Loading...
Minutes-PC 1993/07/26~` ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JULY 26, 1993, AT x:30 P.M. PRELJMINARY PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING (PUBLIC TESTIMONY) 11:00 A.M. 1:30 PM 10:30 A.M. -11:00 P.M. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRESENTATION PERTAINING TO PROPOSED KOLL CENTER SIGNAGE/GRAPHICS PROGRAM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, CALDWELL, HENNINGER, MAYER, PERAZA, MESSES 7"9i f' COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have five minutes to present their evidence. Addftional time will be granted upon request N, in the opinion of the Commisslon, such addftlonal 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 addftional time is requested and the complexfty 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 cart of the evidence deemeo received by the Commisslon in each hearing. Copies are available to the public prior to the meeting. 4. The Commission will withhold questions until the public hearing is closed. 5. The Commisslon reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing if, in fts opinion, the ends of fairness to all cc ,cemed will be sewed. 6. All documents presented to the Planning Commission for review (n connnction wfth 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 for 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 the Planning Commission, and/or agenda items. Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (5) minutes to speak. AC072693.WP `°~ 7-26-93 Page 1 _, 1.30 P M -NEW COMMISSION CHAIRMAN SELECTION Continued to August 9, 1993 1a. FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR NO. 316 Continued to 1b. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT N0.83-01 A.~7ust 9, 1993 OWNER: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, A PUBLIC ENTITY, 7667 Folsom Boulevard, Sacramento, CA 95626 AGENT: O'CONNOR REALTY ADVISORS, INC., Attn: Mike Stde, Vice President, 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90025 DONAHUE SCHRIBER, 3501 Jamboree Road, Ste. 300, Attn: Brad Deck, Vice President, Development, South Tower, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 444-600 North Euclid Street. Property consists of two Irregulady- shaped parcels of land: Parcel 1 consists of approximately 38.25 acres bounded on the north by Crescent Avenue, on the east by Loara Street, on the south by the Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5), and on the west by Euclid Street (Anahelm P!aza). Parcel 2 consists of approximately 8.82 acres located at the northeast comer of Crescent Avenue and Euclid Street, having approximate frontages of 620 feet on the north side of Crescent Avenua and 640 feet on the east side of Euclid Street. To consider Development Agreement No. 93-01 between the City of Anahelm and the California State Teachers Retirement System, a publlr, entity, relating to the development of file subject property. Development Agreement No. 93-01 continued from the June 26,1993 Planning Commission meetiny. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RESOLUTION N0. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: NONE ACTION: Continued this proposal to the August 9, 1993 Planning Commission meeting in order for the development agreement documents to be finalized for Planning Comn-dsslon review. VOTE: 7-0 ~~ 7-26-93 Page 2 ~ j 2a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 312 Continued to 2b. RECLASSIFICATION NO.92-93-09 September 6, 1993 2c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3603 OWNER: PICK YOUR PART AUTO WRECKING, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, 1301 E. Orangewood Avenue, #130, Anaheim, CA 92605 AGENT: PHILUP R. SCHWARTZE, 27132 Paseo Espada, #1222, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 LOCATION: 1235 South Beach BoutevaM. Property Is approximately 4.5 acres located on the west side of Beach Boulevard and approximately 330 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road. To reclassky sub)ect property from the CL (Commercial, Llmked) to the ML (Umked Industrial) Zone. To pennk an automobile fluid drainage area and an outdoor storage area In conjunction wkh an automobile dlsmanUing and recycling facility on the adjacent parcel to the south (in the City of Stanton) wkh waiver of maximum fence height. Continued from the July 12, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. RECLASSIFICATION PESOLUTION N0. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. FOLLO!':iNG IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. IN FAVOR: 4 OPPOSITION: 25 people present; 12 of them spoke PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: PhIIIIp Schwartze, 27132 Paseo Espada, #1222, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675. Since the last meeting, there were a number of Issues that needed clarification. He went to the exhlbk board and explained the changes. Some of the Issues that were discussed Included the fence height; noise Issues; parking; ML portion and Industrial areas are not for retail. 7-26-93 II Page 3 ~ s ~ Cindy Galfln, representing Pick Your Part Auto Recycling, 1301 E. Orangewood, Anaheim, CA. They asked for a continuance from the last Planning Commission meeting, She gave a brief overview of some of the features which include extensive landscaping with mature trees and berms; a 10' high masonry wall surrounding he entire project wfth an aesthetic stucco finish along Beach Bivd; a jogged wall design to break up the monotony of a block wall along Beach Blvd.; tho entire project is paved rather then filled wfth crushed rock; the retail sales area and fluid drainage area have a liner under the pavement. She explained all fluids are collected when the cars enter the holding area and then they are recycled. She further explained that brand new, 6,000 Ib forklifts, not heavy loaders, will be used to cut down on noise; there will be no crushing of vehicles at the sRe as k will be done at another facility. (This was the main cause of noise in the past). There will be no stacking of vehicles and, therefore, no visibility of the project from the street or the surrounding homes. There will be a State of the Art storm water treatment facility that will treat all storm water from this project and take all levels down to non~Jetect before k enters into the storm drain system. There will be no movement of equipment prior to 12:OOp.m. on Saturday and no movement of equipment at all on Sunday to respect the privacy of the neighbors. This facilty is a supermarket of used auto parts for sale at economical prices. All cars are organized on stands in neat rows, in sections, by make and model. She mailed out an information bulletin several months ago and received only 2 phone calls from people that lived behind Pick Your Part and they were In support of the ~~ project. She also went to the home of Mr. and Mrs. Wagner who opposed the project in Stanton to find out what the concems were. They represent the Tenant's Commhtee and they gave her a list of 4 things that would make some neighbors happy. Their main concern was that the block wall was too close to their coach which is one of the newer coaches and it only has a 3•foot setback from their facility. Saturday she went door to door to the tenants who live right behind the Pick Your Part project figuring they would have the biggest Impact. For those she was able to meet wfth, she found that a lot of them were supportive of Pick Your Part returning. 'i"ley I(vod their in the past and were willing to sign in support. They did have concerns. Their concerns were the correction of water drainage and also the parts going over and under the fence. They also said once they put up the higher fence which was a lean-to ~haln link on tap of the existing fence, the parts did not go over any longer, but they tended to find that people would IHt up the corrugated metal fence to push the parts under. They are now proposing a block wall engineered wfth footings and no one is going to be able to Ifft that up and push any parts underneath. She also found that some people wanted to remain neutral for faar of being ostracized from some of She newer tenants in the park and the landowners. 7-26.93 Page 4 A few also said that ff they did what they said they were going to do when she showed ~ them the plans and read the Mitigation Monitoring list, they would be in support of the project-they Just did not understand how the process worked while they went through their business license to make sure that what they agreed to do here would actually be done before they opened up the business. They have left messages for the Doers (phonetically spelled), none of which have been returned. Instead they have a consultant out Instigating the community, providing misinformation to the neighbors. She has done her best to work wffh the people and she will continue to do so In the future. To keep them Informed she has agreed to hold quarterly meetings to make sure they are doing it exactly as they Bald they would and she will continue in the neighborhood outreach program. She addressed the following changes to the operation. 