. She found h appealing, but somewhat overpowering with the black and white and felt perhaps than was some way to balance h. Commissioner Caldwell stated ft is In the Scenic Oveday Zone and there is certain criteria that they must follow. Dick DeBeikes stated their intent is to work carefully with staff on how they would like their building to look because they view this area and thought it was a great Idea that ail of the buildings had some uniform(ty of archkecture even though they were separate ownership. It looks like it is one large retail ,- center. For their neM presentation they are to come back with some Isometric elevations that give a view perspective colored in. They did another project using this same scheme and they did a study model for that one. When you see the study model you see how limited the file Is, but when you look on a flat elevation, it looks more traumatic. He stated they are working wfth Redevelopment staff in particular on the landscape plan. Their plan is complete and h may have been an error on his part because they have submitted it to the Redevelopment staff-he Just over looked h as k did have to come back before the Commission. He elaborated. He wanted to make sure that his building ~crmit would not get held up based on the review of their landscape plans. He referenced no. 9 of the staff report regarding the shade structure. He explained they placed the shade structure closest to Weir Canyon by Crystal Drive. It was originally recommended last October by staff that they place the shade structure at the south end of the property nearest SAVI Ranch Parkway. He stated ft makes no difference to them ff they would I(ke them to move it to the south end of the property. He stated they thought ft was in a better location by Crystal Drive, but ff the Commission wants it on the other end, then they would gladly move it. He deferred to the Commission. 04/19/93 Page 22 L..+ Jonathan Borcego stated k was a condklon of approval of the last condkional use permk that k be ~ relocated. He explained the reason was not to screen k from Weir Canyon Road, but to screen the activky that goes on wkhin the shade structure which is the detaiiing of cars and move that actfvky away from Crystal Drive so the traffic would not be able to see the detailing activky taking place. Chairman Henninger asked for clarification k there was a specfflc discussion regarding this matter that led to a speckic decision? Mr. Borcego indicated that was corcect. Chairman Henninger stated that the applicairt does not have a preference so paragraph no. 9 should rema(n. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tak and MOTION CARRIED that subject plans were approved except for the exterior color and the design of the tiles which are subject to further review. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3262 -REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF Approved TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Robert D. (To expire Michelson requests eons-year extension of time to comply wkh condklons 4/23/94) of approval for Condkional Use Pernik No. 3262 (to permk the phased development of a commercial retali center wkh gasoline sales) to expire on Aprii 23, 1994. Property is located on the northwest comer of Monte Vista Road and Welr Canyon Road. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3570 -REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE Approved EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: (To expire Michael Aguilar requests a t80-day retroact(ve extension o9 time to comply 9/14/93) wkh condkions of approval far Condklonal Use Pernik No. 3570 (to retain the outdoor storage of chemicals) to expire on September 14,1993. Property is located at 847 South East Street. 04/19/93 Page 23 c I M1 i / ~• Chairman Henninger explained they have had an adoption of a new landscape ordinance and this will have to comply wtth the landscape ordinance. E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.3280 -REQUEST FOR EXTENSION Approved OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Ravindra (To expire Shah requests aone-year extension of time to comply with conditions of 5/21 /94) approval for Condttional Use Permtt No. 3280 (to permtt a 14•untt addition to an existing 42-untt motel) to expire on May 21, 1994. Property is located at 735 South Beach Boulevard. F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3453 - REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE Approved EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: (To expire Phillip R. Schwartze requests a 180-day retroactive extension of time to 3/23/94) comply with conditions of approval for Condttional Use Permit No. 3453 (to permtt construction of up to 141,135 square feet industriallyrelated offices) to expire on September 23, 1993. Property is located at 2890 East La Palma Avenue. D. VARIANCE NO 3882 -REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF Approved TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: (To expire Dwight R. Belden (Hillman Properties West) requests cone-year retroactive 12/19/93) extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for Variance No. 3882 (to construct a 3-story, 70,000 square foot commercial office building) (retroactive to 12/19/92) and to expire on December 19, 1993. Property is located on the northeast comer of Santa Ana Carycn Road and Riverview Drive. Note: Staff recommended that the Commission grant aone-year (rather than a 180~day) extension of time due to the likelihood that the issues delaying subject project nay not be resolved by September 23, 1993. 