Loading...
Minutes-PC 1997/08/04SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 1997 1 1:00 A.M. ® STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES ® PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.M. ® PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, BOSTWICK, BRISTOL, HENNINGER, MAYER, NAPOLES, PERAZA COMMISSIONER ABSENT: NONE STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Mary McCloskey Della Herrick Greg Hastings Cheryl Flores Greg McCafferty Bruce .Freeman Tam Engle Bill Sell Melanie Adams Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney :Deputy Planning Director Associate Planner Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Associate Planner Code Enforcement Manager Vice Detail Finance Treasury Manager Associate Givil Engineer Senior Secretary Secretary P:\DOCSICLERICAL\MIN UTES W C080497. WP 1. REPORTS AND RECOMIiAENDATIONS: A. a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3926 - REQUEST FOR Determined that DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: submitted plans are .Dennis Von Lossberg, 11870 Beach Boulevard, Stanton, CA not in substantial 90680, requests determination of substantial conformance fora conformance with previously-approved trailer sales lot and repair facility. Properly previously approved Is located at 721-725 South Beach Boulevard. plans ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Ciry Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and does hereby find that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the proposed metal building is not in substantial conformance with the previously-approved plans based on the following: a. The aesthetics of the building is substantially different than the previously-approved building and is of a quality and visual appearance that is more appropriate for an industrial use and is, therefore, not appropriate for this site. b. The one foot roof overhang on the east elevation facing Beach Boulevard is not In substantial conformance with the two foot roof overhang of the previously-approved building which encompassed the entire building and added significantly to the aesthetics of the building. c. The roof pitch of the building shown in the submitted brochure (1:12 ratio) does not match the pitch in the proposed building elevations (3:12 ratio) and neither of the .proposed roof pitches match the previously approved roof pitch (4:12 ratio). The pitch of the building proposed in the _ brochure is not appropriate for a commercial use. SR6754TW.wP-- Applicant's Statement: Dennis Von Lossberg, 11870 Beach Blvd., Stanton, CA: Stated he is requesting a change to a metal building instead of a wood stick frame building. He has been trying to bring this the construction of the building and has been dealing with it since last August (1996) and this metal building forvvard is much quicker and faster to construct. He is trying to get out of his current location as soon as possible. A metal building since will reduce the construction time to 4 or 5 months. He would also like to side the front and possibly the side of the building so the outside does not look too different from the existlng plan that he submitted. OS-04-97 Page 2 Commissioner Boydstun: Stated his plan looks like an industrial building and this is not an industrial area. Mr. Von Lossberg: That is because ft shows metal on the other side but they could side 3 or 4 side, 'rf necessary, to make R look more pleasing. Commissioner Bristol: Stated he believed they went over this issue once before and there was some concern about industrial use versus commercial use. So when the plans came back they did look industrial. He asked Mr. Von Lossberg if he had any other alternatives than what he submitted to make it look commercial? Mr. Von Lossberg: Responded just to put the sign that was in the existing plan on the metal building to cover up the metal look of the building. If Commission prefers, he could put k on all four sides. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated the previous plan showed a nice eave line and this does not Mr. Von Lossberg: Responded ft has an 8-inch overhang. Before h had a gable end. Essentially, the difference is two sides not having a 2-foot over hang compared to the gable end. The side facing the street he is proposing a little change: river .rock on the bottom, Inside, and above it. Chairman Bostwick: Stated his personal preference is to go back to the woad structure. He asked Commission 'rf it makes sense for the applicant to come back in two weeks and revises his plans with the wood ail around and a different roof line and configuration on the plans. Commissioner Mayer: Stated he agreed. Commissioner Bristol: Asked iF the elevation of the building was going to be elevated? Mr. Von Lossberg: Responded ft will be elevated 6 or 8 inches. The metal frame building is going to be lower as far overall height. They are building a berm across the front and planting landscaping to screen it from Beach Boulevard. The only people effected would possibly be the motel on one side, the batting cage on the other side but not the townhomes behind because they have not windows. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he preferred the wood structure. Perhaps there would be some way for him to move his business into a trailer, if necessary, and take his time to build a wood building. Mr. Von Lossberg: Responded they had thought about that but it just is not practical with people going in and out during the different phases. His business has grown and everyday K is _ very frustrating at his existing location because they do not have the area that they need. Commissioner Henninger. Stated generally that is an appropriate building in an industrial area but he is really on a major commercial street. Mr. Von Lossberg: Stated one of the conditions was a lot line adjustment and he is still waiting for that to happen so that he can pull his plans and permits. His original plan was to do a wood stick frame building for the office and parts room and a metal building for the shop area. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated regardless of what he does it is still going to look like an industrial building. OB-04-97 Page 3 B. a. CEOA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061(b)(3) b. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 97-09 -TIME LIMIT POR Concurred w/staff Recommended AMENDMENTS CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS adoption of the ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMITS. VARIANCES AND draft ordinance to ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENTS:: City-initiated request to City Council modify prov(sions for (a) time limits to comply with conditions of approval for entitlements granted by the City Council, Planning Commission and Zoning Administrator and (b) time limits to continue exercising entitlements granted by the City Council, Planning Commission and Zoning Administrator. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that subject request ds exempt from CEQA. Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to City Council the adoption of the draft ordinance attached to the August 4, 1997 Planning Commission staff report. SR6758GH.WP Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Stated this particular Code Amendment addresses two different types of time eMension. 1) The first type is the type of time extension that (s required in order to comply with conditions of approval or to begin the construction or actNity. The changes being recommended would be the retroactive time .limit would be established at 180 days. There would only be two time extension request that would be allowed to be approved. Also there would be a list of findings that would be made by the Planning Commission relative to the General Plan and Zoning consistency, the condition of the property and what effect any changes (n the Code would have on the project. 2) The second type of time extension is relative to the types of uses that are currently existing, however, they may have a condition of approval on them that only allows them to exist for a certain period of time. In that particular case the applicant when seeking a time eMension would be limited to bring the time extension within 180 days of the expiration or following expiration. There would also be some additional findings added to some existing findings which would tighten up the requirements for the time extension. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Stated regarding the time extension, she wanted to clarify that these are reinstatements. What they have are uses that are subject to a time limtation. The time limitation expires and it Just makes it clearer what they are coming in for is a request to a reinstate the use and the applicant still has the burden to establish the findings for the particular type of use are still appilcable, rather than the situation that exists when the Ciry is trying to modify and amend a CUP where the City has the burden of establishing that. She just wanted to make sure n was clear on the Code. 08-04-97 Page 4 C. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3851 -REQUEST FORA Approved RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH (To expire 7-22-98) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: David D. Harris of Tosco Marketing Company, 555 Anton Boulevard, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, requests a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval. Property is located at 3731 East La Palma Avenue -Unocal service station. ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza .and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and does hereby find that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve a one year retroactive time extension for Conditional Use Permit No. 3851 to expire on July 22, 1998, based on the following: a. That no code amendment or policy changes have occurred since the approval of said conditional use permit that would affect the site and its surrounding areas beyond those previously identifled in the original hearing. SR1011TW.DOC D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 3503. 3525 AND 3601 - Terminated REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Alex Perez, 470 South (Vote: 7-0) Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim Hllis, CA 92807, requests termination of Conditional Use Permft Nos. 3503, 3525 and 3601. Property is located at 470 South Anaheim Hills Road. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC97-102 SR6475KB.WP E. VARIANCE NO. 532 -REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Jason Terminated '- Y. Khamly, M.D., 1842 West Lincoln Avenue, Suite G, Anaheim, (Vote: 7-0) CA 92802, requests termination of Variance No. 532. Property is located at 2010 West Lincoln Avenue. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC97-103 SR6729TW.WP 08-04-97 Page 5 F. VARIANCE NO. 3894 AND 4013 -REQUEST FOR Terminated TERMINATION: Sherri Martin, Vice President, Multi-Family (Vote: 7-0) Division, Lyon Communities, Inc. 4490 Von Karman, P.O. Box 7520, Newport Beach, CA 92658-7520, requests termination of Variance Nos. 3894 and 4013. Property Is located at 625 North Valley Street. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC97-104 SR6732TW.WP G. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 96-97-OB -REQUEST FOR A NUNC PRO Approved TUNC RESOLUTION TO CORRECT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-80: (Vote: 7-0) The Planning Commission Secretary requests a nunc pro tunc resolution to corzect the last paragraph on Page 2 of Resolution No. PC97.80. NUNC PRO TUNC RESOLUTION NO. PC97-105 SR6759MS.WP H. VARIANCE NO. 4049 -REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Wthdrawn Ray N. Patel, Econo Lodge, 1914 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests termination of Variance No. 4049. Property is located at 1914 South Anaheim Boulevard. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby wfthdraw subject request on the basis that this property is under new ownership and the letter requesting termination of subject variance was submitted by the previous owner SR6733TW.WP 08-04-97 Page 6 a. CEOA EXEMPTION SECTION 15o611b1(3) b. SPECIFIC PLAN ADJUSTMENT NO. 1 TO HOTEL CIRCLE Concurred w/staff Directed the City SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 93-1 ZONING & DEVELOPMENT Attorney's Office STANDARDS (CHAPTER 18.791: Planning Commission initiated to prepare a draft request for Specific Plan Adjustment No. 1 to consider ordinance amendments to the Hotel Circle Specific Plan No. 93-1 Zoning and Development Standards relating to, but not limited to, standards addressing the final site plan review process, definitions, driveway widths, conditional uses, permitted encroachments, parking and signage. The 6.8-acre .Hotel Circle Specific Plan site is irregulady-shaped with frontages of approximately 246 feet on the east side of Clementine Street, 576 feet on the west side of Zeyn Street, 100 feet on the east side of Zeyn Street, 285 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard, and 254 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue and further described as 1742 and 1754 S. Clementine Street; 1730, 1733, 1743 and 1755 S. Zeyn Street; 1733 and 1745 S. Anaheim Boulevard; and, 201 W. Katella Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mayer and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that subject request is exempt from CEQA. Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mayer and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Ciry Planning Commission does hereby direct the City Attorney's Office to prepare a draft ordinance for Commission's review that would incorporate the amendments proposed as part of this Specific Plan Adjustment No. 1 to the Hotel Circle Specific Plan No. 93-1 Zoning and Development Standards. Once prepared, the draft ordinance would be considered by the Planning Commission for recommendation to Ciry Council. SR6760LJ.WP Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: Stated this Rem is a staff requested Planning Commission initiated amendment to the Hotel Circle Specific Plan Zoning and Development _ Standards: The amendments are meant to clarify and streamline the process. They address final site plan review processes, definitions, driveway widths, conditional uses, permitted _ encroachments, parking and signage. Commission might want to consider whether to hear this Rem concurrently with along with Item No. 4, which also are a number of requests submitted by the applicant for additional amendments to the Hotel Circle Specific Plan. Selma Mann, Assslstant City Attorney: Stated the applicant is present so if he .has any comments or objections to any of these proposed zoning changes he could certainly address those now. Frank Elfend, Elfend and Associates, 61p Newport Beach Center Drive, Suite 1290, Newport Beach, CA: Stated they only have one comment regarding the staff-initiated .request, as Mary 08-04-97 Page 7 (Revised: 8-21-97) discuss in greater detail later. As ft relates to one of the items requested by staff, they do have an objection on page 5, Item No. H (of the staff report). This deals with legal non-confirming signs continuation and termination. Currently within their specific plan they have a provision where a legal non-conforming sign would terminate in 20 years from the date of the approved specific plan. Staff is requesting 5 years. That is a rather significant change, it does effect one of their current hotels. The reasoning staff indicates in the second paragraph of their request is that there is a fund available that will pay for the portion of the relocation and or change. According to his client (that was in the audience) and Mr. Patel, the owner of Tarsadia Hotels; the cost to replace and remove that sign will be approximately $25,000 to $30,000. The amount of funds available is $5,000, so ft is not what they hoped it would be. If they had to move ft up in about 15 years that is very signifcant. They request that the wording be maintained in its current language and that the 5 year provision not be approved but that the existing 20 year provision be maintained. Chairman Bostwick: Stated the report indicated 15 years. Frank Elfend: Responded yes actually that is correct. Mary McCloskey: Stated to have a little background information on that, at the time the standard was adopted the City had not moved forward with the Anaheim Resort Non- conforming Signage Incentive Program which does in some cases pay for full cost on certain arterials and partial reimbursements on others. The way the program worked is on the arterials the full cost was paid they had a shorter amortization period of 5 years. Then wfth the other arterials, which Clementine would be, they had an a year amortization period. That was based on the fact that the City did have this program to help pay for the actual replacement of the property. Since the adoption of the Hotel Circle plan that program is actual in place and has been extremely successful In transforming the areas that relates to signage. That is also the requirement in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan has the same 5 year/8 year time frame associated with ft. That is why staff is now requesting that amortization period be accelerated in as much as they do have the program In place for those said funds. The attorneys at the time wanted them to have a longer amortization period which was 15 years because with that program there would have been no ffnanclai participation by the City and at 15 years they would have had to pay for the entire cost. Chairman Bostwick: Asked what the amount of the fund is at this time. Mary McCloskey: Responded on this particular property, there would be a $5,OOD reimbursement for replacing the sign. Chairman-Bostwick: Stated that is not based on how much money is in the fund but rather " based upon the sign itself. Mary McCloskey: Responded, no there was criteria that was established if you are along Harbor and Katella, between certain points that they had a 5 year amortization and there would be full cost reimbursement. On the other arterials in the Resort ft was 8 years wfth a $5,000 reimbursement for that effort. It actually gave them three additional years due to the lesser financial participation. They have had, she thought, approximately four properties that had the $5,000 reimbursement that have gone forward since that time from about 40 signs put In (not certain of the exact number). Comm(ssloner Boydstun: Asked could this be worded the same wfth the 5 and a years, depending on the location? OS-04-97 Page 8 Mary McCloskey: Responded in this particular case they only had the Crystal Suite sign which is on Clementine which is one of the $5,000 streets already defined in the signage program. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked the length of sign, if the rest of the resort has 8 years ... Mary McCloskey: Stated no, the rest of the resort would have the same time frames as being suggested here. In the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan it would be 5 for those properties along Harbor and Katella and probably only have two years left and the incentive program will end 'at the end of the fiscal year. Unless people get onto the program right away then that program will be ending and two years later they will have to pay for full cost reimbursement. The balance of the streets is a $5,000 reimbursement but they have a longer 8 year amortization. Commissioner Bristol: Asked where the 15 years came from. Mary McCloskey: Responded the 15 years was thought to be a reasonable time frame had the City not come forward with any sort of financial participation in the program. It was felt that was a reasonable amount of time to give a business to let them know that the City's sign code was changing and that over the next 15 year period they would need to replace them. When the City did adopt the flnanciai incentive program, they felt comfortable in moving those dates up. Frank Elfend: Stated actually where k came from Is the approved Specific Plan. That document approved by the City Council provides for 15 years. Mary McCloskey: Stated yes, that was the language in the Specific Plan right now and in much as the incentive program had not been developed at that point. Once ft was developed, the other resort plans (Anaheim Resort) came forward and they were able to put that language in there. Selma Mann: Clarified that the recommendation asks that City Attorney's Office prepare a draft ordinance for Commission's review that would incorporate the amendments proposed as part of the specific plan adjustment. OS-04-97 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARIPJG ITEMS 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. CLASS 11 Continued to 2b. VARIANCE NO. 4307 August 18, 1997 OWNER: WATT COMMERCIAL COMPANIES, INC., 2716 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 3040, Santa Monica, CA 90405- 5218 AGENT: SIGN METHODS, 1749 East 28th Street, Signal Hill, CA 90806 LOCATION: 5711-5799 East La Palma Avenue -Canyon Village Plaza. Property is 9.91 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway. Waivers of permitted freestanding sign and permitted type of sign to construct two (2) freestanding pole signs and nineteen (19) roof- mounted signs. Continued from the Commission meeting of June 9 and July 21, 1997. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. SR6761 KP.WP .FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING OPPOSITION: ACTION: VOTE: None ACTION. Continued subject request to the August 18, 1997 Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to complete the revisions requested by the Commission at the July 21, 1997 meeting. ~7~ ~~Q~C{J!/UIa(~4Y(P~ (~~7 c1r~~Lfn~d a III ~~ °~•~°~411~~ DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 08-04-97 Page 10 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-01 3c. WAIVERS OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3955 3e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15478 (REVISION NO. 1) OWNER: CITY-INITIATED (ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY), Attn: Brent Schultz and Richard Bruckner, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 1003, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: KAUFMAN & BROAD OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Attn: Linda Chandler, 180 North Riverview Drive, Anaheim, CA 92808 LOCATION: Property is 4.6 acres known as the "Cypress Infill" area, located as follows: Parcel A On the east side of Olive Street 100 feet north of the centerline of Cypress Street with a frontage of 164 feet on Olive Street (304, 304%:, 308, 308 h, 312, 312'h, 314, 314%x, and 320 North Olive Street) and; Parcel B (1) at the northeast corner of Cypress Street and Olive Street with a frontage of 66 feet on the east side of Olive Street and 842 feet on the north side of Cypress Street, and (2) at the northeast comer of Pauline Street and Adele Street with a frontage of 171 feet on the east side of Pauline Street and 74 feet on the north side of Adele Street, and (3) at the southeast corner of Pauline Street and Adele Street with a frontage of 265 feet on the east side of Pauline Street and 55 feet on the south side of Adele Street, and (4) at the southwest corner of Adele Street and Sabina Street with a frontage of 43 feet on Adele Street and 134 feet on Sabina Street. (424, 605, and 605'/s .East Adele Street; 300 North Olive Street; 300, 301, 306, 306yz, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 312y:, 315 and 317 North Sabina Street; 300, 305, 307, 312, 318, 322, and 412 North Pauline Street; and 411, 415, 419, 421, 517, 521 - and 527 East Cypress Street). Parcel A Petitioner requests approval of a conditional use permit and a tentative tract map to construct a 2-lot, 6 unit RM- 2400 attached "affordable" "airspace" condominium subdivision with waivers of (1) maximum structural height, (2) minimum structural and landscaped setback adJacent to single family developments, (3) minimum number of parking spaces, (4) maximum site coverage and (5) minimum required recreation-leisure areas. Approved Granted, unconditionally Approved, in part Granted, in part Approved 08-04-97 Page 11 Parcel B Petitioner requests approval of a conditional use permit, a tentative tract map and a reclassification from the RS- 5000 and RM-2400 Zones to the RM-3000 Zone to construct a 43-lot, 41-unit RM-3000 detached "affordable" one-family dwelling subdivision with waivers of 111 minimum building site area, 121 maximum structural height, 131 minimum structural setback adjacent to a local street, 141 minimum structural setback for building walls with front entrances, /5) minimum structural setback adjacent to single family developments, 161 minimum required recreation-leisure area, (7) minimum distance between building walls and (81 minimum off-street vehicle access requirements. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC97-106 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-107 ~ SR6757KP.WP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. IN FAVOR: 1 person spoke in favor of subject request. OPPOSITION: None Brent Schultz, Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Project Manager with for the Cypress Project: Stated he wanted to give a brief overview of what has occurred here. He was before Commission last February 1997 and obtained an approval for 51 units. Since that time some things have changed. They were able to acquire a couple of additional parcels located just to the north in the middle of the site and to the northeast of the site. This has changed their configuration and size. Kaufman and Broad took a look at it and returned with a new product type to do some single family detached homes on it and returned it to Commission today. They believe it is a great project. It is craftsman architecture like the other 51-unit townhome project. The 51-unit project was about 3.16 acres. Now they are up in size to 3.4 acres site with additional acquisitions that they are working on. They are going to lower the density of the project with this new development. Previously, at 51 units, they were about 16 dwelling units per acre, .now they are down to 1 1 or 13 units per acres. They have all the floor plans, elevatipns of it. He stated Pete Peterson and Deborah Wright from Kaufman and Broad present to answer an questions regarding the project. Public Testimony: Jim Giber, 547 Chartres, CA: Stated he is part of the community (south of it) at Heritage Place and is present to show support for the project. He is excited that something will be built into the vacant lot.. They feel the single family homes blend to the area better than the townhomes. He hopes they get built soon. He has been there 5 years. He hoped that some of the details that were originally requested by them still hold true. He was just present to show support for the project. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ofi-04-97 Page 12 Chairman Bostwick: Stated there were some items that needed to be changed in the conditional use permit. Staff also had some changes. Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Stated staff is recommending the following changes: • Page 22, Condition No. 19 -take the word "condominium" out of the that condition and that would require washer .and dryer hook ups for all units not just the condominium units. ® Condition No. 25 -regarding fencing for the open spaced lot at Cypress Street and the intersection of the private street. Staff would suggest there be review by staff prior to issuance of building permit to ensure that the material used for that is in keeping with the architect of the community. ® Using river rock or stone rather than simulated. • Requiring that trees adjacent to the RS-5,000 Zone, which are required by Code, be maintained by the Association. • Require the landscaping between the public right-of-way and the structures be maintained by the Association. ® Require this be held together by either one association or there be .another mechanism to ensure that the parking and the access between the two complexes be kept in the same condition that is being presented today. ® Condition No. 30 -regarding the timing of the conditions prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff would like to add conditions 19, 22, 27, 28 to that. ® Condition No. 31 -regarding prior to final building and zoning inspections. Staff would like to add Conditions No. 23, 24 and 25. ® On the conditions on page 25 relative to the tentative tract map, there is a condition that sidewalks be built along Olive Street prior to the final building and zoning inspection. Staff recommends the condition be placed under the conditions of the CUP. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated there were a few corrections in the staff report. ® On .page 12, paragraphs 34, 35 and 36 were duplicated, they are already shown on page 1 1 and therefore requested they be deleted. • on page 20, the entire page can be deleted, its a duplication of page 19. ® On page 21, on the reclassification paragraph, staff would like to eliminate the first sentence. Chairman Bostwick: Stated on page 23, No. 25, referring to the fencing, that 3 to 4 foot high rod iron fencing should be installed. Greg Hastings: Yes, staff would be happy to review that at the time it comes in for building permits unless Commission feels it would like to review that. Chairman Bostwick: If we will just add it there then that finalizes it. Brent Schultz: Stated he had two minor issues to mention. In speaking with Melanie (Melanie Adams, Public Works Department) prior to the meeting, they discussed Condition No. 5, and were in agreement that they be allowed to do a phased grading plan. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, Public Works Department: Confirmed that was agreeable to the Public Works Departments. OS-04-97 Page 13 Brent Schultz: Continued, the other issue involved Condition No. 2 regarding Pauline Street. It is requesting a 30-foot half width. It is currently 28 feet. The are going to be infilling with new trees where there are voids in the parkway and putting in turf. Therefore, they would like to keep it at they way it is now. Melanie Adams, Associated Civil Engineer, Public Works Department: Stated regarding the 30 foot half width the standard allows fora 7-foot wide landscape parkway area. The request before Commission is fora 5-foot wide landscape parkway area and that does change the selection of the type of tree that can be placed within this area. It would be up to Commission whether they would be satisfied with a 5-foot wide section, realizing that there will be a smaller group of trees to select from. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if they could plant camphor like they have on the other parkways in a 5 foot] Melanie Adams: Responded camphors are not recommend are not advised for the 5-foot wide sections. It leads to problems with uplifting. They need require the 7-foot wide sections. Brent Schultz: State a minor item on page 10, No. 27 lof the staff report) it discusses the developer maintaining Pauline Street but he thought this was something from the old project where they would going to count parking on the street. When the development is conveyed to the Association they will maintain parkway, the City will maintain the trees and the street will continue to be maintain by the City. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if that needs to be a separate item on the conditions) Melanie Adams: Responded yes, that sentence can be taken out. Evidential, there was a change from the original request to the current change and they are currently not counting those parking spaces as part of their overall count for the project. Chairman Bostwick: Stated that was right, when those were all townhomes they needed the street parking so they were required to maintain the street. During the voting, Melanie Adams asked Commissioner Henninger for a clarification of what his intention was on Condition No. 2 relative Pauline Street and the parkway width? Commissioner :Henninger: Stated it would be nice to see the trees conform with the existing trees at there, whether that means they need a 7-foot width instead of a 5-foot width, and asked if that worked) Brent Schultz: Responded he would meet with the Parks Division since they are the ones that approve the type of trees installed. They have a listing of what is allowed in the parkways:' - Commissioner Henninger: Asked if they have an eMra two feet if need? Brent Schultz: According to the engineer it appears they do not have the extra 2 feet. They want to install a broad growing tree that creates shade. He stated he will work with the Parks Division staff as well as K&D to try to get a camphor or a comparable tree. Melanie Adams: Asked if Commission would like to change the condition to read 28 feet along Pauline Street? 08-04-97 Page 14 Commissioner Henninger: Responded yes. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 97-98-01, unconditionally. Approved, in part, Waivers of Code Requirement as follows: Denied waivers 12) and 14) on the basis that they were deleted following public notification and approved waivers 111, 131 and 151 for Parcel A; and Approved all requested waivers 11-81 for Parcel B. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 3955 with the following changes to conditions: Modified Condition Nos. 5, 19, 25, 30 and 31 to read as follows: 5. That prior to a phased grading plan approval, the developer shall submit evidence to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division that clear title has been obtained for all properties included on the tentative tract map. 19. That clothes washer and dryer hookups shall be incorporated into each dwelling unit and shall be shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 25. That three (3) to four (4) foot high wrought iron fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of the open recreational-leisure lot at the northeast corner of Cypress Street and Private Street A. Said fencing shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to Issuance of a building permit. 30. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27 and 28, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said condftions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 31. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 8, 13, 14, 19 23, 24, 25 and 29, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Added the following condftions: - That sidewalks shall be reconstructed along Olive Street prior to the final building and zoning inspection. That all river rock or stone shall be real rather than simulated materials. That the trees adjacent to the RS-5000 Zone and the landscaping between the public right-of-way and the structures shall be maintained by the homeowner's association. That the parking and access between Parcels A and B shall remain the same as presented to the Planning Commission at the August 4, 1997 meeting by efther a single association or some other type of mechanism that will keep them together. 08-04-97 Page 15 Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 15418 (Revision No. 1) with the following changes to conditions: Deleted Condtlon No. 7 Modified Condition No. 2 to read as follows: 2. That the legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim an easement 32 feet in width from the centerline of the street along the east side of Olive Street and 28 feet from the centerline along the east side of Pauline Street on the final tract map. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for Tentative Tract Map No. 15418 and the 22-day appeal rights for the balance of the actions. DISCUSSION TIME: 2:05 to 2:20 = 15 minutes OS-04-97 Page 16 4a. CEOA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION fPREV: APPROVED) Approved 4b. MODIFICATION OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 0079 Approved, in part 4c. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE HOTEL GIRCLE SPECIFIC PLAN Recommended partial NO. 93-1. ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) approval to City Council 4d. AMENDMENT OF CONDITION NO. 7 OF ORDINANCE NO. 5443 Recommended denial to Ciry Council OWNER: KASH PARTNERSHIP, Bhikhubhai V. Patel & Pushpa Patef, Mayur B. & i<alpana M. Patel, TSB Crystal Partnership, 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1910, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 AGENT: ELFEND & ASSOCIATES, 610 Newport Center prive, Suite 1290, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: Subject 5.95-acre property Is irregularly-shaped with frontages of approximately 246 feet on the east s(de of Clementine Street, 576 feet on the west side of Zeyn Street, 100 feet on the east side of Zeyn Street, 100 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard, and 254 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue and further described as 1742 and 1754 South Clementine Street; 1730, 1733, 1743 and 1755 S. Zeyn Street; 1733 South Anaheim Boulevard; and, 201 West ICatella Avenue. To consider the following proposal: Amendment of the Hotei Circle Specific Plan No. 93-1 to modify zoning and development standards relating to freestanding theme signage, wall signage, vacation ownership units and parking. Modification of Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0079 to delete two measures relating to required installation of reclaimed water Ifnes for landscape irrigation and Installation of an a-foot high construction bawler adjacent to construction areas. Modification of Condition of Approval No. 7 of Ordinance No. 5443 to delete the requirement for a sidewalk on both sides of Hotel Circle Drive (private drive). SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-108 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-109 SR6690DH.WP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. CONCERNED: 3 people spoke with concerns. 08-04-97 Page 17 (DETAILED TRANSCRIPT FOR ITEM NO. 4 Applicant's Statement: Frank Elfend, Elfend and Associates, 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1290, Newport Beach:.. What I would Ilke to do today is to provide the Commission with a brief presentation of our request. Specffically address the comments contained within the staff report and focus in most specifically on the issue that is most important to us. That is the vacation ownership resort matter. First and foremost, one of the things I would like to start out with would be to provide the Commisslon a very brief history of this project. I think some of the members of this Commission were actually around when we first started out. This is a project that was started oui actually in 1990. It was approved by the City Council in August of 1994. When that project was approved it was approved for roughly 969 hotel rooms and/or vacation ownership resort type units. The way R was approved was that there was 331 (vacation ownerships) units permitted as a primary use and as this Commission considered in their agenda today a primary use within our specific .plan requires the developer to come Into the City, bring their plans in of which there are standards in our document and then this matter is brought before the Planning Commission as a Report and Recommendation item. So even though it Is a permitted primary use, R still comes before the Planning Commisslon as a Report and Recommendation item. The remainder In our speciFlc plan, were permitted through a conditional use permR process. In our specific plan there was also a provision regarding the matter in which a TOT tax would be applied to a vacation ownership resort and in August of 1995 we submitted to the City, actually R was before August of 1995, we submitted to the City a request to have an agreement for the manner in which the TOT would be applied to a vacation ownership. I think, what's .important in that consideration in terms of today's meeting is that we took a considerable amount of time and once again in evaluating of vacation ownership resort. The Cfry retained a consultant. We evaluated the use. We came up with an agreement which applied to the entire property as I will be able to demonstrate to you shortly in a memorandum from Jack White.' To date there have been two hotels which have been constructed. One of them is the Crystal Suites .and the other project is the Peacock Suites that is a vacation ownership resort and there were roughly 700 units left either to be built as a hotel or as a vacation ownership resort unit. One of the points, Just to make up front here is that in the staff report, to clarify our request ff we in fact were granted the right to have vacation ownership resorts, a primary use. That does not mean we would not be building any more hotels. It would be more driven consideration as opposed to simply saying we would never build any more hotel units on that project. In terms of our actual request itself, the reason why we've come into the Planning Chambers today is to ask for several changes. But again the most Important one: dealing with vacation time share ownerships. What we want to do, which is what Mary (McCloskey) said earlier, is streamline the process. What we would like to accomplish is to be able to have all the units remaining as vacation ownership resorts without having to go through a CUP process which is already provided in our documentation. The reason why we do not want to go through a CUP process is pretty much indleative of staffs report today and s that R is a timely process. There is uncertainty involved. It is a ffnancing issue and, qufte frankly, we would like to come back to the Planning Commisslon as-a Report and Recommendation Rem. Again, rather than a full public hearing and discretionary Rem. Now, I think most people have .been out to this particular area, this particular site, and they are fully aware of where the Hotel Circle project is located, however, what I have here for you, and ff I can get these passed out quicMy here is sort of an aerial exhibits (if I can hand this out to somebody...) which shows you in a boundary form where this particular project is relative to other uses. What we want to do and what our client and I think that most people here would agree that Tarsadia Hotels is one of the few hostlers that have built a new hotel In this area around the project. ~ City Attorney 08-04-97 Page 18 What they want to do is that they want to redevelop that portion of the city of where their project is located and, in fact, by approving their request today that would have facilitate that redevelopment of that area and remove some of that blight in middle of a newer Hotel Circle project. With that in mind, let me get to the staff report and go over all the issues as quickly as I can which I think would be pretty quick and come back to the one specific question/Issue that we have. I am on page 2 of the staff report. I can go through these hems where we agree to agree. We can get through those real quickly. Where we agree to disagree we can spend a teeny bit of time on those. I am on page 2, as far as a wail signage issue goes based on discussions we have had with the staff and our understanding that ff there is a hardship that would exist on one of those properties in the future that that would be considered in that fashion. We would withdraw that request for wall signage and that is also applicable to Item No. B as well regarding the freestanding monument sign. With regard to Item No. C, theme signage. Essentially their client has been approached by a variety of restaurant operators who have indicated what they would like to do. They have been considering the site for a theme restaurant and they need a certain degree of signage. Our specific plan provides no provision for theme signage at all. We had submitted some egeneral criteria. Staff came back with us and indicated {and I am now on page 4 of their staff report) that they would allow and put in our specific plan a provision allowing theme signage subject to a CUP and we agree on that. So that's 3 for 3. Now vacation ownership, we will skip because we will come back to that. We will then move on to the next item which is Item No. G on page 7. That deals with subterranean parking structures. We agree on that staff has agreed to make that change. We then go to Item No. H regarding the definition of a drive. We are currently discussing with our client an alternative means of providing adequate pedestrian access as staff has defined in the report and we will agree on that. On Item No. 6-A, regarding reclaimed water lines, not withstanding the fact that we are not exactly clear as to why we have to do it, but the argument has been made that everyone has done it, I guess that is the reason to do fl. We will comply with that. It is primarily for landscaping purposes. On Item No. 6-B, construction and barrier. I think as indicated eadier today, the staff has also redefined that construction barrier for us in terms of what we are trying to accomplish. We will agree on that as well with staff. So, that brings us back to our main and primary Issue which is the vacation ownership resort. Now, on that item what I would Ifke to first do is just to clarify one very important topic which I heard discussed earlier today and also was Included in your package and discussed fn your staff report. I .have here today someone from Peat Marwick who can, I think, address some of the questions staff has had wfth us about our request. I would Ifke to come back and make some concluding comments. One of the items discussed in the staff report regarding vacation ownership use, and I refer to the 3rd paragraph on page 5, has to do with the fiscal impact and I will read to you very briefly the statement from staff, two statements•that are actually quite interesting. One is that it is really too early to determine what the actual Impacts are of this project, being the time share and that the existing agreement which is negotiated with the City only applies to the 331 units and nothing beyond that. I have a memorandum from Jack Whte ('rf I can hand this out to somebody as well) and just to clarify this and I won't bring it up beyond this because ft think in some people's mind it may be a reason for their decision. When we negotiated this agreement with the City a few years ago, this agreement covered the entire property and not just 331 units. And on this memorandum that went to City Council from Jack White on the second page it indicates that this agreement and I will read it to you, 'This is finally that h should be pointed out that the agreement as currently drafted and presented to the City Council were related to all future time share units which may be created as part of the Hotel Circle Specific Plan not Just for the Peacock Suite unfls and that in fact that could be accomplished either through the remainder of the 331 units or through a conditional use permit°. If we came back into the City today and came in for a conditional use permit for all the remainder of our permitted units, the agreement that fs in place, and I will tell you 08-04-97 Page 19 as well and I surely won't ask you to review this, but this is the agreement that Is executed by the Mayor on all the properties In this specific plan that applies that agreement to every single property. There is no new agreement to be made under any circumstances because there Is already an agreement in place and that should not be a reason that you make a decision either one way or the other. As far as time share units themselves go, a little bit about them. I heard this morning a comment by Mary McCloskey about some of the questions staff may have. I would Ilke to introduce Lisa Levitt, she is with Peat Marwick hopefully she can provide the Commission with some of the recent developments of time shares and address some of these questions staff has and some of the questions Commissioner raised this morning. Thank you. Lisa Levitt, Peat Marvvick: Hi, good afternoon. I'm Lisa Levitt KPMG Peat Marvvick, 725 S. Figueroa St. in Los Angeles, 90017. Forbes Magazine. December 2, 1996: Fact, holiday time shares are the fasts growing segment of the U.S. Tourist and Trevel Industry. Hotel and Motel Management Magazine. March 17, 1997, vacation ownership is redefining consumer travel by setting higher standards of hospitality and revitalizing travel and leisure through new .products and services. Lodaino Maoazine. June 1996; the growth rate for time share sales is Heady three time the increase in average annual lodging industry revenues. Before I discuss specifics about the time share industry lei me briefly introduce myself and my company. KPMG is one the largest and geographically diversified accounting, tax and consulting firms and ft is one of the wodd's leading .providers of consulting services to real estate and hospitality Industries. Our client Ilsts Include many of the most prominent International f(nanclai institutions, pension funds, real estate developers, hotel companies and entrepreneurs. KPMG's national time share consulting group is one of the largest of its kind anywhere In the wodd. Our engagements are varied and are related to development construction, financing and operations of time share and vacation club facilities. I am the manager in the Hospitality and Time Share Consulting Group of KPMG Marvvick's LA. office. I have been working in hospitality and vacation ownership for over 10 years and prior to Joining Peat Marwick I worked with Hyde (Hyatt) Hotels Corporation in Chicago and their initial development of their time share program. I have a bachelor of science degree in Economics from Morton School at the University of Pennsylvania and an MBA from Kellogg Graduate School in Northwestern University. The concept of time share, also known as vacation ownership offers the public the right to enjoy for set period or interval each year vacation time in an apartment of other type of lodging. Time share is effectively advance purchase of time in holiday accommodations. The purchaser pays a capftal sum to acquire the time share and then pays an annual contribution towards the maintenance of the property. The period of time sold is