1. The hours of operation. There is some confusion between the EIR, the staff report and what was approved at Stanton. The corcect hours of operation are from B:OOa.m. to S:OOp.m. during the wintei hours; B:OOa.m. to 6:OOp.m. during daylight savings time (Monday through Sunday); 2. With regards to the equipment operation, or the movement of equipment which would be forklifts in the yard, ff will be S:OOa.m. to 6:OOp.m. Monday through Friday in the summer; B:OOa.m. to 5:OOp.m. Monday through Friday in the winter; on Saturdays the equipment will only move from 12:OOp.m, to 6:OOp.m. and on Sunday there will be no movement of equipment in the yard. ~° There is one mffigation measure that is not conducive to their business and ff was Just a comment from South Coast Air Quality. They suggested setting up a hotline so that people could call in and ask ff a certain car was available. She explained they find that most of the people that come out to find a part, leave with a part, so ff would reduce revenue. It would also reduce sales tax revenue to the City. She further explained that they do not inventory cars. Cars are recycled every 15 to 30 days,so a row moves daily Monday through Saturday and the there are approximately 800 cars recycled per month. They have gone through the remediation plans with the County of Orange, The Department of Health Services. They have approvers their work plans. The facility is ready to be remediated. They are awaffing on approvals to finalize ff because the bank will loan the money for the improvements, the movement of the soil, and the treatment of the soil upon the receipt of a Business license. IN FAVOR: Tom Kissler, Manager of Marketing and Membership Services for the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, representing their President, Dick Clark, who was delayed today. They wanted to go on record as endorsing this protect. l,/ 7-26.93 Page 5 n Karen English, 2283 W. Arlington, Anaheim, CA. She and her son are in favor of Pick Your Part reopening. They feel ft provkles a safe, clean and organized ernironment for used vehicle parts. It would provide jobs and income for our community. They have circulated the plans within their neighborhood and those who use this type of facility are in favor of ft. Joan Wolf, Attorney, 1880 Century Park East, Los Angeles, CA, representing Pick Your Part. They have copies of letters that hopefully are in the files from various community members in support of Pick Your Park. She had a packet for each of them. Charles McBrkle. He represents a group of young men that have to repair their cars. They are in favor of the project. Don Phillips. In favor of the project. OPPOSITION: Leon Lupman (phonetically spelled), Anaheim Mobile Estates; Edward Allen, 8171 Bever Place, former City Council member; Felix Hacker. He Ifves in the park right next to Pick Your Part. His home is right up against the fence; Anthony Schantilio (phonetically spelled) 3050 W. Ball Road, Space 196; George Nahra, Anaheim Mobile Estates, 3050 W. Ball Road; Noreen Jones, Anaheim Mobile Estates, 3050 W. Ball Road; Unda Wagner, Anaheim Mobil Estates, 3050 W. Ball Road, right on the wail and wfthin 3 feet; Kathleen Abel, Mobil Home Estates, 3050 W. Ball Road; Mary Turen, Space 7, Anaheim Mobil Home Park; Mary Patterson, 3050 W. Ball Road, Space 50, Anaheim Mobil Estates; gob Bach, 3051 W. Ball Road, Space 72; and Jewell Whfttei (phonetically spelled), Anaheim Mobile Homes. Following Is a list of major concerns of the opposition: Do not want to live next to a Junk yard and be Imprisoned by a 10' wall; they have another Junk yard less than a mile away from the proposed Plck Your Part in the City of Stanton; water drainage problems; concern for safety of children; throwing parts over the fence and pushing parts under the fence; steeling parts from Pick Your Part which causes police act(vfty; lots of elderly people In the mobile home park who only want peace and quiet; health and safety Issues; devaluation of homes; environmental concerns; concern expressed changing the zoning to Industri?I. REBUTTAL: Ms. Galfln explained this is not the same business as before and staff has done a very good job of remodeling this facility to make ft a different business. The people need to know that the City has condftioned this use and that what they say they are going to do ft will happen because no business will be allowed to open until all of these hems are taken care of. ~~ I 7-26-93 Page 6 i She stated she dkl speak with a lot of people that are backed up to the property and ~ they prefer a 10' block wall, especially the older coaches that do not abut the wall, but have a small back yard area. 'She does have a petition for some of those people who are In support. They did tail her they were having problems in the past wfth the shorter wall, but when they extended the wall they stopped having problems wfth parts going over the wall. However, they dkl have problems wfth parts going under the fence because ft is a corrugated metal fence on Plck Your Part's side. She explained that will change when the fence is a block wall on Pick Your Part's property. She further explained that the land is curcently vacant and there has been other concerns such as transients. When Pick Your Part Is in operation, they will have a security guard on staff 24 hours walking the site. They have also offered, in discussions wfth Mrs. trot Wagner and her husband who represent the Tenant's Committee, to put a security pa guard in the park, or ft the Cfty will allow them, to put in a security gate at the entrance to the park so that no one could drive In and try to get Into their facility from the back side. She added the wall Is 10' and there is also a 4•foot lean-to which goes back into their property and there are mature 25 gallon trees planted along the entire perimeter and no one would be able to throw a part that high, over 14 feet, through mature trees over a fence. There will be no working on cars in the parking lot. They have been conditioned; they will have a guard at the entrance and exit to make sure no one is working on cars. The parking lot was small for the type of use in the past. They have nearly doubled the size of the parking lot and changed the configuration to allow for cars to pull in and stack in the parking lot rather than on Beach Blvd. creating traffic problems. Stanton does have a small traditional junk yard where the consumer goes in and they pull the part for you and the prices are very expensNe. Pick Your Part does have economical parts available and there is a need for those parts in this community. Pollutions from the operation. Everything has been addressed. The fluids are drained prior to going Into the retail area on stands. All of the fluids are drained, recycled in double walled contained tanks and the gasoline actually goes into a double wall underground tank permitted by the City of Anaheim and the County of Orange. The South Coast Afr Quality has reviewed the Environmental Impact Report as hava all of the other regulatory agencies and ft has receNed clearance. There were minimal comments and ft is being recommended for certftication. She explained the crushing of cars would not take place here-they will actually send the cars to another facility to be crushed before they are actually sent to an outside facilfty to be shredded. The only thing that will be taking place at this particular yard will be the flattening of tops, about a foot, and that takes place up near Beach Blvd. In the shipping area and then the cars are moved out and are compacted in a big machine in another location. That was the noise generator from the sfte. ~ 7-26-93 Page 7 They have gone through s remediation plan. The County of Orange was out and they sampled the facility-there was some material that was subsurfaced that was strictly in the scrap department which they will not have in the future and that material has been excavated. Some of ft is being treated through a thermal process. The balance of K fs being hauled out. The water from the park will be remediated by the storm water treatment system; all of the water will be caught in the Stanton area in the middle of the yard (the retail sales area) and ft will contain a 100 year storm event. She explained the treatment process. She is aware that this was changed to a family park recently. The Tenant's Committee also mentioned that they would like a playground. Pick Your Part said they would be willing to work wfth them on that issue so there would be a playground for the children. Right now they do not have a place to ride their bikes and no place to go. They would need the land owner's approval to do that. She spoke wfth the residents that had water problems. Tha ground will be regarded, paved and Ilned, therefore, the water will not come near the fence line. It will be pumped out so they will not have water drainage problems under their fences and coaches. She elaborated. She added ff someone calls wfth a problem they are there to help out; ff they do not know them is a problem, they cannot do anything about it. Ail Issues relative to the Environmental Impact Report have been addressed. She elaborated. She explained that the block wails are engineered to be earthquake safe and they have footings under the ground. She met wfth Ms. Jewell Whittal about 8 or 10 months at the request of the previous land owner. At that time she was supportive and said that there were a few problems. Those problems were taken care of and she was Just a little confused as to why things would change in the course of 8 or 10 months. THE PUBLIC HEARING 1NAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Karen Freeman, Planning Department, suggested that Mark Albers wfth SCS Engineers, who prepared the EIR, address the northern property Ilne, i.e., the wall being lowered and also the eastern side. The Commission may also like some clarification in terms of any noise analysis and the tine-of-sight that was conducted at a 10-foot height and how that may change 'rf there is going to be a change fn the height of the vralls. Mark Albers, SCS Engineers, 3711 Long Beach Blvd., 9th Floor, Long Beach, CA 90807. He stated the Noise Impact Assessment (Appendix F) in the EIR, uses a worse case assumption that noise would be at a 10-toot high Ievei, therefore, ff the Commission approves a wall that was shorter, K could create a more severe noise Impact It certainly would create a more severe visual Impact because there would be more visibility then is shown in the final EIR from the condominium unfts immediately north of the site. Further discussion took place between Mr. Albers and the Commission relative to the forklifts and the height that they I'rft the cars. ~... 