Loading...
Minutes-PC 1997/09/15SU AFiY ACTION AGE DA ANAHEIM CITY PLAN I G CO ISSIO EETI G MOfVDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 11:00 A.M. PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, BOSTWICK, BRISTOL, HENNINGER, MAYER, NAPOLES, PERAZA COMMISSIONER ABSENT: NONE STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Assistant City Attorney Greg Hastings Zoning Division Manager Kevin Bass Associate Planner Karen Dudley Associate Planner Karen Freeman Associate Planner Richard LaRochelle Code Enforcement Supervisor Bruce Freeman Code Enforcement Supervisor Melanie Adams Associate Engineer Alfred Yalda Principal Transportation Planner Margarita Solorio Senior Secretary Ossie Edmundson Secretary P:\DpCS\CLERICAL\MINUTES\AC091597. W P ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. VARIANCE NOS. 2958 AND 1570 -REQUEST FOR Terminated TERMINATION: K.C. Chang, 1265 Manassero Street, #303, (Vote: 7-0) Anaheim, CA 92807, requests termination of Variance Nos. 2958 and 1570 (as required by Conditional Use Permit No. 3936 (Resolution PC97-71)). Property is located 2625 West Lincoln Avenue. TERMINATION RESOLUTION IVO. PC97-126 SR6522DS.DOC B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1044 -REQUEST FOR Terminated TERMINATION: Jeff Gold, HJK Gold, Inc., 4000 Union (Vote: 7-0) Pacific, Commerce, CA 90023, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1044 (to permit a 120-unit, 3 story motel). Property is located at 3400 - 3456 West Lincoln Avenue. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC97-127 SR6789MA. W P VARIANCE NO. 2974 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT II Terminated NO. 3531 -REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Richard A. (Vote: 7-0) DeBeikes, Jr./Imperial Promenade Partners, 5289 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA 92604, requests termination of Variance Nos. 2974 and 3531 (as required by Conditional Use Permit No. 3881 (Resolution PC96-124)). Property is located at 5645 East 'La Palma Avenue, #220. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC97-128 SR6795DS.DOC 09-15-97 Page 2 D. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN FOR COUNTY USE OF LEASED SPACE: County of Orange, Social Services Agency, Attn: Paul Douglas, Chief of Real Estate, 888 North Main Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701-3518, requests determination of conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for County use of leased office space for the Greater Avenues for Independence Program. Property is located at 50 South Anaheim Boulevard. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the County's proposed use of leased space at 50 South Anaheim Boulevard for the GAIN Program is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. Determined to be in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan SR0097KF.WP Staff's Statement: Karen Freeman, Associate Planner: Stated subject property is designation General Commercial in the land use element of the Anaheim General Plan. It is zoned Commercial Limited. Staff recommended Commission to find that the County's proposed use of leased space is in conformance with the General Plan. She indicated there were County staff members present to answer any questions. Chairman Bostwick: Stated there was a question regarding the parking. Are they going to use the parking structure rather than the parking lot? Paul Douglas, SSA Real Estate, County of Orange: Responded they have agreed with the owner of the property to have the employees park in the parking structure to save spaces for clients and customers. Chairman Bostwick: Stated the concern was for the other tenants in the building due to the approximately 70 to 100 clients being received per day. Paul Douglas: Responded appointments with the 35 to 38 employees will be scheduled throughout the day. - Commissioner Boydstun: Suggested to condition the parking of to be marked to designate employee parking in order to make the parking lot available for the other businesses since it is a small lot. Paul Douglas: Responded that was an operational issue that is up to the owner. Commissioner Peraza: Stated he thought it the responsibility of the owner. Karen Freeman: Brought to Commission's attention that what they are reviewing is in response to a State of California Government Code requirement where they are to review whether the project is in conformance with the General Plan. 09-15-97 Page 3 Chairman Bostwick: Suggested the applicant recommend to the owner that he might want to post directional signs informing customers to park in the parking structure. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if the other tenants were notified of this hearing? Karen Freeman: Responded this item is a Reports and Recommendation item in which notices are not mailed to residents. Karen Freeman: Clarified this item in regards to the General Plan Conformity and the County GAIN (Greater Avenues of :Independence) :Program. The staff report indicates that they are going to be serving Anaheim residents. In fact, they will be serving Anaheim residents and also northern Orange County residents as well. E. a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS II Concurred w/staff b. FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 97-15: Inn At The Park Approved Joint Venture, c/o Dallas Hotel Associates, 600 East River Park Lane, #200, Boise, ID 83706 and Tim Zamberfin (authorized agent), 1255 Westlake Avenue N., Seattle, WA 98109, requests review and approval of final site plan including elevation plans and sign plans, to install four (4) wall-mounted signs and replace existing, window awning. Property is located at 1855 South Harbor Boulevard (West Coast Anaheim Hotel). ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the State EIR and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Site Plan (identified as Exhibit Nos. 1 through 4 on file in the Planning Department) on the basis that the Final Site Plan is in conformance with Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. SR6788MN.DOC Staff's Statement: Karen Dudley, Associate Planner: Stated this application is to replace four existing wall signs of the West Coast Anaheim Hotel (formerly the Inn At The Park). Two of the signs will be hotel identification signs, located on the 14-story tower building. One on the north elevation, facing Katella Avenue and one on the east elevation facing Harbor Bivd.. Another sign will replace anon-conforming wall sign with a conforming wall sign on the accessory coffee shop building. The fourth sign is to replace a non- conforming wall sign with a conforming wall sign on the freestanding Overland Stage 09-15-97 Page 4 Restaurant. All of the signs have a similar design. They are an open pan channel letters with a neon two blighting that is located in the interior of the pan. Staff reviewed the plans and they do comply with site development standard and the design criteria of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. The signs have been reviewed by staff and determined to be Categorical Exempt under Class 11 of the EIR guidelines. Staff is recommending that the Commission approve the final site plans. 09-15-97 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3952 9-29-97 2c. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 97-11 OWNER: LEDERER ANAHEIM LIMITED, 1990 Westwocd Boulevard, Suite 250, Los Angeles, CA 90025 AGENT: ANAHEIM INDOOR MARKETPLACE, Attn: Robert Weiss, 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard -Anaheim Indoor Marketplace. Property is 14.74 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard. To permit a 6,809 square foot addition for a television studio and entertainment area and determination of public convenience or necessity for retail sales of beer for on-premises consumption and a second level, 1,209 square foot office area in conjunction with an existing indoor swap meet. Continued from the Commission meetings of July 21, August 18 and September 3, 1997. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTION NO. SR6787JK.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMflflISSION ACTION. - OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the September 29, 1997 Planning Commission meeting in order for the .applicant to prepare the revised plans and other information the Commission requested at the August 18, 1997 meeting. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 09-15-97 Page 6 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Continued to 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3812 (READVERTISED) 10-13-97 OWNER: TW INVESTMENT AND IW INVESTMENT CORPORATION, c/o Kape Properties, P.O. Box 6474, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 AGENT: MICHAEL BATES/MB TECHNICAL SERVICES, 1539 West Spring Street, Long Beach, CA 90810 LOCATION: 1315-D. 1321.. 1325. 1331 and 1341 North Blue Gum Street ladvertised as 1325-1341 North Blue Gum Streetl. Property is 9.7 acres located at the northwest corner of Miraloma Avenue and Blue Gum Street. To expand an existing automotive van conversion and modification plant within an existing industrial park. Continued from the Commission meetings of April 28, 1997, May 12, June 9 and July 21, 1997. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR6784KP. W P FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke with concerns. Applicant's Statement: Alan Winestock, Cape Properties, management firm for Blue Gum Industrial Park, P.O. Box 6474, Beverly Hills, CA 90212: Stated reading the staff report his understanding is that staff recommends this conditional use permit be denied. He suggested that it was brought to the attention of the Planning Commission 60 days ago when they tried to bring staffs concerns into compliance. He thinks they have.done an excellent job of doing so. He has his staff monitoring the situation on a-daily basis and the site is always well maintained.. This manufacturing business is growing. He felt Commission should vote favorably. -- Chairman Bostwick: Stated Commission would like to encourage businesses. The problem is that staff does not agree that all the items have been corrected andlor the .problems solved. There was a list of different inspections of the property and problems with compliance. There was a problem last time with odor from the plant affecting the neighbors and the other business operators of the plant. There is no indication that problem has been corrected. Alan Winestock: Stated after he left on the last hearing date, he was told by the adjacent tenants that the problem had been alleviated. AOMD had been called to the premises and they also concurred that odors had not been going