Loading...
Minutes-PC 1993/09/20ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1993, AT 11:00 A.M. PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING (PUBLIC TESTIMONY) 11:00 A.M. 1:30 P.M. l,. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, CALDWELL, HENNINGER, MAYER, MESSE, PEfiAZA, TAIT 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. Addftion~l 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 time 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 receNed by the Commission in each headng. Copies are available to the public prior to the meeting. 4. The Commission will withhold questions until the public hearing is closed. 5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing ff, in its opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned will be served. 6. All documents presented to the Planning Commission 'or review in connection with any hearing, Including photographs or other acceptable visual representations or nontlocumentary 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 hems of interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and/or agenda ftems. Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of tNe (5) minutes to speak. ACA92093.WP ta. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0.312 1b. RECLASSIFICATION NO.92-93-09 1c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 1d. rnNDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.3608 OWNER: PICK YOUR PART AUTO WRECKING, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, 1301 E. Orangewood Avenue, #130, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: PHILIP R. SCHWARTZE, 27132 Paseo Espada, #1222, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 LOCATION: 1235 South Beach Boulevard. Property is approximately 4.5 acres located on the west side of Beach Boulevard and approximately 330 feet south of the centedine of Ball Road. To perm t an automobile flukl drainage area and used automobile sales area in conjunction wRh an automobile dismantling and recycling facility on the adjacent parcel to the south (in the City of Stanton) with waNer of maximum fence height. Continued from the July 12, July 26, and September 6, 1993 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC93.104 Certifled Withdrawn Denied Dented FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. WOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. iN FAVOR: 1 OPPOSITION: 3 THE PUBLIC HEARING REMAINED OPEN FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1993. i Chairman Peraza stated the Commission will take testimony for any new Information regarding Pick Your Part and also to d(scuss visitation to the Wilmington facility by some of the Commission members. PETITIONER: i Philip Schwartze, 27132 Paseo Espada, #1222, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675, representing Pick Your Part. He stated they were pleased that the Commission was able to make h to the { ~~;,. facility In Wilmington. He passed out some photos of the facility. They also passed out a letter t regarding the Wilmington yard and the plan they are proposing. 9-20-93 Page 2 lm/ Fle referenced the letter and stated there are eleven points that they made to make sure how much different and better the facility in Anaheim/Stanton will be then the one in WOmington. The entire facility wail be paved and not on crushed rock as the facility in Wilmington is; the fluid drainage facility will bs closed; there is no scrap department or crusher. The office building wtli n~[ be prefabed as fl was in Wilmington. It will be Medfterranean style stucco. One of the more expensive pieces they are putting in is the storm water treatment facility for handling the storm water. OPPOSITION: Katherine Avel (phonetically spelled), 3050 West Bail Road, Anaheim Mobile Park Estates. They do have a tew new things. She read from a newspaper clipping. She had copies of referendums for each of the Commissioners. She also submitted pictures of the junk yard in Wilmington. She explained there is no comparison between that uea and this area. It Is not on a through boulevard. The surrounding homes do net compare to our lovely Anaheim homes. They are asking the Commission to vote no on this project. IN FAVOR: Sal Sapien, City Councilman, City of Stanton, 6840 Vta Kannela, Stanton, CA. He referenced the referendum concerning this issue in the City of Stanton. He explained there has never been an e~fort to have a rererendum. He doubts ff the proponents have collected more than ^Qrhaps 100 signatures for the referendum and they nerd over 1,100. He stated in Stanton they have a certain group of Individuals (former elected officials) that are unhappy. They are constantly tiling law suits and tailing for recalls and referendums on almost every Issue they have. He stated the referendum was stricty a ploy to delay this Issue. The strategy ~~ems to be the longer they delay the Issue, the proponent will get tired of it and abandon the proposal and go some place else. He made K clear at this point that he was not here on an official capacity, but as a private citizen. He explained they approved the project because ft appeared that the proponent mitigated all of the concerns of the residents. The yard has been in there for 40 years, long before the mobile home park. Everyone of the residents of the park knew what they were moving Into. All of their concems have been addressed to their satisfaction. The owner of the park decided to oppose the project and hired a political consultant. He stated this Is not an organized grass roots effort from the City of Stanton or from the residents. Thisrs strictly a polftical Issue. OPPOSITION CONTINUED: Glen Greener. He works wkh the residents of the park and represents the owners of the mobile home park at 3050 Ball Road. They very much respect what Pid lour Part has accomplished in Wilmington; they respect what Pick Your Part has proposed for their recycling facility in Stanton. They simply believe it is an industrial use and the proximity to a residential area is Just too close. 