7-2fi-93 Page 8 Commissioner Messe questioned Ms. Galfln about the protection tpr sales for this facility. ~ He asked ff they had other facilities like this one and Ms. Galfln indicated that was corcect. She explained the fiscal analysts was based on the protection for sales from the City of Stanton and provided those numbers to the consultant, Stanley Hoffman and Associates, who actually did the fiscal analysis report. Commissioner fvlesse asked about the aitemate site, i.e. the other site was an ernironmentally superior sfte. Ms. Galfln explained that particular slte was fumed down at the staff level. The City was not interested in having Pick Your Part at that sfte. They met with staff and Mr. Fick on this particular sfte and there was no interest expressed at that time. Commissioner Messe asked why tt was user; In the EIR study? Ms. Galfln explained lt was at the City's recommendation since lt was already something they had looked into. Ms. Freeman explained she was not involved in the original riiscussions that Ms. Galfln is refercing to. In terms of choosing the altematNe site location, staff left that up to the applicant as to what sfte they wanted to choose for the EIR purposes. Chairman Henninger asked ff they owned this particular site and Ms. Galfln explained they have owned it since 1988. Further discussion took place regarding the use of cutting torches in the parking lot and - the drainage of fluids. Commissioner Peraza asked ff they have received arty comments from the people from the condominiums who can look over the wall? Ms. Galfln stated they did not receive any comments. Commissioner Henninger stated one of the Issues is the issue of Industrial. He stated the activity where they drain the fluids out of the rar is dons outside. He asked ff that activity could take place inside of a building? Ms. Galfln looked Into the cost of building a 1-1 /2 acre facility and got some incredible quotes to do that Inside. She explained tt is not just the fluid drainage. The ve~'cles that are held while they are clearing DMV are sometimes there for 24 to 72 hours and tt is not wtthln the Code to have vehicles parked outdoors, so tt would be the entire 1-1/2 arse vehicle verification area. Mr. Hastings explained that would not be the case in a commercial zone. That is the case in an Industrial Zone and that is why the request to Industrial. There are exceptions such as nursery products and service stations. There !s a specffic list In the Code of outdoor uses that are allowed. outside of that the Code says everything else has to be Indoors. ~ 7-26-93 Page 9 Ms. Galfln explained she has fought hard wfth the staff ~= Stanton to at least get them to agree to splitting 50% with the Cfty of Anaheim. Trey have agreed to split the revenue with Anaheim because everyone should benefft from the project. She clarified this would strictly be the sales tax revenue. Chairman Henninger stated he was not particularly interested in the flnanclal aspects of ft. The real importance is that ft be environmentally sound. There are really slgniflcant environmental problems out there today with the property in its unused format. He elaborated. Commissioner Messe stated this has been an interim use and in the meantime Beach Blvd. is becoming a Super Street and he was wondering ff tl~•is is a good time to say this Is ft and go back to maintain our General Plan and not spot zone this area for the use they are asking for. for clarffication he added they have done an excellent job in their planning, but ft Is still an interim use. Commissioner Caldwell stated this use is not compatible with the residents or Is ft compatible wfth the way the Cfty has planned for that area. He added they have done a good Job. Commissioner Boydstun stated she feels the same way. To put ML in the middle of something Is not right, they have ML areas and this is where those types of businesses should go. She did not think that Beach Blvd. should be an auto wrecking home. Commissioner Taft asked about the storm water run-off and asked for an explanation and ff the protect is approved how the run-off situation will be Improved. ~/~ George Sherigan (phonetically spelled), Denko Engineering, 1920 Main street, Irvine, CA. He explained the drainage on the existing site drains naturally to the southwest area. He went to the exhibft board and elaborated. Commissioner Messe questioned Ms. Galfln about the number of residents in attendance in the meeting she held. Ms. Galfln Indicated there were about 40 to 50 in attendance. She answered questions and read them the Mitigation Monftoring plan for the sfte. The residents still had their concerns. Commissioner Peraza stated the residents are unhappy wfth this type of project in the neighborhood. It does concern him that this many residents are opposed. He was also concerned about the rezone to Industrial. Chairman Henninger stated a lot of comments that they have heard are related to the design that has been proposed. This could be done in this location ff ft were done differently. It does not make any sense to him to have all of that landscaping enclosed within a 10-foot wall. It would make a lot more sense to have the 10-foot wall behind the landscape so that the landscape was of value to the adjacent property and serve to screen the wall. Perhaps they could berm up against it so ft had a 10-foot height on the inside and only an apparent height of only 7 feet on the outside. -~..i 7-26.93 Page 10 ~ In addftion, to prevent the problem of pftching parts over the wall, there probably needs to be wfthin that, a chain link fence offset another 4 or 5 feet. He agrees wfth the rest of the Commission, i.e., ML does not seem like the right thing here. Ha does think ff the draining of fluids could occur inside of a buiiding. However, a major redesign would be needed. He would like to see the she cleaned up and he was worded that ft would not get cleaned up the way ft should ff there isn't some economic use allowed on this sfte. He would hate to see the existing problems continue, i.e., drainage and environmental problems. Commissioner Taft agreed with Chairman Henninger and stated ff this was approved he saw ft only as an interim use which is much better then the existing situation. Environmental problems can be solved. He did agree that ft needs some redesign in order to make certain that there is not any tossing of parts over the fence. Mr. Schwartze stated the area that would be of concarn for people throwing parts over the wall is in the City of Stanton. Chairman Henninger stated he understood that and that the redesign would Involve those areas in Stanton. Mr. Schwartze stated that the Planning Commission has already taken action and the Council's action is tomorrow night. Mr. Schwartze explained that they would be happy to redesign or redo the fence in anyway that would suft everybody's needs. ~, ~~ Discussion took place regarding the fence. Ms. Galfln stated she would like to see a greenbelt effect for the mobile home park and have the lanc!scaping on the outside of the fence so there is more of a greenbelt. It is much more effective to have the trees, berm, etc. on the outside of the fence where the mobile home park is rather than on the Inside of the fenca where Pick Your Park is. Commissioner Messe asked ff there vw.s some way that staff could work on maintaining this as the CL area? Chairman Henninger asked what their !hought was regarding fluid drainage of the vehicles? He asked ff they could do that in a building? Ms. Galfln explained ff they could store the cars outside, they could do the fluid drainage in a building and that would not be a problem. Commissioner Boydstun suggested ff they landscaped and then put the block wall a tew feet behind that, on the Pick Your Part, side they could Install a wire fence so that people cannot get close enough to throw anything over wall. 1,,,~ i 7-26-ft3 Page 11 ' F ~:\, Ms. Galfln stated that is a possibility. They could design ri to have the block wail, perhaps shorter, wrih a large type of wire fence that would be higher with alean-to. They would be willing to work with the chain link fend inside the block w::ll and have the trees on the eMerior to give a greenboit effect. She explained that was one of the recommendations of the Tenant's Committee. They were mainly representing the people who lived at the south end of the property in Stanton that have the larger coaches that back right up to the wall. They would be willing to make any design changes. Mr. Schwartze asked for some direction from the Commission and then he could come up wrih 3 or 4 altematNes/concepts wrih the pros and cons of each. Chairman Henninger suggested that they need at least an 8-toot wail and he would Ilke to see it at the back side of the landscape, and he would like to see the landscaped harmed up so ri is 3 feet minimum, so the actual visual height of the wall from the mobile home park would be 5 feet. Behind that he would