usually based on the one week interval. Each year an owner can use the interval, they can rent out the Interval or they can exchange the interval for accommodations all over the wodd. Let me first for a second talk about the exchange process. The exchange process allows time share owners, through affiliation with spec(alist exchange company, to swap their week at alternative time share, properties around the wodd. This provides time share owners with complete flexibility in their holiday choices. Time share owners site that this ability to exchange is one of their primary reasons for purchasing a time share. -- The time share Industry in the U.S. has grown substantially since 1980 with over 1,200 resorts and an estimated 64,300 time share units. Since 1980 sales volume for the vacation ownership Industry has increased at a compounded annual growth rate of 15°k. Industry analysts expect this to continue and increase at a rate of between 15 and 20% annually. The industry's impressive and consistent growth is due to a variety of factors including higher standards of accommodations, more flexible product, increased availability of financing and the industries overall increased image. OS-04-97 Page 20 The wodd's largest vacation ownership destination in the U.S. is Orlando. In 1996 Orlando had time share sales of 549 million dollars and sold 54,900 interval weeks. There are currently 58 time share projects in Orlando. Marriott, Disney, Embassy Suites and the Hilton all have very successful time share project there. Odando, like most municipalities in the U.S., doesn't charge TOT on time share use. In fact, only 1.1 °~ of the U.S. time share resorts charge owners a TOT for any of their use of their intervals. Who is buying these time shares? Well, a total of 1,767,000 households own time share in the U.S., as of January 1, 1997. And who are these people? They average time share owner has a high average annual household Income of $71,000 annually. Is well educated (64% of the heads of the households have a least a .bachelors degree). Most of them are married (approximately 85°~) and most bring others on vacation. The averege party size is eight people. Overall, time share purchasers are more likely to be married, have children, make more money and be .more educated than the average U.S. cftizen. Why are these consumers buying time share? Because ft facilitates vacation planning; ft provides a wider variety of vacation options than a second home would and h is also more affordable. It provides an opportunity for exchanges to other resort designations, provides a sense of quality of the vacation experience, it provides purchasers with the sense of ownership. 92% of time share owners report that they are satisfied wfth their purchase. The Pacific region, which includes California, Hawaii and Oregon, has the highest levels of sat(sfaction, at 95%. What does time share have that has made the Industry increasingly appealing to municipalities? First of ail, time share creates a loyal visitor base. On average, owners report visiting a vacation area 2.5 times during the 5 year period .prior to purchasing a time share. But take an average of 3.7 vacations in the same area over the 5 years after purchase. They also tend to bring along friends and relatives, thus, Introducing more people to the community. It also limits any seasonality and smooths out occupancy. A majority of time share resorts sell 50 to 51 intervals per unit per year. Therefore, generating visitation year round, even when the owner can not use his own week at a resort or wishes to travel elsewhere the exchange system enables another time share owner to use his lodging. In the 1980's time share occupancy rates exceeded 80% at a time when the traditional hotel Industry had occupancy in the low 60°k. Today time share occupancy is at 81%. The Pacific has the highest U.S. occupancy rate of any region at 86°~. U.S. time share owners report spending $1,181 per their party for their most recent time share visit and stayed an average of 7 nights which is more time and more money than the average tourist. Unlike the traditional tourist, the time share user does not need to take Into account the cost of lodging as it is usually already been covered prior to the trip. Thus, he tends to have additional discretionary income when on vacation. F~cchange also exposes the region to individuals who may not otherwise visit the area. This may lead to repeat visits and potential future business for hotels and time share. Mounting evidence shows that time share has a positive impact on development areas. Recently the University of Southern California used its economic Impact model and determined that in 1996 the time share industry generated close to 270,000 jobs and 18 billion dollars In economic impact. This does not Include any Impact of construction which is quite significant. In the last few years as you may know, the major hotel chains have embraced time share as an integral part of their product mix. Marriott entered the business in 1984 and currently has 31 resorts, many of which share facilities with current hotel properties. They have 90,000 owners and estimated annual sales of over $300 million. Hilton entered next and they currently have 20,000 owners and about $78 million in annual sales. In November 1991 Walt Disney Wodd opened its first time share facility at Wait Disney World. They currently have four resorts, two of which are located at Disney. Hyatt went into the business officially in 1995 with a property in Key West. They currently have three new project under development, two of which will share service with existing Hyatt Hotels. Four Seasons is one of the most recent entrants into the time share industry. It is developing units directly adjust to its newest luxury hotel north of San Diego. For those of you who wonder how time share can co-exist with a luxury hotel, the Four Seasons Club, which is what they call their time share is truly designed to enhance the value and the prestige of their overall resort. Other hotel companies that have entered the time share .Industry are Embassy Sutes, Ramada, Westin OS-04-97 Page 21 and Intercontinental. Now I would Tike to briefly address the dynamics of the industry. in terms of management, hotel and time share management are similar and are becoming more similar every day. Consumers today expect time share management to treat them and provide them with services that hotel guests expect. The core hotel offers food and beverage services, central desk services, gift shops, central switchboard, travel and transportation desk, reservations systems, etc. Very similar to what needs to be offered at time shares today. In terms of occupancy, again occupancy in the time share business has remained in the low to mid 80's in the last 15 years. This is significantly higher than hotel occupancies in the U.S. In terms of maintenance, developers and owners have a vested interest in maintaining the quality of resorts. Developers wish to sell Intervals and to protect the value of their Investment while owners also want to protect their investment In which to enjoy the property to the fullest. In addftlon, both owners and developers want quality to and attract quality exchanges. On average, maintenance of time shares is actually better than hotel maintenance. The time share option is Jn general a superior option to both the standard hotel lodging in terms of space and furnishings and a second home in terms of services. Time shares combat the weak point of both and enhance the benefits of each. Current usage of hotel and time share is becoming increasingly more common because an increasing large segment of time sharing consumer's have shown that they want the ambiance of a hotel as a vacation spot. They favor hotel restaurants, larger recreational amenities, shopping facilities and luxury touches associated wfth room service, front desk, concierge, meeting and business services. Owners want a full service property. The array of services .provided by a hotel can be overwhelmingly positive in the consumers perception of value which Inherently is more and more oriented to service and the quality of that service. Time share guest are not Inconvenienced by hotel guests. They are increasingly similar to hotel guests. They use the facility in the exact same way and they want the same services. There is lots of concurrent usage in Orlando and it has not been a negative issue, only a positive one. Marriott's time share share many of the same facilities and amenities and are doing extremely well, as I mentioned earlier. And Disney, who is one company that is always concerned about image and obviously always wants to do things the right way, has concurrent usage of both their Hilton Head and Vero Beach properties, their two more recent time share additions. The differences between the Industries are blurring especially in a market such as Anaheim. Thank you. Frank Elfend: Thank you. One of the things that I have tried to understand in addressing this issue. The City and with the staff as to why they would not have recommended affirmative on this request. 1 Just wanted to make sure that I clarify a few things here in my closing comments. All the development standards for vacation ownership resorts are in this document. They are approved, so there is no new development standards that would be provided. As I have Indicated to you in the agreements that was executed, and I would be more than happy to review those with you or Mr. Morinello can who executed it on behalf of our client. There is an agreement in place regarding the fiscal Issue. So you have the development standards; you have the fiscal issue; if there are operational questions what we can deal with is operational questions through the Report and Recommendation item. With the standards identical; with the fiscal issue resolved and surely not withstanding the comments fn staff report. There are not new environmental Issues that we would see from this Issue the Clty has done a considerable amount of environmental work on this previously. So why not allow a as a primary use? Again, the standards Identical, all the issues resolved. You have Just heard from Lisa. It's almost identical to a hotel use. In Orlando, Florida which this city, I believe the City Council went back to visft as a model for how the City would Tike to develop their commercial recreational area, not only do they have time share units but they have them on a concurzent basis, which is one of the issues we are asking for to be able to run it concurrently. The City should want to run that concurrently. It is good for the industry. And right now this City is loosing revenue dollars because people who want to go to a vacation ownership resort project, they only have one protect to go to. We are not taking away business from the hotel OS-04-97 Page 22 market. We are Just going to add and enhance ft. For that reason, we would ask that this board, that the Planning Commission approve our request to have a vacation ownership resort as a primary use. Allowing this Commission, to still review it in a manner which you did some of the eadier items today and that is under Item D, page 4, of your staff report. Under Item E which is the vacation ownership time frames. Staff we do agree on that. So on Item E we agree to agree. But we also ask that in Item F that they be able to .run concurrently. And again that is only a benefit to the City. If they are run concurrently, then the City is going to enjoy an additional TOT on those units notwithstanding the fact that they are being paid for by the indNidual owners In an assessment fee of $35. So with that summary in mind we are hopeful that the Planning Commission considers our request, grants it as a primary use, maintains the control they have. We are not trying to take away any control the City or the Planning Commission has, and not make our client go back every time they have a project that they want to build and take another 6 months minimum to have a conditional use permit approved when the standards are not going to be any different then what is currently in place. It doesn't make any sense. So, I am here for any questions you may have and I'd like to have a rebuttal period as well if that is necessary. Thank you. Chairman Bostwick: Very good we'll get the other comments. Would anyone also like to speak on this item? Charles Ahlers: Good afternoon I'm Charles Ahlers. I'm presedent of the Anaheim/Orange County Visitor & Convention Bureau and I am here to speak on the sign ordinance modification that is part of this Issue that is being spoken about this afternoon. We, the Anaheim/Orange County Visitor & Convention Bureau are not excited about any modifications or exceptions to the sign ordinance. First of all, the City has a vision, the Anaheim Resort Protect and I think we should stick to it. The City has adopted a vision for the resort project back in 1995. It included the standard for area signage. That was a key component of the development of the area. To gNe a variance to one owner would be a precedence that would be unfair to the businesses that are currently complying to the existing sign ordinance. The City has spent a lot of money already buying non-conforming signs and it would seem foolish at this time to change that particular agreement that these people are already adhering to. Anaheim is competing as a world class destination with other world class destinations that have been built to very strict standards and in order to compete we have to continue the vision and the precedent that we already voted on and decided to move forward with. Again, we would not like to see an exception of the sign ordinance. Thank you very much. Chairman Bostwick: Mr. Elfend had agreed to go with the staffs recommendation that there would basically not be any permitted signage change other than the staffs recommendation that there be a theme signage but ft would be under a CUP. In other words, if you came along wfth something it would come back to us as a CUP to change it but the standards are set and wouldn't change other than that. Commissioner Henninger: Let me ask a couple of questions to help clarify your position ih my mind. Do you think that in the Anaheim Resort Area we shouldn't have any theme restaurants? Mr. Ahlers: No, I don't. Commissioner Henninger: L1ke Planet Hollywood. Mr. Ahlers: Theme restaurants are floe. I think theme signs probably aren't ffne. I would like to see a standard. We've agreed to make the area look like a specific resort within a City. It is unique. Commissioner Henninger: So, you would not have a Planet Hollywood? 