9-20.93 Page 3 ~~ Edward Allen, 8171 Bever Place, Stanton. He stated he has before him, a portion of 500 ~- signatures of a referendum. He offered to submit them. Everyone he spoke with agreed to sign willingly. All of the signatures that he obtained Ifved no less than 1/2 a mile from this she. REBUTTAL: Mr. Schwartze stated the last date to legally file for a referendum was September 9th, and that date has passed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Caldwell drove to the facility in Wilmington on Friday. He took some pictures and his pictures looked entirely different from the ones just submitted. He stated ha would vote against the project because this is not the location for this type of facility. It is not compatible with the residential use or with the commercial corddor the City of Anaheim would like to create along Beach Blvd. Hls vote will be no. The pictures were submitted for the record. Commissioner Messe asked about containment of the flukl drainage area inside a building. He asked how the venting was going to be handled? Ms. Galfln explained that the ventilation from the building will be done with fans; the building is large enough to contain most of the fumes and there will be 2 skies that will remain open. The fumes are contained. The actual drainage will be done through closed pipes and tubing that will go into enclosed vessels to transport the fluids Into the underground storage tanks, so the fumes are minimal. The South Coast Air Quality Management District does come out and observe the way that they operate and contain the fumes. ,~. Commissioner Messe asked ff there would be any noxious odors wkhin 20 feet of the building? Ms. Galfln indicated they would not be able to smell anything and explained that they have all of the new technolo~(es where the fumes do not escape. Cc•nmissioner Messe asked how they would handle batteries? Ms. Galfln explained they would remove the batteries and place them on pallets and wrap them in plastic and then they are sh(pped out on a regular basis to the larger Wilmington facility. Further discussion of fluid drainage took place between the Commission and Ms. Galfln. Ms. Galfln stated ff the project is approved, she would speak wfth John Poole, Cade Enforcement, and make an effort to have them come out on a regular basis to make sure they are doing exactly as they have comet;tted to do. Commissioner Tait asked after a storm will the treatment facility treat those types of fluids? Ms. Galfln explained that the NPDES Treatment Facility will take all of the constituents of oils, gasoline etc., and treat it down to norndetect. Their water coming off of this facility is better than drinking quality water that you get out of your tap. They are only required to treat the first one or two hours of a storm event, however, they are treating the full 24 hours of the rain storm. 9-20-93 Page 4 A discussion took place regarding graffiti removal. Ms. Galfln explainod that tagging is a problem everywhere and is generally done at night. Chairman Peraza expressed his concem about people drinking beverages, etc. and leaving the bottlee. Ms. Gaifin explained that is why they have regular maintenance. Commissioner Peraza asked ff the gate would be closed at the Beach Blvd. facility? Ms. Gaifin stated the gate would be closed at 6:OOp.m. when the last customer leaves. There is a requirement that they open ff one hour eadier in the morning so that traffic does not stack up. Commissioner Messe stated he did not know how they could approve a variance. They have a rectangular flat lot and they are asking for alarger/taller than Code fence height. Ho did not see how he could make a finding for that variance. Mr. Schwartze stated the reason for the variance was to increase the fence height in one area. They have determined through the noise impact that it is not necessary for the noise program. The fence height is what they proposed in order to resolve any concerns there might be in nagards to aesthetics. He stated the hardship they have is the concem about the aesthetics. He further explained that the fence height was put in at the request of both of the cities. The hardship was that it was there as a means of mitigation for a potential aesthetic that might occur. At the time of the original request, the plan looked a Ifftle dffferent then it does now. He referenced the graphic and stated he did not see any problem with a 6-foot fence. Commissioner Messe asked about the parking. He asked ff there is anything that says more parking has to be provided in the event they are under parked? Tha adequacy of the 331 parking spaces is faldy arbitrary. Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated usually the highest parking for this type of facility is on the weekend on Saturday and Sundays and the traffic on the stre^ts are minimal. If there vvould be a problem, the applicant really must address that. They do not have room to provide additional parking. They are utilizing the site to maximum of parking that they are providing. Commissioner Messe asked ff he was completely comfortable with the amount of parking? Mr. Yalda stated based on the parking study they were comfortable. Commissioner Boydstun asked ff this project were to be approved, would there be a problem wffh establishing two separate accounts with the State Board of Equalization for Anaheim and Stanton? Mr. Schwartze stated he thought that was a condition of approval to hava two separate accounts. Additionally, there would be an account for the used cars and the sales would go through In Anaheim. Commissioner Mayer stated the request was for an interim use for 5 years. She asked what scenario d(d they see in 5 years? 9-20-93 Page 5 fb1r. Schwartze stated the program they laid out was one that the Commission had the right to call this use for+vard at any time. They are probably looking at a 10 year program, so they have set it up for 5 years with the opportunity for a renewal at the end of the 5 years. At the end of 10 years it goes away, or the Commission approves ft or something happens in the year 2003. Karen Freeman, Planning Department, stated she had some housekeeping items and would be based on whatever motion was going to be proposed. Commissioner Taft stated he disagrees wfth Commissioner Caldwell arxJ looks at h as more of an environmental Issue, l.e., In that you have an environmental problem existing and an interim use that would solve that problem. He clarified he was not at the last hearing, however, he Ilstened to the tapes. He stated there has been testimony that plants will not grow in certain areas due to the drainage. Cosnmissioners Messe and Caldwell explained they are obligated to remediate that either way. Commissioner Taft stated he did not believe k had to be c~eaned wfth a storm water discharge. The ground water and soil will be cleaned up, however, until It is developed, the surface flow will be cleaned up. Commissioner Caldwell stated he is shocked (and he did not want to belabor anyone), but there is a double standard in this city. That the Commission would labor over whether they should put a convalescent hospital in Anaheim Hills, yet they will discuss the possibility of putting a Junk yard around the same Anaheim residents, just in a different part of the city. The excuse we use is that ft was there for 40 years and they should do it again? It is a black and white issue for him. He is in favor of business end jobs and wants to see prosperity come to all of the people in Anaheim, but not to the ultimate detriment to the quality of Iffe to the people who live around h. 