like to see a chain fink fence (maybe 7-feet) so that people would have a hard time throwing the parts over. Commissioner Masse asked if they could condrilon this on the block wall fence? That is on someone elses property? Chairman Henninger :.ated the preferable thing to do Is to have the existing fence come down. Ms. Freeman recommended that the consultant go back and analyze the changes loaf are being recommended and how that would affect any noise impacts and line-of-sight impacts to the mobile home park owners and the townhomes to the north. ~.. Chairman Henninger suggested they go back and talk wrih the neighbors. Mr. Schwartze stated they have the noise study done now and Ms. Galffn explained ri would only take about 4 or 5 days. Commission,ar Mayer stated ff they are going to be reconfiguring the storage area and fluid drainage area because they are going to be moving their fencing, she would like to see that moved further away from the residents. Commi~:ioner Masse stated he hopes they meet wrih the residents before the neM meeting to make sure they understand what the new plans are. ACTION: Re-opened the public hearing and continued subJect proposal to the September 6, 1993 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to submit revised plans. Planning Commission further directed staff to re-notice the September 6, 1993 public hearing. VOTE: 7-0 7-26.93 Page 12 /'~, Approved Granted for an addkional year (to expire 63.94) AGENT: SIM HOFFMAN, 585 S. Knott Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: ~d~-595 South Knott Street. Property is approximately 0.68 acre located at the northwest comer of Knott Street and Orange Avenue. To delete or amend condkions of approval pertaining to the time Iimkation and permitted days of operation of a previously approved mobile medical unk wkhin an existing medical complex. Continued from the July 12, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC93-84 3a. ~EQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Previously Approved) 3b. ~NDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3417 (Readvertised) OWNER: A. G. CASSIS, 413 Sharon Road, Arcadia, CA 91007 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. IN FAVOR: A petklon was submitted wkh more than 100 signatures in favor of this request. ~~ OPPOSITION: No one was present/2 letters in opposkion were received. PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Dr. Sim C. Hoffman, 585 South Knott, Anaheim, CA. He put up somo posters. He submtted a letter to the Planning Commission plus some other materials. The letter he wrote was in response to the memorandum by the Cky of Anaheim Code Enforcement officer, Bruce Freeman. He explained that his MRI truck was parked, but not used for a short period of time in April. He had been told by one of the previous officers that the unk could be parked but not used and as long as k was only used 2 days a week he was in compliance. The other location for the MR! was being asphalted. On numerous occasions he has tried to talk to the nelghbcrs a! the 515 apartment cortiplex. He talked to the manager and has had a good relationship wkh the manager If there are any problems, he wants to know about k. He has never receved any phone calls and has not been contacted the manager or anyone else. He added he has always tried to eliminate any problems. There was a comment made that the unk has been picked up at 10:OOp.m. in violation of file condkional use permk. He stated the drivers are well aware of the requirements of the Cky of Anaheim. They handle the unk at Anaheim General and to his knowledge there has not been any problems. 7-26-93 Page 13 Dampners have been placed by the air condkioning in order to reduce the noise and k is below the ambient noise level. There are more than 100 names on the petkion he submkted about the need In this area for this type of service. There Is a large amount of community and medical support to have this available. In conclusion, he has tried his best to comply. He stated k he could continue wkh the 2 days and k would probably be enough. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Messe asked for clarification k any equlpment is left on overnight and Dr. Hoffman indicated k was not. Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement Officer, stated this piece of property came to their attention in 1989. The main complaints were 1) the trailer being on the property wkhout the use permk; 2) the amount of noise being generated by the company that was hired to deliver the trailer and pick up the trailer from the property. Sinco that time they have been back 3 times. He did make a sound study wkh the trailer In operation in 1992 and found no violations regarding the equipment. In the first part of this year, Dr. Hoffman was under the opinion that he could store the trailer on the property as long as he did not use k. He advised him that the trailer shall only be permkted on the property the night before and must be r- removed the following day. He h irther explained that the biggest complaint that they have had from the tenants have been the noise from the tructis being picked up and delNered, not the equlpment being operated kself. Chairman Henninger asked how many complaints they have had? +,.1 Mr. Freeman stated about a total of 11 or 12. There have been 3 this year. Discussion took place regarding the operation of the trailer. Mr. Freeman stated as far as the operation of the taller, they have been in compliance. They had one complaint that the trailer had been removed after 9:OOp.m. Chairman Henninger stated most of the complaints were prior to these condkions and so the condklons seem to have worked except for the misunderstanding of the exact meaning of the condkions. Commissioner Messe stated for the record, they have received 2 letters in opposkfon. Chairman Henninger asked ff k was possible to have the trailer delivered In the evening rather than at 7:OOa.m.? Dr. Hoffman explained k could be delivered and picked up anytime k needs to be done. They are normally finished at S:OOp.m. 7-26-93 Page 14 a Chairman Henninger suggested k could be delivered before 9:OOp.m. the evening prior and then picked up by 9:OOp.m. Most of these complaints are probably morning complaints. Mr. Freeman recommended delivery by 7:pOp.m. as most of the people who Ilve upstairs are elderly and retire early. He suggested 7:OOa.m. to 7:OOp.m. Mr. Freeman suggested that they also continue wffh the one year. Chairman Henninger stated ff there is enough need for this device, then they need to think about putting k inskle a building. Dr. Hoffman stated they are in the process of discussing that right now wffh a group about putting it in-house. That would solve a lot of problems. I Chairman Henninger asked ff they are working on an ordinance to cover these medical facilfties. ACTION: Approved subject request by modifying Condition Nos. 1a and ti of City Council Resolution No. 92R-105 to read as follows: "1a. That subject medical office trailer shall be permitted to operate on•sfte two (2) days every week. The trailer shall be delivered to the site no later than 7:00 p.m. the evening before the first day of operation and shall be removed no later than 7:00 p.m. on the evening of the second day of operation. The air conditioner for the unit shall not be operated r prior to 7:00 a.m. i i. That this conditional use permff is granted for a period of one (1) year and shall terminate on June 3, 1994." VOTE: 7-0 ,...i I 7-26-93 Page 15 r~~ 4a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATNE DECLARATION Approved 4b. RECLASSIFICATION NO.91-92-19 (Readvertised) Granted, w;conditlonaliy 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3825 Grantee', in part 4d. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0.93-156 Approved OWNER: SIMON III & GLORIA FLUOR TRUST, Attn: Cecil Wright, 265 S. Anita Dr., #205, Orange, CA 92668 AGEM: RUTH MILLER, 1600 Dove Street, #138, Newport Beach, CA 92660. LOCATION: 1300 -1382 East Auto Center Drive. Property is approximately 8.39 acres located at the northwest comer of Sanderson Avenue and Auto Center Drive. To reclassify subject property from ML (Limited Industrial) to CL (Commercial Limited). To permft an automobile sales lot with accessory automotive repair with waiver of required number of trees, required parking lot landscaping, minimum number of parking spaces, required landscaping abutting a street, maximum number of signs, permitted location of signs and minimum distance between signs. To establish a 3-lot commercial subdivision. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. PC93.85 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC93.86 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: Bill Ficker, architect and planner for the proposed auto center for Miller Enterprises. The auto center that they are proposing is planned to Implement many of the state of the art planning conditions of auto centers. They are trying to provide a consistency over the entire piece of property and develop more of a permanent year around exposition environment for merchandizing cars. This is a dual dealership. Their signing is a little different than what you would have on a single dealership. They have looked over the recommendations and condkions and are generally in agreement. He went to the exhibft and explained further the project and the sign program. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 7-26-93 Page 16 DISCUSSION: Mr. Borcego stated if it is the Planning Commission's desire to approve tho project, he would recommend that the Commission add a condition requiring that precise plans be brought back for the development to occur on Parcels 2 and 3 and those would Include floor plans, elevations, and sign plans as well. In addition, a condition shall be added for the development of Parcel 1 which would include the Ford dealership to have them bring back precise plans for the parking structure as an informational item in the future so they could take a look at what kind of perspective the parking structure would have from the freeway. Discussion took place regarding the sign program. There was concern expressed that the 2 signs detracted from one another. They have placed the kiosks at an angle so all 4 sides would have goad visibility and the focal point are the showrooms. The petitioner would like to keep the signs close together rather than separating them by 300 feet because they want to focus the attention on the showroom. Mr. Ficker stated in planning this entire project the existing large sign is a rather substantial imposition on this piece of property and h falls right Into their service building. He clarified that the plan is to remove that. He referenced Condition No. 10. He asked ff that could say "prior to occupancy or within a period of 2 years from the date of the resolution." He thought that would be a reasonable amount of time to remove the billboard sign. Commissioner Messe suggested that they take "7` and move it out of Condition No. 10 to Condition No. 11. ~.. Mr. Hastings stated he would recommend that there be some further thought given to this particular Issue. Ruth Miller, Agent. She stated they have addressed the issue through the circulation and through the Code and through the design of the building for the best orientation of the building because h Is a rather unique she. The back skle is landlocked. There Is no way that their existing slgnage could go In eventually K that billboard were to remain as large and in that position. Chairman Henninger stated they have a 7 year lease. He asked how they were going to get the signs out of there? Ms. Miller stated their hope is that in a tradeoff, rather than asking them to take it down upon tho Issuance of permits, that they would remove it 60 to 90 days prior to their occupancy permit being Issued. They would have the buildings completed within 10 months time and ready for occupancy and at the end of 6 months they would have to remove that billboard. 7-26-93 Page 17 Chairman Henninger stated then to alleviate staff's concerns, we should have a signed agreement that the sign will be gone prior to building permit and then they could allow the removal at prior to cxupancy. Mr. Hastings stated there is one other item that was brought to his attention and that is in the Cade i.e, when you have anon-conforming use which this billboani Is because k is adjacent to the freeway, the removal of that use is required by Code prior to issuance of any building permit on a piece of property that would be a conforming use. If they could get the letter of agreement that it is in the process of being removed and to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. Ms. Miller stated they would be happy to work with that. Chairman Henninger asked about the parking stu~Jy. Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated they did have enough time to review the parking study and they are recommending approval of the parking study as long as it is clear to the applicant that ail of the employees should park on•slte and not on any City street and they will work with them to eliminate the parking around that area to one- hour parking. That would benefft everyone and take care of all cars parked on the street right now. Mr. Borrego asked for clarification if ft was ~;ie Commission's intent to have the applicant submft a letter to staff agreeing to remove the billboard prior to occupancy before the permit is issued? Chairman Henninger suggested that thew be a fully executed agreement with whoever holds the lease for the sign to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, suggested that they have a date certain like 9 months following the approval. Chairman Henninger stated whatever the best estimate is. He suggested 6 months or whatever the best estimate is at construction time. Chairman Henninger stated the staff s recommendation was nct to allow that to go forward because they did not feel comfortable with it yet. He asked ff this presentation altered their opinion? Mr. Borrego stated thoy were not necessarily sold that all of those signs are necessary. Chalnnan Henninger stated he still thinks the one focal point is stronger architecture. That one 4slded sign would certainly be adequate. Mr. Borrego stated the biggest concern they have is not necessarily the number of signs because it is a fairly large parcel of land; but he thinks the distance between signs is something that should be looked at more closely. Commissioner Caldwell stated he has not seen anything that would make him deviate from the sign Code. 7-26.93 Page 18 Chairman Henninger asked the applicant to come forward and explained that staff is recommending that the Commission not allow waivers 'C," 'D," and `E" at this time. However, there are sons options. One would be they could approve ft today and come back later wfth a sign program and ff ft was not consistent wfth the City's sign requirements, then they could apply for a waiver. Or they could continue this for a couple of weeks and bring back a more detailed sign program. Mr. Ficker stated they would not want to continue the entire hearing; this is a uniquely shaped piece of land and he feels comfortable working wfth the staff in the future to come back and work out a detailed sign program where they have the opportunity to measure every square-foot and take pictures. He assumes that their directional signs and used car signs are acceptable. Mr. Borcego stated the directional signage is flne-the used car sign would not be viewed as a directional sign. Chairman Henninger stated they have two pole signs and they are not consistent wfth our normal criteria. Normally they look for ground-mounted berm signs. Mr. Borrego stated the 2 signs he showed at the entrance Island at the driveway would be flne as far as directional signs. However, the other signs which are approximately 16 feet high they would consider as an addftional freestanding sign. It would not be considered dlrectlonai. Mr. Ficker stated they would prefer to come back. Their main kiosk sign o.k. for the ordinance. Chairman Henninger stated that staff's recommendation would be to add a condition that said you would bring a comprehensive sign progam back for approval under Reports and Recommendations. Commissioner Boydstun stated they want a condition that they will to see the other two lots under an R&R wfth precise plans. Chairman Henninger stated they asked for that and they have asked for a condtion that they see a plan elevation of the parking structure. Mr. Borcego stated the precise plans for the other 2 dealerships could probably be tied to the Issuance of a building permft for each of those since he assumed that they are not going to have any precise information until they actually know who is going to be moving In and occupying the dealership. But for the main dealership, Roger Miller, they would want to see sign plans and a detailed parking structure before Issuance of a building permft far that use. Chairman Henninger agreed. He clarified that the petftioner does not need to come in with the precise signs for all 3 lots now. ACTION CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE 7-26-93 Page 19 ACTION: 1. CEQA MRigated NegatNe Declaration -Approved 2. ReclassHication No. 91-92-19 -Granted, unconditionally 3. Waiver of Codo Requirement -Approved, in part a. Wavers (A) and (B) were deleted following public notHication b. Waivers (C), (D) and (E) were denied. c. Waivers (h~ and (G) were approved. 4. CondRlonal Use Pernik No. 3625 -Granted, in part, and added the following condRlons: l^, VOTE: 7-0 ~../ 1. That prior to the Issuance of a building permit for Parcel No. 1 sign plans and precise plans of the parking structure shall be brought back to the Planning Commission Tor review and approval as a Report and Recommendation Rem. 2. That prior to the issuance of a building permR for Parcels 2 and/or 3, precise floor, elevation and sign plans for said parcels shall be brought back to the Planning Commission for review and approval as a Report and Recommendation Rem. 3. That prior to the issuance o. a building perntR, the developer shall submR an executed agreement between the lessee of the billboard and the underlying property owner agreeing to release their lease rights to the billboard in order to facilRate Rs removal. The agreement shall be subject to review and approval of the CRy Attorney's Office. Said billboard shall be removed prior to the occupancy of the dealership proposed for Parcel No. 1. 5. Tentative Parcel Map No. 93-156 -Approved 7-26.93 Page 20 5a. ADDENDUM NO.2 TO EiR N0.289 (Readvertised) I Approved 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT (Readvertised) Approved 5c. CONt;f?IONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3550 -REVISION N0. 