04/19/93 I Page 24 j ~ ~ G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3413 - REDDEST FOR REVIEW OF Approved LANDSCAPE PLANS: Norbert Waters requests review of landscape plans landscape plans as required by Condkional Use Permk No. 3413 (to permk expansion of a restaurant w/on•premise sale/consumption of beer and wine). Property is located at 25t1-2521 East Ball Rd. Norbert Waters, Garden Grove, CA. He stated he is concerned about the 2-foot deficiency in his parking that the 5-foot landscape requirement produced. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated he has personally been out to Mr. Waters' property and they d(d measure k. Due to the widening of the street the result is that there is an overhang Into the landscape area. He stated k still meets Cade, however, Mr. Waters foals k is tight for his customers. Commissioner Messe asked for clarttication ff the parking was hanging over the landscaping? Mr. Hastings stated that is corcect and explained k is normally permkted. He stated typically for a property such as this, there Is a 3-foot landscaped area required. There is about a 2•foot overhang so it makes up the dffference. Originally the Commission had asked fora 5-foot landscaped area, so it does work out to Code and complies wkh the condkions. Mr. Waters is still concened about the convenience of his customers to have what is resulted in a shorter area for backup and parking spaces. Chairman Henninger asked Mr. Waters what he would like the Commission to do7 Mr. Waters stated he would like them to reduce the 5•foot to 3-foot which is also Code. Chairman Henninger explained in order to do that he would have to readvertlse the CUP because this is a condtion of approval of the CUP that he previously agreed to. Chairman Henninger asked staff what the original CUP was in regards to the dimension of this? Mr. Hastings explained the original condition was 10 feet; k was readvertlsed to reduce k down to 5 feet through a public hearing because of the street widening which occurred in order to accommodate the parking. He added 5-foot was left over after the parking was calculated In. Chairman Henninger asked for cladflcatlon ff they wanted to reduce k further k would have to be done at a public hearing and k would have to be readvertlsed? Mr. Hastings indicated that was corcect. He asked Mr. Waters ff he wanted to go to a new pubiic hearing or did he want to build k out as his plans show? 04/19/93 Page 25 Mr. Waters asked H he built it out as it shows now, could he come back at a later time? Chairman Henninger stated he could sways come back for modKicatlon. Mr. Waters stated he was in court on a ~:ondemnation matter on this. He elaborated. ACTION: Approved landscape plans. H. ^^"JDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 2802 -REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL CUP No. 2602 CONFORMANCE: R. J. George, CapRol Thritt and Loan requests a found to be in substantial conformance determination for a previously approved board substantial and care facility. Property is located at 127-133 West Hlll Place and 1315- conformance 1321 South Anaheim Boulevard. I nen~~eeT ~on~^'^1E CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO CONSIDER AN Recommended ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS CHAPTERS OF TITLE 18 OF THE City Council ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ADULT adoption of the ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESSES. proposed ordinance / Commissioner Messe asked about verbiage relative to parking. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated they Intend to add a provision that the parking will be as provided in the condRional use permit and possibly add some specific language about a parking study being provided that the parking is adequate to serve the proposed use. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: The following IndNiduals expressed their concerns regarding the upcoming Disney Resort public hearings: Jeff Kirsch, 2661 West Palais Road, Anaheim, CA. Curtis Stricker, President of Anaheim H.O.M.E. (Homeowners Maintaining Their Environment). Betty Ronconi, 1241 S. Walnut Street. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 4:30p.m. to a joint meeting with the City Council on April 20, 1993, from 2:OOp.m. to 4:OOp.m. in the Council Chambers. 04/19/93 Page 26