'r Commissioner Messa stated they could certify the EIR and not approve the project. Ms. Freeman indicated that was correct and in that case they could go ahead and approve the findings of fact and he does have some modfflcatlons that need to be added into the record for changing the findings of fact. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated ff the motion was being presented in conjunction wfth actions to BDDfOV9 the project, that 'A" through `E' would need to be approved. If the motion Is being presented in conjunction wfth actlons to i r v the project, that only "A" through "C" would be appropriate of those recommendations beginning on page 10. 9-20-93 j Page 6 L..~ a ACTION: i 1. Certffled Environmental Impact Report No. 312 (inciuding findings A, B, & C ~~ as listed on page 10 of the staff report). Even wkh Incorporation of the Mkigation Measures, the project will have an adverse effect on land use and aesthetics in the project area. 2. Wkhdrew Reclassification No. 92-93-0? 3. Denied WaNer of Code Requirement (Subject property Is a flat, rectangularly shaped parcel of land wkh no apparent development constraints). 4. Denied Condkionai Use Pernik No. 3608 VOTE: Environmental Impact Report No. 312: 5-2 (Commissioners Peraza and Tak voted No) Reclassification No. 92.93-09: 7-0 WaNer of Code Requirement: 5-2 (Commissioners Peraza and Tak voted No) Condkional Use Pernik No. 3608: 5-2 (Commissioners Peraza and Tak voted No) ~• ,' ~, 9-20.93 Page 7 l.i ~~,. 2a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.3036_ 10.4-93 OWNER: MAGNOLIA SCHOOL DISTRICT, 2705 W. Orange Ave., Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: LOS ANGELES RAMS, 2327 West Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92f101 LOCATION: 2327 W. Lincoln Ave. Property is approximateiy 10.1 acres located on the west side of Ventura Street and located approximately 275 feet west of the centerilne of Monterey Street. To permit a 9,000-square foot weight room building in osier to expand an existing private sports training facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. ~-. C ~./ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: 1 PETITIONER: Steve Novak, representing the Los Angeles Rams. They have a petition for a conditional use permit for a weight training addition and storage facility not to exceed 9,000 square feet. OPPOSITION: Jim Tice, 2331 W. Lincoln Avenue, which is Immediateiy to the south of the proposed structure and directly across the street from the Home Depot. He is speaking on behalf of the owner of 2331 'v'r. Lincoln Avenue. They are stating their ~ opposition to the application simply because this is an expansion of an existing conditional use i which goes back 15 years. ~, His client has owned this building for 6 or 7 years. Recen0y he completed a very nice patio deck on the back of the building and it looks out over the park area. There are 2 very large mature trees immediately to the north of the building which may be in the footprint of this building. He was not quite sure. Regardless, the line-of-sight would be dramatically Impaired. He gave some background. He stated they went through this about 3 years ago, but the Rams Intended to build, on the same location, a building that would be used for a weight training facility and for various reasons and that never happened. His client is opposed to this because while they enjoy the Rams and are prcud to have them, at the same time, they want them to be as good as neighbor to everybody else as everybody else wants to be to them and to respect the park I(ke setting which this property possesses and to not continually build on h and disrupt fts integrity. a d 9-20.93 E Page 8 Three years ago his client tried to enter Into a dialogue wfth the Rams about this in order to propose some type of a compromise which would maintain the aesthetics of the she looking Into ft from the north while letting the Rams do what they felt they needed to do. They basically were told they were going to do ft their way or they were going to cram ft down their throat. He hopes that is not the attitude that exists now. His client would be pleased to work with the Rams ff someone had come to them and work wfth them to come up with a plan that meets both of their needs. They are asking ff the Rams are not willing to cooperate and ff the sight is not amenable to the kind of structure that they are proposing, etc., then they would be opposed to an expansion of the conditional use which now exists on the property, however, ff the Rams can satisfy the reasonable concerns that his client has, then they are here to be good neighbors and to work to resolve this to everyone's satisfaction. REBUTTAL: • Mr. Novak stated they are somewhat landlocked in the training facility where they are right now. There is only one place that they could build an expansion. They have had a problem for several years where they actually have a lot of their weights and training facility on the outside exposed to the elements. They have a slgniflcant problem where they must expand and he would ask the Commission to consider their petition. George Hannah, general contractor, 1203 W. Shelly Court, Orange, CA. He stated the project will not have a detrimental effect on the park like setting. There Is a total of 10 acres and they are proposing a 9,000 square-foot building which would only take up about 296 of the total she area. It Is going to be constructed so ft is compatible wfth the existing buildings on-she. It should not affect any sight lines from Mr. Tice's building. Every attempt wail be made to keep the height of tho building to a minimum. There will be 2roof-mounted air conditioner unfts which can be screened. The Rams are willing to work wfth the property owners. There is going to be a removal of one mature tree on the she. It is right on the foot line where the building is going to have to go. They could possibly relocate the tree or provide some additional landscaping to replace the tree. Further discussion took place. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Mr. Borrego, Senior Planner, stated during the IDC meeting their were some Issues as to whether or not the buildings would have to be sprinkled or whether or not the petftioner would be required to install a fire hydrant. The building will need to be sprinkled and he did not believe that a fire hydrant would be required. He does have a copy of the aerial photograph of the tacilfty for review by the Planning Commission to get a better klea of the overall layout. Commissioner Henninger asked ff there were any problems with the walkway at the back end of this property/! Is ft used Informedy by others? 9-20-93 Page 9 Mr. Hannah stated there is an asphalt walkway behind the exlstiny weight facility. it is on the opposite side of the facility. There is a fence that d(vides their property and another fence on the other side of the walkway that goes to the golf course. He was not certain as to who the property belongs to. It belongs to efther the Cfty or the Schooi District. Commissioner Mayer stated she is familiar wfth the original joint use for public and private use of the facilty. She asked ff that availabilfty for public use still exist? Mr. Borcego stated in reviewing the resolutions approving the original facllfty, all of those condftions were worded wfth the word 'may and there were some options that were open that this could be a shared facility. Apparently they took the option of not opening up the facility to the public. Commissioner Mayer stated originally there was some programming in there when ft first opened. I She was working for the Recreation Department at that time and they have such a shortage of facilftles. They did run some programming out of there for the community and ft was quite well attended. Mr. Borcego stated according to the wording in the condftlon, they were not locked into ft. Commissioner Caldwell asked ff the construction cf ina building, the maintenance of the facilfty and the operation of the facility will all be paid for by the Rams? Petitioner. He stated he was not involved in that aspect. He d(d not want to make a representation one way or another. He assumes that is the case, but he is not involved. Commissioner Henninger asked about the walkway. There is an area at the back side of the `^ property that basically has an alley created by 2 sets of fences. As they look at the site plan, and the fencing arrangement, ft appears that the walkway fs on the leased piece of property. It is not on the golf course. Pettioner. He was not sure ff it was part of the Magnolia Schooi District's property or the cities where the golf course is. Commissioner Henninger stated ft appears to be the School District's property. He asked ff ft was possible to eliminate that walkway by taking the fence down and terminate their fence Into the fence that demarcates the golf course? Mr. Borrego stated in reviewing the original resolution approving this, there was a condftlon that addressed that walkway. He read ft Into the record. He asked that the Commission keep in mind that this condftionai use permft supersedes the previous application, therefore, ff the Commission feels ft is necessary to close that off, he thought that would be possible. Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement, stated at a recent homeowner's meeting at Brookhurst and Lincoln, the problem was expressed by a number of property homeowners of which there are about 60 present. A number of them expressed problems with transients, vandalism, immoral acts, etc., and they did voice their concerns to a member of the Rams organization about that location. At that time they requested that ft be fenced off. 9.20-93 I Page 10 `z Commissioner Henninger asked ff it was Code Enforcement's recommendation to include a ~. condition that they close this off? Mr. Freeman Indicated that was correct. Commissioner Boydstun asked what this would do to the students that cut through? It will put them walking on a main street. Mr. Freeman explained on the occasions he has been out there, the walkway is not used by that many people as when h was originally established. It is his understanding because of the types of acts that are going on, a lot of the school aged children refuse to use that area. Commissioner Messe stated the golf course has had many problems with that walkway in that it was used to break Into the golf course area and disrupt operations of the golf course. Mr. Freaman stated ff is dark at night and a lot of things go on. Commissioner Mayer asked ff someone who lived in the area would come forward. Bob Schram, (phonetically spelled), 215 N. Siesta, one block from where all of the turmoil takes place. He attended the last meeting. They said they would agree to locking up the walkway. No one had made that decision. The biggest problem is that they are not maintaining the area. Peopie cannot walk through because they are not taking care of it. They would Tike to know who is paying for it? Are they paying for it? Commissioner Henninger asked what he thought needs to be done with the walkway areal Mr. Schram stated he thought the Rams needed to take an interest in maintains>g ,y ry keeping ' the bushes trimmed and cleaned up. The students that do utilize the walkway ran t~tefft from ff. Commissioner Henninger asked about transients. Mr. Schram explained that the bushes are over grown and no one is maintaining h. They have neighbors that say people are going Into the area sleeping, etc. Commissioner Henninger stated h is an out of sight area and not well policed. He wondered ff the times have changed and perhaps it is not a good kJea. Commissioner Boydstun asked ff k would help ff they put in a condtion that they have to maintain that walkway and keep ft trimmed and cleaned up? Mr. Schram stated it would be a good kiss, but then there is the building. They want to make sure that their views are not obstructed. He was also under the impression that the people in the area were going to use the park and it was not "maybe' and they were going to maintain ft. They did talk about a swimming pool but did not remember the particulars. Chairman Peraza stated ft was in the resolution that they would maintain it in the past and asked ff Mr. Freeman has talked to the Rams? 9-20-ff3 Page 11 ~ i ~i z ~'i ~. r. Mr. Freeman explained a representative from the Rams dkt attend the homeowner's meeting about 6 weeks ago and at that meeting he said he would have the area cleaned up and lock the gates at night H necessary and maintain the property on a regular basis and that has not been done up until now. L...' Commissioner Caldwell asked what would happen to the neighborhood iF the walkway were eliminated completely and the Ingress and egress across there was not allowed? Mr. Schram stated he did not know ff it would be affected that much. It is the principle that they said they were going to do something and then did not do h. He agreed that it would not be fair to the students who use ft. Dick Mayer, Park Planner, did not know anything about this Issue. Would check on h. Donna Mullen, 312 N. Monterey Street. The Rams have put a covering over the entire fencing along the walkway. Anyone that walks Into the walkway will not be seen unless h is from the golf course side. It makes it dangerous especially for the girls. Mr. Borrego stated the covering is like a mesh covering. Luellen Paplas, (phonetically spelled) 218 N. Ventura, across from the Rams. She has called Code Enforcement regarding the walkway. They went through the contract and they were told they were to take care of it and this was some years ago. There is a sprinMer problem and some are broken. The hedges are higher then the wall and they trim only their side. It is a hassle. They were told they could vote over there and they cannot. The whole thing has been disappointing. The• put in 2 mobile ofFlces right across from her house and said they were temporary while they were pouring cement. Mr. Freeman stated he has no knowledge of the trailers, however, he will check for the permfts at the Building Department and report back to the Commission. Commissioner Boydstun stated they should add a condhion that they maintain the walkway, and pay for inspections and K h is not maintained they will be billed for the maintenance. Commissioner Caldwell stated the reason they are not eliminating it is so young people can use it as a place to walk and ft must be safe. If you cannot see through h, it will not be safe. That issue needs to be addressed. Commissioner Henninger stated the walkway is fenced on both sides and it is a long narrow area. In this day and age, how do you make that safe? Chairman Peraza stated the screening is up because of their practices. Evidently they were granted the right to do ft. Commissioner TaR stated Just by making it visible is not going to make it safe-maybe even a , false sense of security. It seems inherently unsafe. He suggested that they take the wall down i and incorporate it Into the park. ~ i a a i 9-2J-93 Page 12 `.ti. I i Commissioner Messe stated perhaps they should hear from the golf course operations to find out ' what their potential solutions might be regarding the walkway. Ne would also like to hear from Parks and Recreation Department to see how that should be addressed. Perhaps the Rams have some suggestions. Petitioner. it is not their intent to create a hazardous condition. He was not aware of K and k is important that they have a fence thsre and maintain their closed practices. i He was not sure when the fence was constructed or whether it was part of the Magnolia Scholl District's playground. He could not address it. Commissioner Caldwell suggested a 2 week continuance. Dick Mayer stated he was unable to find anyone today that could speak on this Issue and he also recommended a 2 week continuance. Commissioner Maysr asked that the Rams address the loss of the public access because she remembers the negotiations wfth the public at the time in the area. There are not enough facilftles for the youth or for recreation and there was that implied partnership that there would be !. some public use. She wanted to hear what that could be. Chairman Peraza suggested that the Rams speak with Mr. Tice in order to preserve the Ilne-of- sight. II ACTION: Continued subject petition to the October 4, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. VOTE: 7-0 9-20-93 Page 13 ~.,,1 3a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3835 Approved Wkhdrawn Granted, in part OWNER: CITY OF ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, ATTN: Brent Schultz, 201 S. Anahelm Blvd., Ste. 1003 AGENT: BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF ANAHEIM, ATiN: MICHAEL SOFIA, P. 0. BOX 350, Anahelm, CA 92815 LOCATION: 311 East Broadwav. Property is approximately 1.02 acres located on the north side of Broadway between Philadelphia Street and Olive Street and having frontages of approximately 135 feet on the east side of Philadelphia Street and 135 feet on the west side of Olive Street. To pbrmk a private recreational club (Boys and Gids Club of Anahelm) wkh waiver of minimum landscaping recuirements. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESGLUTION N0. PC93.105 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNIf3G COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: Tom Kieviet, Farano and Kieviet, 2100 S. State College Blvd., Anaheim, CA, representing the Anaheim Boys and Glds clut, for a request for a condkional use permk in regards to a facility that they are proposing to put an the comer of Broadway and Philadelphia Street in downtown Anaheim. The Boys and Girls club are requesting approval to establish a private recreational club that provides a facllky for youth programs wkhin the downtown area. Thay will be providing a number of activities Including arts and crafts, games, sports and learning center which includes computers. They are proposing to locate 8 mr:iular unks that they acquired through the Anahelm Memorial Hospital which are currently located adjacent to the proposed ske in disassembled form, but to be put together on the corner subject to approval of the Cky. These 8 unks will basically be 5,760 square feet when they are finally assembled. They will be located on land that is currently owned by the Redevelopment agency. It is anticipated that the agency will enter Into a short term lease for the ske. Right haw they are negotiating fora 5 year term and k is estimated that hopefully within that period of time or, thereafter, tt.