1 (Readvertised) Granted OWNER: t:•MART DEVELOPMENT, 3100 West Big Beaver Road, Troy MI 4804-316.9. AGENT: GREGOR'; SIMONOFF ARCHITECTS, 20101 S. W. Birch Street, Sufte 210, Santa A'la Heights, CA 92707. LOCATION: toot to 1100 Puli~n n tre t. Property is approximately 18.69 acres located south and west of the southwest comer of Old Canal Road and W®ir Canyon Road. Request for approval of Revlsi~n No. 1 to Conditions Use Perrnit No. 3550 to permit a 169,156-square foot K-Mart "super store' (previously 119,215-square foot) which Includes grocery sales, general retail sales, an automotive repair center, an outdoor garden center and sires-standing satellfte dish wfth waNer of required she screening, required landscaped setback and permitted roof mounted equipment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC93-87 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE '~ CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. Commissioner Taft declared a conflict of Interest. His firm provides Civil Engineering services to K-Mart. OPPOSITION: 1 PETITIONER: Tom Dombrowski, Protect Manager, K-Mart Corporation. This is a resubmission of a previously approved project. Particularly the elevation is a major modification of our standard elevation for this typo of building. We have worked wfth staff to incorporate the various elements and colors of the previously approved elevation. Greg Siminoff, Archftect. He stated they are bringing back an expanded building that includes grocery sales as well as the normal K-Mart sales. It serves the consumer in providing aone-stop shopping location where many Rams are housed under one roof wfth one single check-out. The protect itself has two major entry points which are highlighted by the raised towers and the tdanguiar entries. He explained those are connected by a the covered arcade, a treatment which carries across the face of the building and wraps as a stucco arcade around the garden shop facing Pullman Street. 7-26.93 Page 21 1 I I ~ The project locates the truck loading at the rear of the building, between the building and the embankment leading up to the 91 Freeway which moves ft away from residential and away from public view. As opposed to the previous application, the auto service area has been relocated to the opposite skis where there was a slight concem over noise going across the Santa Ana River towards the residents. That is now located on the other side, so that has been mftigated a little bit further. The roof top equipment and those Issues that were common to the previous submittal are being handled in a similar manner where they are using the monotone earth colored roof, raising the parapets, and painting the equipment to match. He added they agree wfth all of staff s condftions. OPPOSITION: Bill Turashi (phonetically spelled), 1201 N. Melanie Drive, Anaheim, CA. He is speaking on behalf of the residents that Ifve north of the K-Mart project she. They have 64 homes in their immediate tract and live north of La Palma Avenue and west of Weir Canyon Road. He explained that they know the K-Mart sfte qufte well. They have been communicating wfth and working wfth Robert ZurSchmiede from the Community Development Department for the past 4 years which. Includes previous proposals. He clarified that they are not opposed to the she being developed. Their Interest in this she is manly to make certain that the impact on our quality of IHe is minimal and the use Is appropriate for the Scenic Corcidor. He reviewed the She Plan drawings, the Planning staff report and tho recommendations to the Redevelopment Commission. There have been many changes in this plan since they saw the previous proposal in August of last year. He gave some background on the previous proposal submitted by K-Mart regarding the vertical elevations. They had suggested varying elevations which was more pleasing to the eye and eventually they agreed wfth the architect. The curcent proposal has abandoned that design concept. Instead the eke plan proposes a massive warehouse style of 172,000 square feet of near constant elevation. in addftion, a waiver request suggests that the roof-mounted air conditioning equipment not be screened from the view of the 91 Freeway. Planning staff recommends painting the equipment to match the building colors as a mitigating condiion. They dislike and oppose the warehouse style building. It is an inappropriate application in the Scenic Corridor. He stated ft would be much better sufted in an industrial park application. They understand that no K-Mart super stores have been built in Caliromia and Orange County. While the concept of a super store makes sense for K-Mart they think ft does not make sense on this particular eke plan. They oppose granting a waiver eliminating roof-mounted equipment screening; ft is an awful proposal for the aesthetics of a Scenic Corridor and could eventually set a precedence for future misapplication for the SAVI Ranch properties. They suggest that the Commission ask K-Mart to abandon this concept. K-Mart is also asking for this facility to operate 24 hours a day. They are firmly opposed to this condition. When he asked why this condftion is required, the answer provided was to keep up wfth the compettion. Supposedly that competition is a Walmart project currently under consideration for the Anaheim Plaza at Euclid and Lincoln Avenues. ~~ 7-26-93 Page 22 r The K-Mart super store Includes a grocery store and a pharmacy. Wkhin a 4 mile radius of this project, there are currently a grocery stores-there are also 5 major drug stores. Will the other businesses be negatively impacted? He asked for denial of the she plan and to send k back to the drawing board. He stated k needs to be rev(sed In order for k to be appropriate for a Scenic Corridor application and k needs to forego any hope of a 24 hour operation. He urged that this project does not forever change the aesthetics of the Scenic area. REBUTTAL: Petkioner. He stated the reason for the 24 hour venture is to suffice a lot of dffferent people's working hours. Their shopping needs could be scheduled over the 24 hours. He did not think this was a warehouse type building. From the inside out, the operation of this K-Mart is anything but a warehouse. He elaborated on the elevations and stated he believed that the building is a handsome addkion to the area. DISCUSSION: The petkloner went to the exhibk board and a discussion took place regarding the she plan and elevations. Commissioner Messe referenced the mkigation measure that calls for no lighting between 6:OOa.m. and midnight. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated the Code has changed since they originally looked at the project. Curentiy the Cade reads that signage can be Ik during any hour of operation. He added k is an outdated mkigatlon measure and k can be stricken. .- Commissioner Boydstun stated she did not understand why they needed to be open 24 hours. She suggested 6:OOa.m. to midnight. Petkloner. They wish to be open 24 hours. He explained there are a lot of activkles that go on in there such as the bakery, etc. Commissioner Boydstun clarified that she moan[ hours open to the public. She stated she could not go for the 24 hours. Commissioner Caldwell stated k is cheaper to leave an operation like that open than k is to go through the expense of shutting k down and then reopening. Ho added k is economically more advantageous to K-Mart to leave k open. He stated there also should be some ske screening. He did not want to change everything they have been trying to do out in tl:e Scenic Corrkfor. He added they need to hide the equipment. Chairman Henninger clarified there is ske screening for those areas class to grade. The variance they are talking about is from the freeway view because that is substantially elevated. Petkioner. All of the parapets eMend past the top of the roof-mounted equipment. He stated this is not a change from the previous proposal that was approved. ~...r 7-26-93 Page 23 He stated staying open 24 hours is a K-Mart Corporation mandate for this type of building. He explained they are looking to provide the most ease of service type of building to the consumer in this area. They are catering to people who need to get to a facility on off hours. It may be cost ddv~;n but in another sense ft is providing a statement to the public on their commitment to serve the public. Mr. Borcego stated Mr. Simonoff had mentioned that the waiver for roof-mounted equipment had been previously granted and there was a mitigation measure requldng that the applicant come back wfth a landscape plan and roof•mounted equipment plans ter the Planning Commission to review as a Report and Recommendation hem. Commissioner Messe stated and a signage plan. Commissioner Peraza asked for clarification if there was a restaurant and the petitioner explained it is a sft~fown restaurant. Commissioner Messe asked if they were going to have full service automotive? Petitioner. He stated ft is strictly changing tires, batteries and accessories. Commissioner Messe stated on a previous application from another petitioner, they added a lot of condftlons about policing the parking lot as to not allowing people to do their own work in the parking lot. Pettioner. He stated the work would strictly be done In the garage. '- Commissioner Messe asked how they were going to prevent someone from changing their oil in the parking lot? Pettioner. He stated they will have security in the parking lot. Commissioner Messe asked for clarfication ff that was a condftion of the CUP7 Pettoner. He stated they have security at all of the K-Marts. Commissioner Mayer asked ff they could add informational signs that caution Individuals that they cannot work on the cars? Commissioner Messe clarified that in their signage plan, they would Ilke to see some evidence of signage to direct people that they are not permitted to work on cars. Commissioner Boydstun asked that the signs be displayed by the cash register for that section so people are made aware. Mr. Borrego stated there were some changes in terms of the conditioning that he would Ilke to suggest starting wfth the Mitigation Monitoring Program. He referenced the second miigation measure in regards to the Reports and Recommendation item. He thought it would be best to change the timing of that to be "prior to the Issuance of a building permit" rather than upon site plan and landscape plan submittal. 