08-04-97 Page 23 Mr. Ahlers: That is not what I am saying, I'm sorry. Planet Hollywood is fl~e,rf they can comply with the sign ordinance that would be better. Commissioner Henninger: But you didn't answer my question. Planet Hollywood by definition doesn't comply with the sign ordinance. Have you seen Planet Hollywood? Have you seen the one in Newport Beach or have you seen the one up in LA.? Mr. Ahlers: I have. Commissioner Henninger: Basically the whole deal Is built around the look of the outside of the building and so the questions is really that I think we are dealing with today is whether we are going to ultimately allow that sort of use in the Anaheim Resort Area. Would that a good thing or a bad thing the Anaheim Resort Area? And that is the sort of the question I'm asking you. Mr. Ahlers: Planet Hollywood would be a good thing for the Anaheim Resort Area. But again we've gone to the speciFlc sign ordinance to remove the way Anaheim used to look. Anaheim .has been the same since the late 60's and here it is 1996 and we are beginning to Implement the change and the result of that change I think is very appealing. If you drive through Harbor Bivd. now and look at all the signs that have been changed to comply with the new ordinance, 1 think ft is great and ff is a good look. It is a consistent look and 1 think it is something that we can all be happy and proud of. Commissioner Boydstun: Many theme restaurants will not come in wfthout being able to show their theme and one thing Anaheim desperately needs are restaurants for our conventioneers and our visitors to go to instead of going to south county. Mr. Ahlers: I would agree wfth that. I think we do need restaurants. Unfortunately I am not an expert on whether restaurants will or will not come on the basis of the signage that we will allow them to have. I'm sorry that I can not speak with any degree of authority. I can let you know that I think the look that has been planned for the community is a very good look and ff we allow some modifications ff is going to continue to be modified and all of the sudden the look is going to erode into something that is not a whole lot different from what we started with in 1965, whenever ail the Boogie art was started. Commissioner Henninger: That fs a risk. Mr. Ahhers: That is a risk. Commissioner Henninger: You probably won't want 5 theme sign restaurants in a row on Harbor Blvd. because then we would be back to where we were. Mr. Ahhers:- Absolutely, and that is my concern and again I can not speak to whether we can or can't attract restaurants from the signage we allow. I Just don't know about that but I do know we've got a good thing going. The ordinance, I think, is a very sound one. The look of the sign is very beneficial to the area. Commissioner Bristol: Something else, sir, that was brought up this morning was the fact that I asked the question of staff, 'Was this 2 of 3 restaurants that were approved by the specific plan?' Because a 15,000 square foot restaurant is not necessarily one we are going to see down Harbor Blvd. or Katella. It is completely unique and the fact that many of the sign changes on Harbor and Katella they were already existing uses, were already there. Whereas this particular applicant is trying to attract something for this area. So there is a little bit of a difference but I understand what you are saying. Mr. Ahhers: Thank you. 08-04-97 Page 24 Chairman Bostwick: Let me ask you one other questions on the vacation time ownership. Does the Bureau have any opinion on that as to the number of units? Mr. Alhers: The report that was given Just recently that I Just heard testimony, i would agree with everything that was said relative to being good business. Driving a sound economy for the visitor community and all of those thing as positive. Chairman Bostwick: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would to speak to us? Susan IOaren: Good afternoon members of the Planning Commission. My name Is Susan ldaren and I live at 6214 E. Corral Circle in Anaheim, but today I am here as the Executive Vice President of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce representing it's Board of Directors. The Chamber has reviewed the resort plans as well as the staff report prepared for today's meeting and as an organization we voted our approval on the plan as a whole as it was previously presented. If in fact you approve any changes to that, you're changing what we had taken a look at before and really accepted as a whole. i would concur wfth what Chades Is saying and support the points that he has made as far as the feelings related to the sign ordinance. On the feeling that the only way a plan like the Resort plan can work is to be taken as a whole and 'rf even one element is changed ft put the rest of the plan in jeopardy and goes back to the same situation that we started out with and maybe heading back towards. Maintaining the plan in its entirety is essential to the success and overall beautification of the Anaheim Resort Area. I would support the comments that Charles has made. Chairman Bostwick: Anyone else? Any questions? Chairman Bostwick: Stated I have a question. Oh, I'm sorry sir. Jonathan Giloff: Hello I am Jonathan Giloff, General Manager of the Residence Inn by Marriott which is next door and I live in Lake Forest just for the record, But I grew up here in Anaheim and went to Katella High School. I was here the last time, the last time this project was being proposed. I'm sorry that I am not a little more prepared but I was just notified. It takes a while somet(mes for this to get to us. It goes through our owners group, then Marriott and to us. I just got it today. I just got back from vacation. But real quick, I do have a couple of concerns. I see on the construction we have 7 days a week (7:00 a.m. through 7:00 p:m.) I've got a problem with that and if you guys can, I would like to maybe have that reduced to maybe 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. I am loosing some business right now with the Fire Department construction that is going on across the street and people don't like to be woken up at 7:00 a.m. If they do excavation of parking on a subterranean, that really could cause a lot as well with rumblings and that type. So I'd really would Ilke you to think about that. Also in time share I heard the Marriott was .mentioned. It is important that they look at the time share and you look at it. Marriott has been very successful because of all the hotels that they have and the Hilton has some of those chains. As long as they are linked in, I think it is a good project but I think it should be linked into a network. Anyway that's my comments. Thank you. Commissioner Bristol: Elaborate your last statement. Linked in what? The time share and the hotel? Mr. Giloff: See, if you buy Marriott time share you could go to any hotel that Marriott currently has and that's part of the draw/the selling. You can trade those for another resort. As long as they are tagged in. As long as they check that part that is Important. Who are they tied In to, who you can trade with your vacation weeks. You do not want to go to the same place every year. Commissioner Bristol: Do you feel their percentage is up? They have more occupancy during the year than a regular hotel would have with 66°/, OS-04-97 Page 25 Mr. Giloff: With the time share? Commissioner Bristol: Joint use. Mr. Giloff: I still think h is market driven. It is a hotel. They are rented like a hotel room as Marriott's are. Commissioner Bristol: They are more full, wouldn't you agree? Mr. Giloff: I don't have that information so I could not speak to that. But It is a traditional hotel. Chairman Bostwick: Mr. Elfend would you like to come back and respond? Mr. Elfend: Something about the third time being the charm, I hope. As far as the comments that were made by the Chamber and the Visitors and Convention Bureau, actually I already made the comments on one area we've agreed with staff is on signage. So, I think as the Chairman indicated that is a non- issue to us. As far as some of the comments made by the Residence Inn .actually some of those comments were pretty compatible with what we said and that is the success of the industry and how they work very successful together and how, 'rf you buy time share now from Marriott, you can go to any hotel and trade ft off in some exchange or manner. As far as some of the other Issues go about construction, timing and subterranean parking, times of construction, those have all been previously resolved and we are not asking for any changes on that and again, Just for clarification, we are not amending the Resort Specific Plan or Disney Specific Plan. It is just our Specific Plan and what we are trying to do for the most part is to amend it to facilitate more development, more positive financial impact to the City and streamline the process. Thank you. Chairman Bostwick: Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Giloff: If I could Just clarify. Are you saying that you are tied Into another hotel chain? Because Marriott is within our own chain. Chairman Bostwick: No, they did not make any mention of that. Mr. Giloff: I Just wanted to make sure I did not misunderstand. Commissioner Boydstun: There is an exchange that any of the time shares can participate fn which takes you all over the wodd. 1 think that is what he is referring to. You can go to any state, any city, all over the wodd and exchange you time share. You are not limited to one chain in any way. ChairmanBostwick: If there are no other comments, I'll close the public hearing. _ - [fHE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.] - Commissioner Peraza: I would Tike to know a little bit about Frank. On the maintenance on these time shares how are they upgraded -how do they :keep the maintenance up? Frank Elfend: Well, consider a time share like being a member of an association, there Is a maintenance fee and then the association maintains the facility. The facility is maintained from what we have been told. better than in same cases than hotels because you do have money which is set aside from every owner in an account for the maintenance purposes. So that is how they are maintained, 08-04-97 Page 26 Commissioner Peraza: My concern was that if they're not maintained and so forth we could end up wfth a lot of these motel and hotels that have been really run down. Frank Eltend: i would say to you actually that the opposite is true. If you have a hotel owner and the hotel owner says that is the way it going to look and that's the way it looks that's what the City is stuck with. You actually have a mechanism here where you openly can avoid that problem which is why, again, we think the use is so very positive to the City and this of course is particularly the Instance where this project is located because look at some of those hotels in the vicinity, you know they are not maintained very well at all if maintained period. Chairman Bostwick: Questions of the proponent or staff? Commissioner Henninger: Well, you know I think I have come out of the hearing here wfth some concerns that perhaps we need to think about. I'm real sensitive to this issue, I support the theme sign here. I think we are going to need some theme signs in the resort area but I am also very sensitive to the idea we won't want a lot of -you wouldn't want 5 of them down Harbor Blvd. all within 300 feet of each other. Commissioner Boydstun: Do you think with the square footage requirement that they've put on? I mean this isn't going to be something that ... Commissioner Henninger: That might be one way of handling it. I just thought that maybe we should ask staffrf they'd really seriously considered that and they feel like they have it pretty well button down. Mary McCloskey: I would say to that that no we don't because we haven't had a proposal for a theme sign yet so we haven't address that. That is why we feel that this should be handled through a conditional use permit process so we can see in the context of the building site and the surroundings with public comment on whether or not a themed restaurant sRes would beneftt the community as well as the Planning Commission and Council to see what this whole theme signage entails and we are not saying .... Commissioner Henninger: I wasn't thinking of this specific plan I was thinking ff you've sort of considered it in the overall content of the resort area. How many did you think we were going to end up having in the resort area? How did they fit in the with street scape plans that we put so much effort into and the overall feel of the Resort Area? I just don't know the answers to all those questions right now. Mary McCloskey: I am not sure 1 do either, however, I would say that. most resorts if you go across the country, world class resorts, do usually have maybe one theme restaurant or a couple. I don't see that we would be getting a tremendous amount of theme restaurants In the area. Primarily because many of our sttes are in that area. - Particularly on Harbor are very narrow and long so it is not conducive to the larger restaurant. However, I do believe that at this point with the CUP provisions we are not saying yes or no to that, we are just saying that it would be .hard to try to craft criteria absent any proposal because something might be missed. So we believe that that issue is introduced the best way to process) that and to look at that and consider it quite frankly would be with the conditional use permit process. Commissioner Henninger: I think the applicant agrees with you. I just want to make sure we are not opening the flood gates. 08-04-97 Page 27 Mary McCloskey: We do not want to open the flood gates to replace ail of the signs that are being replaced now with a product that is similar to that wthout good reason or without carefully considering and getting the Input from the community as well. Commissioner Henninger: As I heard the comments from both the Chamber and the Visitor's Bureau, reading between the lines that is what I heard there. That they basically did not want to open up the flood gates. They thought we would started off on a good program of ridding the City of many of the old unsightly signs we had and they do not want to start back now a process that 10 years from now will lead to the exact same problem. Mary McCloskey: Staff would concur with that and the reason we suggested the CUP would be Just that so there couldn't be any abuse that you would Interpret ff so that anybody could walk in and say said they are a themed restaurant and want their sign. Commissioner Henninger: Well, Just knowing how we operate up here Just having a CUP sometimes doesn't seem to be enough. Looking at the particular rather than the general we're more permissive than maybe we should be. I think that answers the questions I have there. Commissioner Henninger: With regard to the time share and the issue of whether k should be done by CUP or rather should by as a Report and Recommendation ftem because as I understand you recommendatipn, ffisn't that they shouldn't do time share but ff they do it should come through as a CUP. Mary McCloskey: That is accurate and 1 would also add also that you might want to recall that through an R&R process we can not add any conditions of approval to the protect and I think that 1s very important Anaheim is getting Into the whole time share market. We understand that it's a component that is important in the industry, provided that all the safe guards are in place to make sure that happens and we feel that the thing to take consideration into ff you don't have a conditional use permit and we do end up having problems. Say you get an operator in who isn't like ... Commissioner Henninger: Do you Imagine that we could In general without a specific operator in hand imagine we could in general craft conditions that we could amend into the specific plan today that would leave us in place where we could do ft by a Report and Rec. in the future when we have a specific proposal? Mary McCloskey: I don't think that you could because you would not know the particulars of each hotel. For Instance, the maintenance requirements, what fac(lities they might have. Even the financial aspects of that as you know staff and the applicant disagree on how the financial agreements, what they actually say So absent that it may be depending upon location pr the type of facli(ty there may be a week in there that would need to be financial agreements considered with the projects as well as the fact thatrf we do have problems with the CUP in the future ff we don't have a CUP process it would be very difficult. We aren't going to be working with 1 hotel owner, we'd be working with hundreds or thousands of different individual owners so It would be very difficult. puite frankly, the Peacock Suites is the first time share that we have in the City and we feel that permitting any of this by right at this point would be premature and we feel the CUP is the proper mechanism to be able to condition and put the safeguards in. Maybe at some point in the future when we've had a little more practical experience wfth what is going and now evolves in that area then that could be considered at some point in the future when the timing were appropriate, but right now I believe that would be premature. I think ff would be very difficult to just craft a set of general crfteria or standards to be used to resort wide with that Industry because there's too many variables with that. OS-04-97 Page 28 Commissioner Henninger: And finally do you think the construction hours limitations that are currently in the specific plan are appropriate particularly on weekends. Mary .McCloskey: Weil, that is a hard one in that does comply with our sound level pressure ordinance. I mean that Is what throughout the City the hours of construction, the days of construction state. .It's not geared so much towards the day and the time as to the sound levels at the property boundary. No matter what time of the day. Between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. they can not exceed certain levels during construction. So I would say that that is similar if not the same, I think ft is the same with the. other resort specific plans in the hours that they must adhere to. Commissioner Henninger: Take that as a yes. You've looked through that and you think that that is correct Mary McCloskey: Well it is consistent Commissioner Boydstun: I would like to say something on the time shares and worrying about the conditions. Whenever you exchange a time share any place you go even if ft is In your own complex changing you time. If you belong to an exchange after your back they send you a letter and you put down the condRlon and everything about the property and if a property is not maintained as ft should be it is dropped RCI or ITT will drop then and which is suicide to a complex so they work very .hard to maintain that membership. So there are some outside controls as. We own a mixed use and in some that are not m6ced use and the mixed use seems to be Just as active and maintained as the ones that are not. Commissioner Henninger: I guest the issue comes down to does the specific plan have as its currently drafted all the conditions we would imagine we might need in the future for time share. I have no problem with the time share itself. It think it is a good think. Probably what they lady said to us. Commissioner Boydstun: I think it brings business in. You place that .... Commissioner Bristol: One of the things that puzzles me was the fact that we/somebody approved 331 time shares, right? And now I have been told we really don't know that much about time shares and that's what puzzles me and I hear comments from everybody that time shares are hotels but we do not know how to develop hotels because we really haven't got the hotels. Its going to be a hotel and ks going to be maintained and associated., the association will be a hotel and we are suppose to be doing land use and not fiscal contracts are we not? Chairman Bostwick: Correct. Commissioner Bristol: That's how I look at it. Chairman Bostwick: City Attorney. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey: Yes, that is true. The fiscal aspects of transaction are considered by the City Council. Unfortunately, Jack White is not available to comment on his own memorandum and I would .hesitate to speak on his behalf. However, with the conditional use permft requirement as it stands now, the Planning Commissioner and the City Council must make the findings that are required for a conditional use permit That means that when the City Council ... If the City Council had :information in hand that indicated that perhaps the assumptions on the original grants of a particular agreement had changed over time such that the peace, health safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Anaheim that finding could no longer be made, there would be a basis for denial and what would be 08-04-97 Page 29 different if it is a permitted use is that there would be no basis for denial other than Just amending the specific plan completely and then of course subject argument by the applicant that there was some kind of vested agreement in place. As it is right now with the agreement that is in place, the City could deny a conditional use permit and just hypothetically speaking that the assumptions which the original agreement was based for the $35 and this would be of course the Clty Council's determination, that if the assumptions were not correct. If they were not born out by actual experience, regardless of the benefits of having time shares in the City of Anaheim or not having time shares In the City of Anaheim. If those assumptions were not born out by experience, then the City Council would have a basis for denying a CUP and that would be different from having a permitted use under a specific plan and obviously k would be ultimately the City Council that would be making the decision with regard to that item on the speciFlc plan. But I felt that it was an Important consideration for the Planning Commission as well. Commissioner Henninger: I think we either go wRh the staff recommendation or I can also imagine that we could continue this and go through the various issues that come out of concurrent use and probably get comfortable enough to the point where we could basically amend this plan and then do that by a Report and Recomendation later. But I do not think we can just do it by a Report and Recomendation now because I do not think we really looked at all those issues. To give staffs point and 1 think R is well taken that when it was originally looked at, it was at up to 331 time shares In a certain layout and now we might have multi shares or we might have a concurrent use in a single building and they weren't thinking about that. They'd like a chance to think about that. Commissioner Bristol; Wouldn't ft be better to get this to City Council by going a step, allowing them to have this? Commissioner Henninger: Allowing them to have the CUP? Commissioner Bristol: Well, yes because It is going to get there one way or another. If the land use is the issue, then let the staff and the applicant, once it gets to Council. We know what's going to happen. They're gcing to probably want to take a look at it and that's really probably where ft should be according to this. The fact is the land .Issues. I don't see how they could waiver from getting them there. Commissioner Mayer: But the original use was 700 hotel rooms. Now they are asking to change Hotel Circle to Time Share Circle which would have 969 time share units in this. Was that all factored into the consideration in the specific plan? Commissloner Bristol: Right, I'm saying to get R there. Maybe we need to get ft past Commission to Council to some extent to let them consider that because it ail does not have to be time share. That is what I am Srying to say. - Frank ElFend: In listening to your debate, I think as a ... Of course, you know our position so I-won't restate ft but if we could come up with some criteria that could go along wfth Report and Recommendation item which would address these concerns that you really don't have but you are going to have, I guess is the best way to describe it. If we could structure that in the specific plan now and amend that specific plan to have that information provided, we would prefer to do that as long as it wouldn't take us 6 months to do it. But we would prefer, of course, to go to the City Council with an "agree to agree°, we are not opposed to the City coming up with criteria and telling us what it is. I mean, what they have told us is that we don't like it but we can't tell you why. So we would agree to that, In contrast ff it is going to take up 90 days but would prefer, as Commissioner Bristol indicated, just going up to the City Council and having them resolve that issue. 08-04-97 Page 30 Commissioner Henninger: What if it was going to take four weeks? Frank Elfend: I think we would watt four weeks, if it would be productive. Mary McCloskey: I am not sure the staff could accomplish that in the next four weeks looking at that issue. Chairman Bostwick: Let me ask a question. We approved another time share down on Orangewood. Are those condltlons that were in that approval are they something that we can pull up and apply to this and would they cover everything or... Mary McCloskey: I don't know. I would have to familiarize myself with what those condltlons were. I do know that each facility has different needs, whether h be enhance .landscaping or some may be need recreational facilfties. I mean it is really hard to ... There is just not one "cookie cutter' for hotel and time share ... Chairman Bostwick: An already existing product and we're modifying into a time share, yes I can understand that. If they are going to build from the ground up something and we already have standards in place and the present agreement, could we flue tune those to where ft would cover any other questions in our mind. Mary McCloskey: I don't know. We would have to take a look at that as to whether or not that kind of language could be put Into the Zoning Code. I don't know how we would get conditions within the Zoning Code, however, that would help us in the future if things went wrong. And it's not that we think they're going to go wrong. Certainly, we aren't opposed to the concept of having time shares in the resort. We know that is an important component to have. What we're saying is not no to these things. We're Just saying to have that this discussed in a public hearing, remember an R&R is not a public hearing, there would be no ability for the neighbor next door to comment or anything else. So we're saying that the appropriate place for that to happen is in the public forum through a public hearing and not through a Report and Recommendation. Commissioner Henninger: We have a public hearing right now. Mary McCloskey: Right now you do with a conditional use permit and the specific plan amendment that Commissioner Henninger: We're having a public hearing right this very moment. Mary McCloskey: I know that, but what Frank, I betleve, is requesting is that we allow them ty right and allow them•to go through the Report & Recommendation as a final site plan approval wherein you could not Impose any condltlons. It is not a public hearing. It would be at a public meeting as an R&R.. However, staff does strongly feel at this point that that should happen through a conditional use permit process. It also allows us, then, to be able to have that handle if you will, to be able to get control of the sftuation. God only hopes it doesn't happen but if you have an operator come in that Isn't abiding by what your criteria might be. Frank Elfend: That is not an operational Issue which the City would deal with, anyway, and I would point out to you that I promise I won't say anything else. But ff you may recall because, I know, that Commissioner Henninger I think was the Chairman of the Planning Commission back then, this city approved a parking structure that is seven feet tall with about 45,000 spaces as a Report and Recommendation ftem and, I mean, the fact is that the City does approve things as a Report and Recommendation .items that are pretty unusual. They do it ail the time to fac(litate and to streamline the 08-04-97 Page 31 process and they can do ft in this case and they could come up with criteria ff they wanted to. The last project that you approved, for example, just to give you an example, is the one on Orangewood, which I think you were mentioning, Chairman Bostwick, and on that one the conversion rate or the rate the TOT equivalency was $15. We're paying $35. They're saying today maybe $35 is not enough money which is not accurate. You just approved one for $15. So I would point out to you that the City has the discretion all the time that a Report and Recommendation item have a set of criteria which have to be complied with rather than making us go through that CUP process every time we have a project. That does not streamline the process. Mary McCloskey: There would only be 3 hotels left to build so I don't think ft would be multiple times that we'd be going through the process. However, I would say as far as time share criteria, the fact is that Anaheim does not even have one time share yet that has been fully occupied. The Peacock Suftes is in the process of befog sold and so really ft's premature to know how that is going to operate because it is not there yet. It's in transition as we speak. So to develop criteria on something that we have not had experience with in the resort yet or throughout the entire city. I think that we would be liable to maybe not cover something that we should have and we would have no recourse except to reopen the issue up again. I do believe still that the CUP is the way to go and at some point In the future, when we have enough practical experience with these to see ff all our whistles are working, then to consider, at that point, of trying to streamline the process. As we d(d with the amendments eadier in the day, we put an ordinance together and we gave ff our best shot and we came back today with ways to further streamline it because now we've had the year or two working with you all on some of the things we had in there and we found we don't .need. Let's streamline it and put it by right. I think that is the same case here, that it is premature at this point to assume that we could put all of those standards or criteria in and not miss something and that you could have the same, even better control mechanism by doing the conditional use process and then at some point in the future when we have some practical experiences here in Anaheim not throughout the country, at that point ft would be the time to then streamline, that if you will, and I think at that point, ff there were no problems, I'm sure everyone would be in agreement with the changes because we want to continue to try to look for ways to streamline the process out in the resort in every which way that we can. Frank Elfend: Can f just make one more comment? And that, Is that the opposite is true In that argument as well and that, is if you do approve this today or if you do provide some criteria as we were here earlier today, the City could come back at any time and Initiate their own request to change what has been approved. You did ft today for us. You took that 15 years down to 5 and you could make those changes in the future the very similar manner. There is no development agreement on this project. Thank you. Commissioner Henninger: I really feel this TOT discussion sort of undedine a lot of things. It just feels that I haven't heard about ft but ft just feels to me someth[ng ... Chairman Bostwick: Does Mr. Sell have anything to add to this conversation before we have a vale? Bill Sell, Business License Manger: I would simply add that we're still working obviously the first year of conversion. The numbers, we do not have a handle on those yet as to whether or not the City is being revenue neutral in this whole process or whether we are losing money in this whole process and we are obviously trying to analyze that to make those determinations. Commissioner Boydstun: Most of the time shares, and I'm sure ft is the same here, the owners all pay property taxes on that also which the City get a part of. I know myself, I took at the book and go down. If I'm going some place and there are 3 comparable places and one has an extra charge and the others don't, you know where I'd go. 08-04-97 Page 32 BiII Sell: I would like to point out though, from a property tax standpoint, the City get 1 % of the 10% of the total, so ft is a very small number compared to what is generated by the actual TOT. Commissioner Boydstun: I don't know what Orange County will cover but the one we own in San Diego they get a lot more because ft is a time share than they ever did before it was one because everyone of us pays a high property tax. Mary McCloskey: I would Tike to add that, when, when that agreement was being considered. they considered sales tax, property taxes as well as the TOT. it wasn't just the TOT that was addressed in the final agreement. It was all of those factors that came into play when the Council entered Into the agreement with Tarsadia for that project. Chairman Bostwick: Okay, Commission do you have any other questions or are we ready to go? Does somebody want to try this? Commissioner Bristol: There's two ways of going at this, for me. One is a continue and let the City and the applicant figure k out or get it to the City Counc(I where it is going to be anyway. I agree with Commissioner Henninger. It has to do with the bottom line and something we can't really do anything about. Commissioner Henninger: I'll move for a CEOA Negative Declaration. Commissioner Boydstun: Seconded. Chairman Bostwick: Okay, we have a motion and seconded for a CEQA Negative Declaration all those In favor say I? Opposed? Motion carried. Commissioner Henninger: I'll offer a motion approving the modifications to the Mitigation Monitodng Program. Commissioner Boydstun: Second. Selma Mann: Is that the modffications as recommended by staff? Commissioner Henninger: Yes. Chairman Bostwick: We have a motion for .,. It's basically not to change the mitigated that had to deal with the installation of reclaimed water Tines that basically they're staff's recommendations to maintain it. So that's basically... Commissioner Henninger: And they said they would agree with it? Chairman-Bostwick: Right. - Mary McCloskey: The reclaimed water would stay as is and we would agree to the modification relative to height and sound attenuation which are In the staff report. Commissioner Henhinger: So that is the staff recommendations basically. Chairman Bostwick: We have a motion and a second for a modification of the Mitigation Monitoring Program? All those in favor say I? Opposed? Motion carried. 