•~y will be involved in perhaps a more comprehensive community service civic plan for the entire area that will include other civic minded groups as well as their own. Mr. Kieviet stated they did have a video they would like to present, however, the Commission felt k was not necessary as they were familiar with the Boys and GI++s Club. 9-20.93 Page 14 I..,s.~ They have reviewed the staff report and they were proposing to request a waiver in regard to the frontage landscaping area and after discussion wfth the Boys and Girls Club personnel, they have determined that they will acquiesce in the staff's rea~mn:endation as far as the addtional tree planting along the entire frontage area, primarily where it was not originally proposed along the frontage of Broadway and also on Olive. The only thing tlk• they would request would be to Implement those additional tree plantings. Their plans curcently showed trees being planted between the proposed facility and an existing building that is currently being used as a boxing club and operated by the Parks and Recreation Department. They ask that they be alleviated from planting the proposed trees they initially proposed between the 2 buildings so fhey could use those trees to plant along the `rootage Instead. Bill Tarsmino, (Phonetically spelled), P.O. Box 309, Anaheim, 92815. He stated they are a pos8lve place for children. He elaborated. He urged the concurrence and positive vote of the Commission. Richard Bruckner, Redovelopment. He asked about the timing of the planting of the trees. In the next year, they will be widening Broadway slightly and putting in a landscaped parkway. As they do that they may be affecting part of their she. He would hate to see them plant trees and then Redeveloprc~ent go through a major Public Works project and upset those trees and then replant them. He requested they work whh staff to work out the timing an implementation of those trees. Discussion took place regarding the timing of the final limits of the roadway for Broadway. Mr. Borrego stated there are 2 sets of trees that are being discussed. The Parks and Recreation Department would be willing to waft on those trees in light of the construction and then they also have the trees that they were recommending which are Inside the existing block wall. Those trees should not be affected by the widening. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ` DISCUSSION: Melanie Adams, Public Workc Engineering, stated there would be an additional 5 feet of dght-of-way taken on Broadway. It is her understanding that the fence would be moving back, so their placement should be outside of that final right-of-wad Ilne. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration WaNer of Code Requirement (Petftioner evfthdrew that part of his request) Granted Condftional Use Permit No. 3635 as follows: That the proposed trees between the boxing club and the Boys and Girls building shall be deleted from the plans and relocated to the required planters along Broadway and Olive Street. Added the following condition: That trees and landscaping stall be provkled along the entire street frontage. Said trees and landscaping shall be planted within four (4) months after the completion of the public works Improvements along Broadway. VOTE: 7-0 9-20-93 Page 15 ~..i 4a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Previously Approved Approved bb. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2160 Readvertised Granted for 2~ years to expire on 3-20-96 OWNER: RALPH ALEXANDER, 1874 S. Anaheim, Blvd, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: FARANO and KIEVIET, ATTN: F. FARANO, 2100 S. State College Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1874 S. Anaheim Blvd. Property is approximately 1.01 acrss located on the northeast skis of Anaheim Boulevard a~xi approximately 690 feet northwest of the centerline of Gene Autry Way. Petkioner requests amendment or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to the time Iimkation of previouslyapproved recycling facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC93.106 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING t'OMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITIO~1; None PETITIONER: '" Floyd Farano, 2100 3. State College Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92806, representing Sunwest Metals and the Alexanders in their request for an extension of their CUP. He emphasized this is a recycling yard. He reviewed the staff report and passed around a packet of letters to each member of the Commission. They are a series of reports written by Mr. Bruce Fraoman, Anaheim, Code Enforcement. The petitioner's Isase ends in 2-1 /2 years and he will continue to maintain the property In a presentable manner. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Bcydstun recommended one year and Commissioner Messe suggest 15 months. Commissioner Boydstun stated they are not having any problems and they have done what Code Enforcement have asked and they have gotten good results. She also thought that every other month would be more than sufficient for inspections or once every 3 months. Commissioner Mayer agreed and stated she was very Impressed. Mr. Farano asked if he could have the 2-1/2 years and continue the inspections? -20-93 Page 16 '4 r i ,7 ACTION: Approved CEQA NegatNe Declaration ~ Granted Conditional Use PermR No. 2160 for an additional two and one half (2~) years to expire on ~ March 20, 1996 with the following added condition of approval: That Code Eniorcjment staff will conduct an Inspection every other month for the two and one half (2y) year period, and that the petitioner shall be responsible for paying the cost of each Inspection In accordance wici~ the fees in effect at the time the inspections are made. VOTE: 7-0 ,-~. l .- u •~`°a~ 9.20-93 Page 17 F 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Previously Approved Approved 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved Sc. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3547 Readvertlsed Granted OWNER: DANIEL RUBALCABA, 510 N. East Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: JAMES RAMO, 1004 S. Hathaway, Unit "P', Santa Ana, CA 92705 LOCATION: 500-530 N. East Street. Property is approximately 1.16 acre located at the northeast comer of Sycamore Streat and East Street. To permit a 700-square foot storage area addftion to an existing retail center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces and maximum structural height. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC93-107 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: The applicant was not present. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Boydstun stated they looked at this project before and the piece that they are going to enclose is the same height as the rest of the building and h looks better now then it dkl. Commissioner Henninger explained this will enclose certain activities that were previously taking place outdoors illegally. It would be an improvement. ACTION: Approved CEOA NegatNe Declaration Approved revised plans for Condftional Use Permit No. 3547 VOTE: 7-0 ~../ !q E 9-20-93 Page 18 y ,. ,,. 6a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 6b. RECLASSIFICATION N0.93-9402 Granted OWNER: MUTUAL CITRUS PRODUCTS COMPANY, Attn: R. F. Daunais, Pres., 424 S. Atchinson St., Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: FARANO and KIEVIET, Attn: T. Kievlet, 2100 S. State College Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 406-412 S. Kroger Street. Property is approximately 0.43 acre located on the east side of Kroeger Street and located approximately 190 feet north of the centerline of Santa Ana Street. To reclassify property from the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple Family) Zone to the ML (Industrial, Limited) Zone. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. PC93-108 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Tom Kieviet, 2100 S. State College Blvd., Anaheim, CA, on behalf of the appll!~nt whu Is the current owner of the subJect sfte in question. Their request Involves a request to reclassify this property to ML Umited Industrial Zone which Is curcently designated on the General Plan. It is primarily for the purpose of making it not only conform to the General Plan, but also conform wfth the rest of the property which is curcently under the MCP Foods banner. He has reviewed the staff report and has some comments relative to the proposed conditions. He referenced Condkion No. 1 regarding the lot Tine. They are In concurcence wfth this. He referenced Condition nos. 2 and 3 regarding a 5-foot landscaped planter area along the street frontage, they would request that, that condftion not be required at this time In view of the fact that there is no development or proposed change to be made to the property at the present time. He elaborated. He stated the mere rezoning of the property should necessarily dictate a landscaped planter area. He explained there is no building being proposed on this site. In regards to the slated chain Ilnk fencing that is being proposed, they can see the benefit of that the property has a partial block wall and partial chain link fence in front of it now. It would be his proposal that the applicant slate in that portion of the chain ilnk fencing area. The landscaping would require removal of the block wall which would be cost prohibftive at this time. ~./ 9.20-93 a Page 19 ~i i In regard to Condition No. 3 about construr:ing a 6-foot high block wa!! along the north property line, that - is curcently a block wall fence not on the absolute north property Ilne of the subject property, but there is a block wall fence that separates the vacant lot from the paved area and again they feel that would adequately shield the resklential property from the industrial type uses that may be immediately adjacent to ft. They request that Condtion No. 3 not be Imposed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Caldwell stated in the hopes that MCP would be most anxious to be a good neighbor, and in Ilght of the fact that there are residents, he would Ilke to see not only the landscaping as requested, but he would prefer to see that chain link fence exchanged for a block wail and that ft be covered wfth some kind of climbing vine to prevent graffiti and that they should present to the people who INe along Kroeger Street something aesthetically pleasing to look at each day in what is not a very aesthetically pleasing neighborhood. You would think MCP would jump at the chance to Improve their image in the neighborhood. Commissioner Boydstun stated she agreed with Commissioner Caldwell particularly on no. 3. the house next door is looking at a dead weedy lot and a block wall would block that. The landscaping on the street is Important also. That area needs all the help ft can gat. They are a big business and they should want their property to look nice. Commissioner Mayer stated she would support that concept also. Commissioner Henninger asked what is going to happen on the vacant lot? Mr. Kieviet explained he was not aware of any specific plans they might have. This was an internal housekeeping element on their part to basically conform to zoning to the rest of their property. This is one of the reasons they are suggesting that the conditions be modified. Obviously, ff development were taking place and improvements were befog put on the property, he would be more in concurrence wfth Commissioner Caldwell and Boydstun and Mayer in regards to Improvements In the area, but basically, they are trying to bring the zone to conform. Upon ultimate development of that area, these condftions would more readily be met. This Is a preliminary step to refurbishment. Commissioner Messe asked staff ff the applicant is granted the reclass, and a year from now and applies for a building permit, he would have to comply wfth all landscaping codes that the City has at that time? Mr. Borrego indicated that was correct, however, "really depends on the extent of the development that is proposed for the property that would have an affe..i on whether or not the block wall and the required landscaping would actually be caught in the Plan Check stage. Unless they submit a formal protect through Plan Check, the landscaping and block wall requirement likely would not be enforced. The landscaping and the block wall is required by Code. If the reclassffication were finalized wfthout those Improvements being installed, ft would be anon-conforming piece of property. Mr. Borrego suggested that perhaps Mr. Kieviet may be Interested in getting the entitlement and getting approval of the reclassftication as it is condftloned right now and just not finalize zoning until such time that they are ready to do the development. He would have a resolution of Intent to industrial for the entire property. At the time they were ready to develop, they could finalize the zoning then comply wfth the Code required conditions. 