7.2(i-93 Page 24 I$ t S F, ~~'A Petkioner. He asked for clarification k this was in reference to the roof-mounted equipment? Mr. Borrego indicated that was correct. He also suggested one other change to the ' condkions of the condkional use permk on page 10 of the report. Condkion no. 4 to be slightly modified to road as follows: "That the outdoor garden center shall only be used for the storage and display of nursery related hems.' Commissioner Mayer stated she had an addkion to condkion no. 6. She stated she would like to see added, "that the trees be maintained by a certkied arborist.' Chairman Henninger stated they will also add a condkion regarding the signage and some aecurky that would Implement a regulation regarding no work on cars in the parking lot. He clarified this would be a condklon of the CUP. ACTION: 1. Approved Addendum No. 2 to EIR No. 289 and adopted the revised Mkigation Monkoring Program No. OG55 wkh the following changes: 1. Changed the timing on second mkigation measure on Page 1 of the Mklgation Monkoring Program (related to submitting plans to the Planning Commission for review and approval as a report and recommendation kem) to bo completed "prior to the issuance of a building permk' rather then "upon she plan and landscape plan approval". 2. Deleted the 4th mkigatlon measure on Page 6 of the Mkigation Monkodng Program related to lighting of subject property. 2. Approved Waiver of Code Requirement 3. Approved Revision No. 1 to Condkional Use Permit No. 3550 as follows: 1. Modified Condkion No. 4 to read: 4. That the outdoor garden center shall only be used for the storage and display of nursery related hems. 2. Modified Condk(on No. 6 to read: 6. That any tree planted on-she shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that k is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. The trees shall be maintained by a certified amorist. Added the following condkion: 1. That signs shall be posted both inside and outside the property prohibking patrons from working on cars in the parking lot. VOTE: 5-1 (Commissioner Tak declared a conflict of Interest and Commissioner Boydstun voted no) ~ 7-26.93 Pagb 25 , 9 c 's: `~. 6a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARAItON Continued to 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT August 9, 1993 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3623 OWNER: FRANK AND SARAH MINISSALE, 111 South Mohler Drive, Anaheim, CA 92E08. LOCATION: 111 South Mohler Drive. Property is approximately 1.2 acres located at the southwest comer of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Mohler Drive. To permft a 94-bed convalescent facility with waver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CO~~SIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: PETITIONER: Frank Minissale, 111 South Mohler Drive, Anaheim, CA. 92808. He and his wife Sarah are co-owners of the property. The last time he was here, he proposed apre-school of 204 '' children and the main concern at that time was that the traffic would be prohibitive. He went back and decided to find a faciiity with a low traffic volume. The lowest volume he could think of was a convalescent home. He gave some traffic study Information he had on 3 different similar facilfties. Chairman Henninger asked ff he has read the staff report. He explained that staff had a number of design Issues that they would like to go work out with him and they are suggesting that they continue this public hearing so those things could be worked out. He referenced 3 items on page 5 of the staff report, paragraph 24, items a, b and c. Mr. Minissalle stated he has already submitted revised plans and the changes were made. He stated they lost a whole set of elevations and he had to redraw them. He added these are not the latest plans he submitted. Greg Hast(ngs, Zoning DNision Manager, stated it appears that the revised plans still have 4 parking spaces backing Into the driveway. Chairman Henninger explained he would see if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak and he thought it would be best for the applicant to get things fully sorted out wfth staff so they could give him a positive recommendation. He acknowledged he understood that he had been through a long arduous process getting to this point. Mr. Mlnissale asked about the 10-foot trail easement. At one time he was told that this was not on his property and they asked him to eliminate it because there was one across the street from him. 7-26-93 Page 26 ~ Dick Mayer, Parks and Recreation, stated every time this has come up, he has asked for the trail to be on this. The reason they are asking for the troll is because they did not want it within the street right-of-way so ft would not hamper future widening of the Sa~rta Ana Canyon Road. He explained according to the City's General Pian and the Master Plan of Trails, they do need to have the trail on that property. As far as the trail being across the street, they have no trail proposed across the street and never have. Mr. Mlnissale stated there is one across the street on Mohler Drive. Mr. Mayer explained there is one on Mohler Dfire, however, they are talking about a trail on Santa Ana Canyon Road. Further discussion took place about the location of the trail and the Intended direction of the trail. Commissioner Messe stated this is something that should be ironed out in the IDC meeting. OPPOSITION'S CONCERNS: Rod AgaJian (phonetically spelled), 120 S. Mohler Drive, across the street from Mr. Minissale. He stated in 1988 he and his wife found the home they wanted. He did come to City Hall to find out details about the zoning. They have put in a lot of work and money into their house. He stated ff he wanted to live across the street from a commercial venture, he would not have purchased the home. He stated he was adamantly against any type of Commercial venture going on that comer. The General Plan shows there are suppose to be homes in the area. He cannot allow the homes to be devaluated anymore then what they already are. Phyllis Duncan, 7625 Pleasant Place, Anaheim, CA. She had a letter dated Juiy 25th and read one paragraph regarding emergency vehicles coming in and out of the area with sirens and flashing lights. Alfred Yalda, stated the proposed driveway will accommodate the Fire departmsnt and also he recommends the curb return radius which will accommodate the Fire Department and SanNatlon. The Fire Department and Sankation reviewed the plans and H they had any objections they would have notified the applicant. Ms. Duncan stated her real concern was the noise this would create. She added this is not the place to put this type of development. Further discussion took place regarding the entrance. Chairman Henninger stated they would leave the public hearing open. ACTION: Left public hearing open and continued Conditional Use Permft No. 3623 to the August 9, 1993 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to submk revised plans. VOTE: 7-0 ~..,J 7-26-93 Page 27 OWNER: ROBERT DALE ZANTOS AND ANITA MARIE ZANTOS, 1832 N. Glassell, Orange, CA 92665 AGENT: MARILYN T. THOMS, 1832 N. Glassell, Orange, CA 92805. LOCATION: 1190 North Kraemer Bouievard. Property is approximately 1.94 acres located an the southeast comer of Coronado Street and Kraemer Boulevard. To permft the retail sales of marine vehicles, trailers, parts and accessorfes in conjunction with a marine product manufacturing facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC93-88 7a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved 7b. rONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3616 Granted FOLLOY~ING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: Marilyn Thoms, representing West Coast Performance Products, 1832 N. Glassell, Orange, "" CA. Her new address will be 1190 North Kraemer Blvd., Anaheim. She stated their business is personal watercraft which are jet skis, and one, two or 3 man vehicles, etc. She disagrees with Condffion No. 2 regarding outdoor display of marne vehicles. She explained they were led to believe that they could display 2 vehicles out in front. They redesigned the entryway with the 2 small vehicles under an eve. She had some pictures. They were further told ff they wanted to have an open house or any big event, they could apply for a permit. Jonathan eorcego, Senior Planner, stated wfthin the Canyon Industrial area (or wfthin the Redevelopment area), there is no provision which allows any type of outdoor display of merchandise. As the Commission is aware, there is a pending Spe%iflc Plan being looked at for that area and the Issue of outdoor display should probably be addressed wfthin that Specific Plan, however, in the interim there is no provision to allow them to do outdoor display of their merchandise even on a Iimfted basis. Commissioner Boydstun asked what about the ones that are doing ff? Mr. Borrego explained that most of those uses were grandfathered in. Chairman Henninger asked ff they could get a Special Events Permft and Mr. Borrego stated they could not. Ms. Thoms stated the vehicles are secured to the building and taken in at n(ght and brought out in the morning. ~ I 7-26-93 Page 26 f iF Further discussion took place about exterior display of the merchandise. ~I Commissioner Caldwell stated they have a great business and it really is outdoor display, and ft is not allowed in that zone. Commissioner Messe stated they have allowed a lot of uses in that area that are retail in `. nature and the whole market is changing and it is under roof. Commissioner Boydstun stated that Mercedes-Benz is parking on the lawn and they are getting away with it. Commissioner Peraza read hem no. 16 stating that Redevelopment found subJect request consistent with the Canyon Industrial Area and further recommended that the Planning Commission examine the Code in order to allow Ilmtted outdoor display of vehicles. I ACTION: Approved CEQA NegatNe Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3616 as follows: 1. ModiFled Condition No. 2 to read: 2. That there shall be no outdoor display of marine vehicles and/or accessories unless they are under a roof and, H so, no more than two (2) vehicles may be displayed unless otherwise permitted by Code. VOTE: 4-2 (Commissioners Peraza and Mayer voted No and Commissioner Caldwell abstained) ~ 7-26-93 Page 29 Approved Approved Granted To permk retail sales and repair of boats, marine equipment, accessories and supplies wkh waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC93-89 rEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT rnNDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3622 OWNER: ANAHEIM ASSOCIATES, 4631 Teller Avenue, Suke 110, Newport Beach, CA 92660. AGENT: JAMES W. CABRAL, 1804 N. Lemon Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. LOCATION: 1804 Narth Lemon Street. Property is approximately 1.36 acres located on the northeast comer of lJberty Avenue and Lemon Street. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: ~" Rick Hartman, 424 E. Botoa Street, San Dimas, CA 91773. He is here on behalf of Mr. Cabral as he is out of town on a business related trip. They have reviewed the staff report and agree to all of the condkions. He explained they are trying to do some incidental sales along with the repair of the marine equipment which is basically motors. They do not do any fiberglass work there. They are happy wkh the recommendation from staff. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Boydstun asked ff they do quke a bk of boat sales? Mr. Hartman stated due to the slow economy, the principal use has been the service side of k. Commissioner Boydstun asked ff they had room in the facilky to keep the boats on display and to sell? Mr. Hartman indicated they did and explained k Is a very large facilky. Wkh the economy the way k Is, service has been a primary source of revenue and he would like to continue the sale of the boats ff at all possible. E,,,i 7-26-93 Page 30 r" Commissioner Messe asked for clarification ff he was Ilmked to 3 boats outdoors? ,~~ He stated they would accept the limitation of 3 per staff's recommendation. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3622 VOTE: 7-0 I 7-26.93 Page 31 ~. AGENT: ANDREW VAN GINKEL, 537 W. Valencia, Fullerton, CA 92632. LOCATION: 3401 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 1.58 acres located on the northeast comer of La Paima Avenue and Miller Street. To permft an automobile repair facility wfth waNer of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC93-90 Approved Approved Granted FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ANION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: Jlm Reesha (phonetically spelled), representing Andrew Van Ginkel, Import Auto Clinics, 1241 N. Lakeview, Anaheim, CA. They have read the staff report and read the condftions. He asked for ciarfflcation regarding special events. Commissioner Messe explained ft refers to large open houses with flags and streamers and things of that nature. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Peraza stated at their morning session there was concern expressed about the two single garage doors going into the facilty. Ha asked ff they were planning on doing anything wfth that? Mr. Reesha indicated they were not planning on changing anything. Commissioner Messe referenced Condition No. 4. After some discussion, h was determined that the wording should be left in its original format. ACTION: CEQA NegatNe Declaration -Approved Waiver of Code Requirement -Approved Conditional Use Permit No. 3624 -Granted VOTE: 7-0 `°'~ 7-26 93 'I Page 32 a ,,, t0a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 10b. AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN N0. 108 August 9, 1993 OWNER: CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Attn: Larry E. Hitson, 201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805. LOCATION: Property is approximately 0.88 acre located on the north side of the 91 Freeway and approximately 210 feet east of the centerline of Blue Gum Street and further described as a proposed abandonment of a portion of La Mesa Avenue. An amendment to Exhibft'H' of Area Development Plan No. 108 to delete a portion of La Mesa Avenue beginning at a point approximately 210 feet east of the centerline of Blue Gum Street and terminating 630 feet east of said point. AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN RESOLUTION NO. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None ~. ` - ' ACTION: VOTE: Staff requested a two week continuance to August 9, 1993. 7-0 k"ty 7'26-93 Page 33 !'~ 11. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO ROOF-MOUNTED AND adopt on t Cky ~aROUND-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT: Council as revised To consider amendments to various sections of Tftle 18 pertaining to roof and by the City Attomey ground-mounted equipment. Planning Commission directed the Cky Attorney's office to revise the proposed draft ordinance to allow ground-mounted amateur operated transmission towers as condkionally permkted uses in the Scenic Corridor. DISCUSSION: Selma Mann, Deputy Cky Attomey, stated the ordinance as k is prepared Is actually prohibking transmission stations Including ground mounted; roof mounted; amateur operated and radio transmkting towers in the hills and Scenic Corrldor Zones. Commissioner Peraza asked k there were any Federal regulations that would come to play in connection wkh this? Chairman Henninger asked k we were pre-empted? Ms. Mann stated they could prohibk them completely and make the argument that there are aesthetic considerations in the Scenic Corrldor and that would justify the total prohibkion. However, the FCC states that any local laws adopted must reasonably accommodate ham radio communications and Impose no greater restdctions than Is necessary to accomplish the undedying purpose of the regulation. She stated there are very, very strong feelings about the prohibkion completely in the Scenic Corridor. It is their recommendation that they permit those subject to a condkional use permk in those zones and that would be a more reasonable burden to sustain k there were some kind of a challenge. Commissioner Boydstun stated there Is one out there that they did approve. They are part of the National Security and she dkl not know how they could forbid them. Commissioner Caldwell stated they can review them. Commissioner Messe stated when they approved the other one, k was approved upon them planting certain large trees, landscaping, etc. Chairman Henninger clarified then Ms. Mann's suggestion is that they change the language to allow these by CUP? Ms. Mann indicated that was correct and that their office would go ahead and make the revisions that are necessary before k goes to Cky Council. ACTION: Recommended adoption to Cky Council as revised by the Cky Attomey. ~ 7-26-93 Page 34 %-~ B. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO SIGNAGE IN THE Recommended PUBLIC RECREATIONAL (PRl ZONE: adoption to City Council C. rONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.3556 -REVIEW OF PRECISE ROOF AND Approved tdm, TILE MATERIALS: Dick DeBeikes requests approval of roof and file materials in stucco and altemate conjunction with Condttional Use Permk No. 3556 (to permit a car wash facility). roof file colors as Property is located on the northwest comer of Welr Canyon Road and SAVI proposed and Ranch Parkway. changed the color of tiles to black and ~ woos DISCUSSION: Dick DeBeikes went ahead wfth their altemate palette. He explained this was submitted to the Redevelopment Agency's architect and consultant. He prepared his choice of colors also in which he recommended changing the whole building color. They are back today wfth a compromise. Chairman Henninger asked if there was a way they could get a solid color wfth the black and whfte trim? Mr. DeBeikes stated there was no way to break k in the building because h was running on a 45 degree angle. Commissioner Taft stated the last time they looked it over, they felt the black and whfte over the entire front of the building was too much, but thought the checkered flag would look sharp as an accent throughout the front of the building. Mr. DeBeikes stated he did not feel as though they had a dramatic amount of file on the building. He elaborated. Commissioner Mayer asked if they had already ordered the file and Mr. DeBeikes indicated he has. Commissioner Mayer asked to see the elevation. A discussion took place. ACTION: Approved trim, stucco and altemate roof file colors as proposed and changed the ccdor of the tiles to black and whfte. ADJOURNED AT 5:50 P.M. TO THE AUGUST 3, 1993 CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP AT 2:00 P.M. 7-26-93 Page 35 J