08-04-97 Page 33 Commissioner Henninger. J'll offer a resolution recommending staff recommendations that the City Council should adopt on Amendment No. 7 to this spec'rfic plan. Chairman Bostwick: As a resolution. Recommending Amendment No. 1 to the Hotel Circle plan with the staff recommendations. It's a button vote. Commissioner Henninger: Let's see what's on Condition No. 7, what do we need to on that? Maggie Solorio: I need your vote Commissioner Napoles. Resolution passed with 6 yes votes. Commissioner Bristol voting no. Commissioner Henninger: Then on Condition No. 7, I guess I'll vote the staff recommendation on that. I'll offer a resolution recommending that for Council Actipn. Chairman Bostwick; It's a resolution amending Condition No. 7 as staff has recommended. Maggie Solorio: Resolution passed with 7 yes votes. Selma Mann: Mr. Chairman, the Planning Commission actions on this item will be set for a hearing before the City Council. ACTION: Determine that the previously-approved Mitigated Negative Declaration (Incorporating the measures set forth in the Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0079) is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the proposed protect actions. Modified Mtigation Monitoring Program No. 0079, amending the mitigation measure pertaining to construction barriers to provide flexibility for shorter fences (i.e., 6 feet versus 8 feet) and alternative fencing materials (i.e., chain link wRh scrim) when sound attenuation is not at issue (I.e., along Katella Avenue and Zeyn Street). Further, retained the measure pertaining to reclaimed water Tines. Recommended to the City Council partial approval of the requested .amendments to the Hotel Circle Specific Plan Zoning and Development Standards as follows: (1) Approved the requested amendment relating to timing for conversion of existing hotel units to vacation ownership units from five to eight years following the adoption of the Specific Plan (the five year time frame would end in August of 1999 versus the eight year time frame which will end in August of 2002); (2) Approved the provision to permit hotel units and vacation ownership units on a permanent basis wfthin the same hotel building subJect to the approval of a" -" Conditional Use Permit (not permitted by right as proposed by the applicant); (3) Approved the requested amendment to provide for subterranean parking; (4) Approved the provision to allow the consideration of theme signage subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (not permitted by right as proposed by the applicant); and, (5) Dented the requested amendments relating to increases in wall signage and freestanding monument signage. 08-04-97 Page 34 VOTE: 6-1 (Commissioner Bristol voted no) Recommend that the City Council deny the request to modify Conditlon of Approval No. 7 of Ordinance No. 5443 pertaining to required pedestrian sidewalks/access. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated this matter will be set for a public hearing before the City Council. DISCUSSION TIME: 2:20-0:32 = 1 hour and 12 minutes 08-04-97 Page 35 5a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 350 OWNER: STAFF-INITIATED (PLANNING DEPARTMENT), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 29805 LOCATION: 2627 Eas4 La Patma Avenue - La Palma Mobile Home Park. Property is 13.58 acres located on the northeast corner of Miraloma Avenue and La Palma Avenue. Staff-Initiated amendment of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate this property from the existing Medium Density Residential land use designation to the Low-Medlum Density Residential land use designation. Property is 13.58 acres located on the northeast corner of Miraloma Avenue and La Palma Avenue. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-110 Approved Recommended Approval of GPA 350, Exhlbft A to City Council SR6709JKWP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated the request is part of the East Anaheim Action Plan. It is a recommendation for a General Plan Amendment to redesignate subject property, just developed with the mobile home park, from the Medlum Density land use designation (which allows up to 18 dwelling units per acre) to the Low to Medium Density Residential land use designation (which allows up to 18 dwelling units per acre) to the Low to Medium Density Residential land use designation. This request to allows 18 units per each acre, which is more appropriate for the existing density and zoning and still provides opportunity for addition units at the mobile home park. Far those reasons, staff recommended approved of exhibit °A° reflecting the Low to Medium Density Residential land use designation. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: VOTE: Approved Negative Declaration Recommended approval of General Plan Amendment No. 350 Exhibit A to City Council. 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated this matter will be set for a public hear(ng before the City Council. DISCUSSION TIME: 3:32-0:34 = 2 minutes 08-04-97 Page 36 6a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1731 (READVERTISED) OWNER: LA LANGOSTA MEXICAN RESTAURANT, Attn: Cheng Chaff Lee and Jin Yen Lee, 408 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: MICHAEL MIGAN, 2400 East I<atella Avenue, Sufte 640, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 408 South Brookhurst Street - L.a Langosta Mexican Restaurant. Property is 0.3 acre located on the east side of Brookhurst Sireet, 516 feet south of the centerline of Broadway. To amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain an existing restaurant wfth sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-111 Approved Approved modfticatlon to conditions of approval (To expire 5-4-99) SR6738JKDOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. FAVOR: 1 person spoke in favor, wanted operation of the restaurant to remain the same. OPPOSITION: No one was present/1 letter was received in opposftion. Applicant's Statement: Michael Migan, 2400 E. Katella Ave., Sufte 648, Anaheim, CA (speaking on behalf of the owners): Stated staff has recommended that the time Ifmit be extended for 2 only years. They do not see any reason for this iimftation. He stated there was nothing in the report and in the Police Department's comments stating the reason for this recommendation. The difficulty they had in opening the restaurant was that there was a lot of opposftion from surrounding neighbors because they feared it was going to be another night club which would cause more noise and commotion. They have proved that not to be the case. It is a normal restaurant. He understands there have been no problems at all with the restaurant as ft is now and they ded not expect any opposition from the neighbors. He felt to put a 2 year time limft does not seem appropriate. They believe that the additional expense of submitting another -" application .puts an unfair burden on the restaurant as well as the City itself. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Gave a copy of a letter received from the Anaheim City School District expressing opposition to the extension of time on this request (Commissioner was given a copy at the morning session). Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement Supervisor: Stated this matter is recommended fora 2 year continuance based on historical problems in the south Brookhurst area. Initially they were given a 1 year time frame and as the applicant indicated there have been no problems. The neighbors Indicate that the operation is very well :run. Code Enforcement's concern is through Investments as an operator indicates that could change. Unfortunately, that has been a majority of the problems because of 08-04-97 Page 37 operations have changed. For example, a .property at North Brookhurst where the operation was fine for 2 years then suddenly overnight the operation changed. He believed that the 2 year time term Iimft on this operation is needed to ensure that ft will maintain as it is now, free of any concerns for the City. The neighbors adjacent to this property are satisfied with a 2 year. The type of requirements that they have placed on these types of restaurants, that do have alcohol, and therefore they feel the 2 year time limit is needed. Tamara Martin, lives on Archer St.: Stated there has been no problems wfth the restaurant She was unclear when she received the legal notice she thought that the "time iimftation° referred to a change on the hours of operation but when she read the staff report that clarified ft. She is not opposed to the 2 year limitation as long as there are some type of safeguards that ft will not change into a night club wfth entertainment with changing of operation hours. Tom Engle, Vice Detail, Police Department: Stated he also concurs with Code Enforcement: Applicant's Response: Michael Migan: Stated he reviewed the letter from the Anaheim Ciry School District. With regard to the possibility that the operation may change, ft is their view that it would be more appropriate to eliminate the 2 year time-frame but wfth a condition to the conditional use permit that ft ft does change character or'rf there are any other problems then that would be reason for revoking the CUP. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Henninger: Asked for a clarification that this CUP was only far the alcohol service and not for the restaurant overall. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Responded yes that was true. Commissioner Henninger: Asked for verification whether a CUP can be given or not by the Commission at their discretion. Cheryl Flores: Responded that was correct. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he felt Commission has been very .reasonable. since history shows that there has been a serious problem wfth alcohol use in this area in town. They are actually doubling the length of time and he believes ft fs a needed control that they keep over an alcohol use In case ft goes bad. Commission has considerable experience with restaurants-and their alcohol use going bad. Commissioner Bristol: This is the first restaurant that he recalled from Brookhurst Street where there have been•no problems and they should be commended on that but he agreed with Commissioner Henninger on the time limitation of 2 years. Commissioner Peraza: Stated he was not certain why the school district sent a letter being they did not send one the first time. He did not think It was that close to schools. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated requested to .have a condition that a parking plan (as it was an the original condtion which was never complied with) be submitted within 60 days. Michael Migan: Stated there was a reciprocal parking proposal was acceptable and he assumed was acceptable which ft was not. He did fill that the parking plan could be submitted within 60 days. 08-04-97 Page 38 ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for sub}ect request. Approved request. Amended Condition Nos. 5, 6 and 17 of Resolution No. PC96-72 approved in connection with Conditional Use Permft No. 1731 to read as follows: 5. That within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution, a Lot Line Adjustment Plat to combine the two (2) existing lots shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section and approved by the Ciry Engineer and then recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 6. That within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution, a parking plan shall be submitted to the Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval. 17. That subject use permit shall expire two (2) years from the date of this resolution, on August 4, 1999." Approved the modifications of the bar area with screening by plants and wood panels and access to the bar blocked by the placement of a refrigerator across the opening to the bar area. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 3:34 - 3:50 = 16 minutes OS-04-97 Page 39 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1 (PREY: APPROVED) Concurred w/staff 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3845 (READVERTISED) Denied request for amendment to OWNER: HARRY AND LOLA ELMAN FAMILY TRUST, Attn: Paul conditions Elman, 9808 Pangborn Avenue, Downey, CA 90240 pertaining to time limitation LOCATION: 2054 South Euclid Street Unit H.C.W. Health Comoanv. Property is 2.43 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and Euclid Street. To amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to a t(me limitation to retain an acupuncture/acupressure (massage) facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-112 SR6510DS.WP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Applicant's Statement: Marcus Elman, part of the Elman Trust and one of the managers of the property: Stated there have been some problems mentioned on the evaluation. Some of the violations were very minor. For example one of the employees did not have a picture I.D. during a Police Inspeectfon. Chairman Bostwick: Asked Mr. Elman iF he had received a copy of the memorandum? Marcus Elman: Responded yes he had and will address this in his testimony. Mr. Elmah: Stated as far as the records being maintain, the record keeper was sometimes keeping records in Mandarin. Now she is keeping the records in English. A few days .ago they received information from the Police Department and were quite shocked. He spoke with Helen Wong; owner of the operation, and she said she spoke with Michelle (an employee) and it did not happen. He felt he was caught in the middle but after speaking with Helen he support her. -- Mike Sims, 14625 Carmenita Rd., Norwalk, CA: Stated he is a friend of Helen. She .has very limited English. When Helen began the business 5 years ago it was an acupuncture clinic conducted as a medical office. They had two acupuncturist, 1 from Taiwan and 1 from Mainland China. They have incurred many minor complaints. One instance is during a Police inspection they did not have a sign listing the services they offer and pricing information. They did not realize that they have to maintain their records in English. He stated the allegation referred to on the memorandum were strongly denied by Michelle, who is an acupuncturist of high moral standards and reputation. He said this did .not happen and she will be vindicated in court. The only thing that the operator, Ms. Wang, will be charged with was permitting anon-registered employee to be employed there after 5 days. It was her contention that she was not required to be required since she was an acupuncturist and in their regulations is not 08-04-97 Page 40 required. Even if it was required, the 5 days was not there. They understood that to mean working 5 days; she had only worked there 3 days. So there has been a lot of misunderstanding, mostly due to the language barrier. He stated they have tried to comply with all the regulations and ordinances. Tom Engle, Vlce Detail, Police Department: Stated the Police Department does not considerthe violations as being minor infractions. By the conditional use permit they are required to have the massage technician permits. They are required to have massage under the. guidance and prescription of a qual'rfied physician. On numerous occasions members of the Anaheim Police Vlce Detail, have gone in their and receved a massage and have yet to be asked for a physicians referral letter, They have yet to see a massage technician license by anyone pertormfng that massage. In the past, Ms. Wang has been cfted for these violations on. On every citation issued she has pled guilty and .paid a fine and has yet to take him to court. The latest citation for failing to properly register someone working at the establishment. Every person who he spoken with at the establishment has never been licensed by the City of Anaheim, except her (Ms. Wang) but she does Just sits at the desk and receives payment. That does not count in the Police Department's view. The events that occurred last week, the Police Department received information from a confidential informant that it did take place. Their investigator went inside with exact knowledge of the person's name and a description of what the person looked Tike. He walked in and saw Michelle. She performed a massage on his body but she did not have a license to perform and he did not have a physician's permit to submit. After it was over, she offered to perform another act for him for an additional $30 charge. He agreed to it and then decided against it and walked out. She still had the money and he did not get anything performed to him. He came outside and advised Police and they placed her under arrest solicitation of prostitution. They will continue to do so as long as those acts continue at that establishment. The Police Department does not feel that there are any conditions that the establishment is going to follow and believes the cRations are going to continue. Therefore, they recommend the CUP be terminated and the business closed. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated she had a letter submitted from Nicki Yao who was a part owner but is no longer affiliated with this business (she distributed a copy of the letter to Commissioners). Applicant's Response: Mike Sims: Stated the question the officer presented was that the individual, Michelle was not registered as a masseuse which she is. It is posted on the wall. According to their regulations anyone in the practice of any healing art which such person is duly licensed to practiced to practice. Meaning they would not be required to have a massage license. He stated they are completely faultless. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if that was a statement the Police were lying about what happened when they were there? Mike Slms Responded he would not use that word. Perhaps overzealous. She accepted a tip for a Job well done and there was nothing exchanged. Perhaps they talked about something. Commissioner Bristol: Stated it appears no one understands much English at that establishment. Marcus Elman: Stated the previous owner (Nicki) did speak English and she was before the Commission a year ago. Now she has sold the business or made arrangements with Helen to take over. Helen has been Involved with the business for the past year as well but Nicki does speak English fluently and Helen's English is Improving. Commissioner Bristol: Asked if the woman (Michelle) that Investigator Engle referred to still employed? Marcus Elman: Responded she is not employed right now. They are waiting to find out what Is going 08-04-97 Page 41 on in this situation. Commissioner Bristol: Stated Mr. Elman stated he believe her that she did not do anything wrong Mr. Elman: Responded he believed what Helen told him. What really happened he does not know. He is going to leave that up to the Judge. He does know they built a beautiful clinic wiCh their help. For the past year they have tried to honor their commitments and have worked wffh them and have and they have good tenant relationships with the other tenants. Condition No. 10 referred to having a physician's prescription, at this time this condition is a little difficult. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked why, because she went to a masseuse and acupuncturist for years and before they would take her she had to have a letter on file from her doctor. Mr, Elman: Responded that is the citation In many case. He has received 3 kinds of body work and is also trained in a kind of body work as well. People in that industry do .not need to have a permission from a physician to pertorm acupuncture, rolfing, Individual yoga classes, feldenkrais, etc. It seems for them to stay in business its an onerous condition. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated she went to the acupuncturist before ff was ever required when they Code was passed they notified all their patients. Tam Engle: Agreed ft is a requirement of their conditional use permit and they have yet to fulfill that requirement. Commissioner Henninger: Stated even ff it is an onerous condition the way to handle a situation like that is not to ignore them but come before Commission to discuss ff. Marcus Elman: He was under the assumption that most of the time there was a California 1lcensed acupuncturist in the office who is able to make a diagnosis or prescription. He is not sure ff that is how it has been a majority of the time recently. They have been going through some changes. His personally opinion is that he does agree with Commissioner Henninger. Asked ff they would consider changing that as well because many places in Los Angeles County are not required to have this kind to prescription. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated Code requires it in Anaheim. So ff they open in Anaheim they have to follow those Codes. Selma Mann: Clarified ff is not a denial of the conditional use permit but rather a dental of the request to amend or delete the condition that had Imposed a time limitation on ff. After the voting Mr. Elman asked if that mean they could still be open for a year and Chairman Bostwick responded no, the condfflonal use permit expired. ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, as defined in the State EIR and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. DENIED the request to amend or delete Condition No. 2 of Resolution No. PC96-54. VOTE: 7-0 08-04-97 Page 42 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 3:50 - 4:10 = 20 minutes 08-04-97 Page 43 8a. CE(dA NEGATIVE DECLARATION .Continued to Sb. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3956 August 18, 1997 OWNER: PIONEER CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 641 South Western Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: RILEY F. MARQUIS, JR., 5772 Garden Grove Boulevard, #147, Westminster, CA 92683 LOCATION: 647 South Western Avenue -Orange County Christian School. Property is 4.78 acres located on the west side of Western Avenue, 220 feet north of the centerline of Stonybrook Drive. To permft an 11,736 square foot expansion of a private school in conjunction with an existing church facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR6755KB.WP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the August 18, 1997 Planning Commission meeting fn order to readvertise additional Code waivers pertaining to required covered parking spaces and parking lot landscaping. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This hem was not discussed. 08-04-97 Page 44 9a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3954 Granted OWNER: BRUNSWICK CORPORATION, Attn: Richard O'Brien, t Fleld Court, Lake Forest, IIIlnois 60045 AGENT: JAMES CHOI, 19200 South P(oneer Boulevard, Cerritos, CA 90703 LOCATION: 1111 North Brookhurst Street iformeriy Circle Seall. Property is 13.5 acres located on the west side of Brookhurst Street, 190 feet north of the centedine of La Palma Avenue. To establish a church within an existing 85,500 square foot industrial building. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-113 SR6509DS.WP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Glen Glotley, architect, 446 Old Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA, represeniing the Sarong Presbyterian Church: Stated after reviewing the staff report they concur with ail of staff's recommendations. There were representatives from the church present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Bostwick: Stated it is conditioned that there be no child care or private elementary school facilities and wanted to make special note that the applicant is aware of that. Also, there was a row of flags that were conditloned out of there. Glen Glotley: Responded yes, they are fully aware and concur. Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Stated staff would like amend some of the conditions as follows; ® Condition No. 1 -screening of the rocf mounted equipment. Suggest that a plan be submitted as a Report and Recommendation Item. ® Condition No. 2 -sign size. The portion excluding an 18 Inch high base, that is not relative to the height but relative only to the square footage. The overall height of the sign would remain 8 feet. ® Add a condition that a final landscape plan be submitted as a Report and Recommendation Item which would include a tree preservation and removal plans since there are many mature trees on the property. 08-04-97 Page 45 Commissioner Henninger: Asked if h should be further amend the condition that no trees should be removed until such a plan is approved? Greg Hastings: Responded yes that would be very helpful. Staff recommends combining Conditions No. 5 and 6 together to comply with that. He was just informed by Melanie (Melanie Adams, Public Works Department) that there is an area within the Cal Trans area which obviously they would have no jurisdiction over. ® Condition No. 16 - a clarification on the hours as a.m. to p.m. except the gymnasium which will be 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. ® Condition No. 17 -relative to the north wall of the gymnasium, that any door be placed for emergency exfting only. Staff requests as a Report and Recommendation Item requesting an plan showing elevation drawings of the facility since it has only been conceptual but wanted to make sure the elevations match that. Also on the north wall that there be no windows. ® Condftion No. 20 -this conditional use permit does not include approval of any child care facility or playground with the exception of a Sunday school. ® Condition No. 21 -clarification that a minimum of 21 15-gallon trees be planted on a maximum of 20-foot centers. This would be a combination of existing and new, so the total would be 21. ® Condition No. 31 -would Ifke to include Conditions No. 5 and 25 be complied with prior to issuance a building permit. ® Condition No. 32 - No. 5 be deleted from this condition. A very small portion of the cross on the top of the structure will be visible from the single family residence, however, a structure at this height is allowed to be 100 feet high, and this is approximately 85 feet high. Staff is under the assumption that Commission is looking at this as a structure rather than an advertising device. It will be up to the Commission to make the determination if the additional 5 feet of area which can be seen from the residence would be removed or remain as is. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he felt it was fine at the height it was. Greg Hastings: Stated in the morning session Commission had indicated that they may wish to look at rezoning'the property. Glen Glotley: Responded that he did not have addftional comments to the revision. - Additional Comments: After the voting, Chairman Bostwick stated it would be appropriate to schedule a rezoning on the property. Greg Hastings: Stated this will be put on an upcoming agenda for Commission's consideration to initiate that. 08-04-97 Page 46 ACTION: Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3954 with the following changes to conditions: Modified Condition Nos. 1, 2, 5, 16, 17, 20, 31 and 32 to read as follpws: 1. That no roof-mounted equipment shall be permitted unless fully screened from view from all public streets and adjacent properties in accordance with the Anaheim Municipal Code. The owner/developer shall submit a plan showing detailed screening information to the Zoning Division for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 2. That any proposed freestanding sign on subject property shall be a monument-type not exceeding eight (8) feet in height and sixty five (65) square feet in area (excluding an 18" high base relative to the square footage), and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager to determine adequate lines-of-sight. All signage shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 5. That all landscaped areas shall be planted, irrigated and maintained, and shall be in conformance with Fxhibit No. 3, except as otherwise conditioned. Oleander shrubs shown on submitted plans shall be replaced with raphiolepis due to the current blight affecting oleanders. Final landscape plans Including a tree preservation and removal plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. Further, that no trees shall be removed until such plans are approved. 16. That the church hours shall be limited to the following, as stipulated by the petitioner: Office: Monday-Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Church: Sunday 9 a.m. - 3 p.m. Saturday 9 a.m. - 4 p.m. School: Sunday 9 a.m. - 2 p.m. Meeting Rooms: Monday-Saturday 9 a.m. - 9 p.m. Gymnasium: Monday-Friday 3 p.m. - 9 p.m. Saturday 9 a.m. - 4 p.m. Sunday 1 p.m. - 4 p.m. 17. That there shall be no windows installed on the north wall of the gymnasium and, further, that any doors located on said wall shall be used for emergency exiting purposes only. Final elevation drawings shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Aecommendatlons item. 20. That this conditional use permft does not Include approval of any school, child care facility or playground with the exception of Sunday School. 31. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 29, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 08-04-97 Page 47 Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance wfth Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 32. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 3, 4, 10, 11, 13, 21, and 30, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 4:10 - 4:17 = 7 minutes Planning Commission requested that the rezoning of this property be placed on future Planning Commission agenda for consideration. 08-04-97 Page 48 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Continued to 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3843 (READVERTtSED) September 15, 1997 OWNER: SHAKOUR CYRUS/LAURENCE CYRUS, YAHYA CYRUS, 2600 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 2600 West Lincoln Avenue (Wheel Service Texacoj. Property is 0.29 acre located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Magnolia Avenue. To .amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain an automobile sales/repair business. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR6735MA.WP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the September 15, 1997 Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to comply with ail condtions of approval. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not d(scussed. 08-04-97 Page 49 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION II Approved lib. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3958 Granted OWNER: AZIZ F. AWAD, 814 N. Modena Street, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 240 South Euclid Street. Property is 0.64 acre located on the east side of Euclid Avenue, 330 feet north of the centedine of Broadway. To permit the conversion of 4,752 square foot, 2-unit, commercial office bu(Iding to an 8-unit commercial retail center. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-114 SR6737iW.WP --------------------------------------------------------- FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Applicant's Statement: Aziz Awad, 814 North Modena, Anaheim, CA, owner of the property: Stated he rev(ewed the conditions and concurred with all of them. He did asked for a couple of clar'rficatfons. He asked if Condition No. 7 included existing and new trees? Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Stated he believed the condition refers to addiUonai trees, however, Cheryl Flores would clarify. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated she understood there were two trees currently there and so they would need to plant three additional trees. Chairman Bostwick: Stated so that would be five total, Azlz Awad: Asked about Condition No. 6 -parking plan, whether that has already been done or is it to be done? Cheryl Flores: Responded that is to be done. It probably conforms since the plans that were submitted for a building permit were checked by the Traffic Division but they need to be submitted again fo comply with this Condition. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Cheryl Flores: Stated under the conditions of approval for the monument sign, Condition No. 8, page 5 (of the staff report) staff would like to add that it be a maximum of 8 feet high rather than the height proposed. It would be measured from the grade of the sidewalk, a maximum of 8 feet high. Also on Condition No. 10, that the timing be prior to the occupancy of the unfts since the tenant improvements have already been done. OS-04-97 Page 50 Aziz Awad: Stated on Condition No. 8 there is no problem wkh this but Item no. 10 they would like to keep the option of having a year... Chairman Bostwick: Interjected since they have already done the Improvements, it is when they are occupied. In other words, he needs to comply with this before they are occupied. Since they have already been built. Instead of giving him a year to do the buildings, the applicant needs to comply wfth these requirements before they are occupied, Azlz Awad: There are a couple of walls that have not been built. There are a couple of walls that need to be built in order to make the building available for tenants. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated he needs to have an occupancy permit before he has any tenants, which means the work needs to be done. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3958 with the following changes to Condition Nos. 8 and 10: 8. That the proposed monument sign shall be a maximum of eight (8) feet high as measured from the grade of the sidewalk and shall be constructed within a planter area completely surrounding the base of the sign. 10. That prior the occupancy of the units, Condtion Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 9, above- mentioned, shall be complied with. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 4:17 - 4:27 = 10 minutes 08-04-97 Page 51 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:30 P.M. TO MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 1997 AT 10:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW Respectfully submitted, ®.r:vxpJ Ossie Edmundson 08-04-97 Page 52