5-Z~•93 Fade 20 u Mr. Kievlet stated that would probably be more palatable. He asked about Condition No. 4 regarding "- requiring compliance with previous conditions within a period of one year. He was not sure of the exact time frame as to when they would be coming back with buildings on that site. If they dkl come back and they were not ready to refurbish wthin that time, whether they could extend it for additfonai time until such time they are ready to refurbish. Commissioner Henninger asked if those were regularly extended and Mr. Borrego indicated they were. Mr. Kievfet stated he probably could Ifve with that. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 93.94-02 VOTE: 6-1 (Commissioner Caldwell voted No) r t. -... ~J ~'`~;. 9-20-93 Page 21 ~. ~ neonoTC eun AFf`DMMFNDOTIDNS Continued from the May 17, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3400 -REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE Approved landscape PLAN :Les Lederer requests review of landscape plan for Conditional Use plan as revised at Permit No. 3400 (to permit an indoor swapmeet). Property fs located at the meeting. 1440 S. Anaheim Blvd. Continued from the August 9, August 23, and September ti, 1993 Planning Commission meetings. Tom Kieviet, Farano and Kieviet, 2100 St. State College Bivd., representative for the petitioner. The 15 gallon trees proposed along Anaheim Blvd. shall be substituted with 241nch, box trees. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3045 -REQUEST FOR Approved EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF (To expire APPROVAL: Andrea Goodwin requests an extension of time to comply wfth 8/15/93) condftions of approval for Condtional Use Permit No. 3045 (to permit an addition to an existing preschod) to expire on August 15, 1994. Property is located at 1597 W. Katelia Avenue. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3571 -REVIEW LANDSCAPE Approved PLAN :Jonathan Petke of PacTel Cellular, requests Planning Commission - landscape plans review and approval of landscape plans. Property is located at (6-1; Messe No) 1527 E. Broadway (portion of Uncoln Park). I~ A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 2905 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. Continued to 3253 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3414: Inftiated by the 11/1/93 Anaheim Planning Commission. Informational for the Planning Commission pertaining to the status of on-site and off-she parking, number of theater seats, construction of the Cinemapolis theater parking structureand the development of Imperial Promenade shopping center. 9-20.93 Page 22 ~~~ ;~ E. REQUEST TO DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM Determined to be in GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED LEASE OF OFFICE SPACE conformance with IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ADULT MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: the Anaheim General Plan Requested by County of Orange General Services Agency. Property Is located at 2031 East Ball Road. F. REQUEST TO DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM Determined to be GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF DONATED OFFICE in confomnance with SPACE AT THE BROOKHURST COMMUNITY CENTER IN RDER the Anaheim TO PROVIDE PREVENTATIVE HEALTH SERVICES FOR General Plan INDIVIDUALS FIFTY-FIVE YEARS AND OLDER: Requested by the County of Orange General Services Agency. Property is located at 2271 W. Crescent Ave. Continued to G. PROPOS.'!L FOR DIRECTIONAL SIGN PROGRAM IN THE 10/4/93 PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: Requested by the County of Orange General Services Agency. Property Is located at 2271 W. Crescent Ave Commissioner Henninger declared a conflict of interest. H. REQUEST TO DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WITH THE Determined to be ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF in conformance DONATED OFFICE SPACE AT STODDARD ELEMENTARY with the Anaheim SCHOOL IN ORDER TO PROVIDE PHYSICAL AND General Plan OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG ADULTS WITH DISABILITIES. Requesteo ~y County of Orange General Services Agency. Property is located at 1841 South Ninth Street. I 9-20-93 Page 23 1~/ ~~ I. VARIANCE NO 879-REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF ~^u~rTIONS OF APPROVAL PERTAINING TO BEAUTY SHOP USE. Commissioner 8oydstun declared a conflict of Interest. Determined a beauty shop to be conskfered a 'Business or Professional Office' J. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.3413 - REQ~IEST FOR PLANNING Determined that the ^OMMISSION DETERMINATION REGARDING PARKING LAYOUT parking layout and AND DESIGN: Planning Department staff requests Planning Commission design complies Determination regarding parking layout and design in conjunction with with Cfty layout Conditional Use Permft No. 3413 (to permit the expansion of a restaurant wfth design crherla on-sale beer and wine). Property is locatsd at 2521 E. Ball Road. Kent 8oydstun, 703 No. Anaheim Blvd. The property in question is 316 E. Broadway an older building with 4 resklential apartments in the rear and 3 small store front offices in the front. He asked that the Planning Commission interpret that the beauty shop is a professional business and not a retail operation. OTHER DISCUSSION: Greg McCafferty, Planning Department asked the Commission ff h was their desire to inffiate a General Plan Amendment for the area of Kroeger Street and ff sc, could they dente the Iimffs for him? The properties a just south of Broadway are Industrial in nature. Commissioner 8oydstun suggested they go to Broadway-everything east of Kroeger and north to Broadway. Commissioner Caldwell asked what was on Broadway at that location? Mr. McCafferty clarffied a frame shop and a print shop south of Broadway. It was determined that the area located from Broadway to Santa Ana and east of Kroeger be reclassified. THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:25 P.M. TO THE OCTOBER 4, 1993, 9:30 a.m. TO A COMBINED WORK SESSION WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. 9-20.93 L.~ Page 24