to the other premises. He noted that there were two other tenants present. Regarding the cleanliness of the parking, at the removal of the dumpsters that are in plain sight that 09-15-97 Page 7 needs to expand in order to move those items behind screens so they can be in compliance. The applicant needs that other building in order to expand and bring his vehicles inside, which he will do once he is allowed to expand. This is part of the whole request. A conditional use permit came first. The applicant applied for a conditional use permit in order to have the concerns taken care of. If it is to roll away dumpsters that are in plain sight, he is sure that could be done. The parking situation has become tolerable for everyone. The fire lanes are kept clear at all times. Of the work done on vehicles, it is simply taking the cars outside into the sunlight (and not artificial light) so they can see if there are any problems and promptly take them back in if there are problems. Patricia Humphries, one of the owners of California Automatic Gate, 1315-C North Blue Gum, Anaheim, CA: She noted that she is occupying more space than is indicated in the agenda. She has 11,880 square feet. It is the one shown vacant (in the staff report map). They have noticed improvement. The parking is almost to a point of being tolerable. They have notice, however, that the parking facility is still not clean. There is still a lot of those employees trash left around after working hours (including beer cans and other things that they do after hours). There is still a lot of trash left out but it is not as bad as it use to be. As far as the parking is concerned, they are still complying and giving them all their spaces. As of yesterday, they were already starting to park in other buildings and spaces. That should alleviate much of their problems. Her main concern is that she thinks that as many buildings as they are going to occupy, there is still going to be product outside and nobody else is allowed to do that. If they are going to work on the vans they need to be inside the building and not parked 24 hours a day outside. Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement Supervisor: Stated as stipulated in the staff report, on their recent inspection indicated minor improvements have taken place mostly with the landscape. It indicated 84 parking spaces not identified in the exhibit are not used by the applicant. They continue to have problems with the roll-up bins and the trash in the parking lot. He met with the owners/property agent in July and at that time they indicated this problem would be corrected. The problem has actually not been corrected to date. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Gommissioner Peraza: Asked about the September 9, 1997, Code Enforcement inspection. Employees were observed working on the vans outside. He asked Mr. Freeman if the applicant was doing this regularly? Bruce Freeman: Responded they are. He was not certain to what degree. The documentation on file consistently indicates that some type of work is being done on vehicles while outside of the building. Commissioner Bristol: Asked Mr. Winestock if he was the landlord and who the owner Was? Alan Winestock: Responded he was the landlord and the owners consist of four partnerships;-two are an Arizona corporation, one is an individual living in Mexico City, and the other is a trust that resides in Los Angeles. Alan Winestock: He used the example of Disneyland ownership which is not on-site but rather they have offices in Burbank. He hired as a property manager and has been so for four years. He has retained cleanup people, etc. to take care of the property. He has been there on a weekly basis since the last Commission hearing (July 21, 1997) so it is his responsibility. He does not recall at the last meeting or his meeting with Ms. Pfost (Associate Planner) that the dumpsters had to be removed from the premises. It was discussed that the dumpster had to be kept clean and debris not be placed along side of them and that is what is occurring. Having a van parked in an area to the side of their building, he did not think it was a detriment to anyone. He felt the parking is more than adequate for everyone 09-15-97 Page 8 at the site. He did not feel that taking the vans outside to examine the vehicles to see exactly where the dents are is considered working on the vehicles outside. Commissioner Henninger asked Mr. Winestock if he had met with Code Enforcement. Alan Winestock: Responded the last time he meeting with Arlene Hernandez (Code Enforcement Office) was in the office of Kathie Pfost in July 1997. Ms. Pfost spoken with Arlene last week when he heard that the staff was going to recommend denial Commissioner Henninger: Stated that the testimony of Code Enforcement and of Mr. Winestock are different. He suggested Mr. Winestock stress to the tenant that they are going to loose their permit if they are not responsive immediately. If Mr. Winestock could assure that changes will be made then he might consider a continuance of this item. Alan Winestock: Responded he, on behalf of the owners, have spent a considerable amount of money on this particular project making sure that it is clean. He can not always be there to watch people and how Cade Enforcement perceives what they are doing. He thought they could move the dumpsters if that is required. They can move those now because building at 1381 has become vacant effective on September 1, 1997. In his opinion the cleanup has been done. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he interpreted that as a response of no. Alan Winestock: Responded that was correct. Commissioner Mayer: Indicated one of the tenants referred to the vehicles parked in the spaces as "product" and she asked Mr. Winestock his interpretation of that, whether he looked upon them as vehicles or product. Alan Winestock: Responded that they are product. They are taken in at night and put out during the day because inside the buildings is where the product is processed. According to staff, currently they are parking them three deep where there is no tandem spots, so there should only be two and that is the concern of Code Enforcement. The fire lanes that were a major concern have been kept clear. The issue is whether or not the 20,000 square feet that they are taking will alleviate much of the middle row. They will still have to put product out into the parking spaces during the day when they are complete and ready for shipping and when they have to move from place to place because they have four buildings. So the answer is, yes, it is product, and yes, it will be out in the parking lot to some extent; parked cars, parked vans in parking spaces designated for parking. Commissioner Mayer: Stated even though Commission approves the proposal, they wo~ld_not be solving the problem. It appears they need to be in a large building. Commissioner Bristol: It is a difficult situation, there is an absentee owner, he is telling Commission he can't do anything to remedy the situation and yet he is requesting that Commission approve the proposal which would impact everyone at that location. Commissioner Henninger asked Mr. Winestock whether he could guarantee in two weeks that the issues of concern would be resolved and he responded no. He did not know in two weeks if he could get this tenant in line. The reason is that the building that the tenant is taking has to be fixed up before he can move into it. It seems to him that to Code Enforcement and Planning Commission have been wavering to a great extenk. Commissioner Bristol: Stated he is the landlord that represents them and he should be on this tenant 09-15-97 Page 9 rectify those problems Alan Winestock: Code Enforcement has come back and forth with some items they feel they want to accomplish and it has not always been the same. Once they accomplish one thing, it is either not enough or something else comes to bear. He felt he is not getting the feedback he needs from Code Enforcement or the Planning Commission. Not even his phone calls are returned. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated this item has been before Commission since April 28, 1997, and it is well known that the staff reports are available on Friday afternoon and he could pick those up and review them over the weekend. Alan Winestock: Stated he met with Code Enforcement in December then again in March and received clearance from Code Enforcement relative to what had been done and then in July he received correspondence. Code Enforcement was excellent with correspondence when there was a real problem but later when there was no perceived problem any longer, he received nothing as a landowner as an agent and the only registered agent for this property. He received no indication that there was any problem until the July meeting with the Planning Department. He wants to try to keep a tenant and get the ground rules established that are fair and equitable and able to be lived with. Commissioner Bristol: Suggested continuing this item for four weeks to resolve the issues, and asked if he would be willing to do that and meet with his tenant and the City staff. Alan Winestock: Responded yes. Commissioner Henninger: Also agreed with the continuance. He believes Commission has been very clear. The conditional use permit (March 1996) was granted with conditions and his tenant has not conformed to those conditions. He also agreed with the four week continuance and emphasized Mr. Winestock needs to get something done within that time. Commission voted, by motion, for a four week continuance to October 13, 1997. Commissioner Henninger: Asked Selma Mann if she was concerned that the copy of the letter waiving the streamlining is not signed? Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Responded she would like to have at least a written statement from the representative present on behalf of the property owner, confirming the waiver of the streamling act. Commissioner Henninger suggested that be done before the representative leaves. - Kevin Bass: Responded yes staff would follow through on that - ACTION: Continued subject request to the October 13, 1997 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to meet with Code Enforcement Staff and to resolve all the outstanding issues outlined in the staff report dated September 15, 1997. VOTE: 4-3 (Commissioners Boydstun, Mayer and Napoles voted no) DISCUSSION TIME: 25 minutes (1:45-2:1p) 09-15-97 Page 10 4a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT I Approved 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3959 Granted OWNER: NATHAN OGINTS AND MARY OGINTS, ERNEST F. D'ANDRIA AND LEE D'ANDRIA, SARAH SVARDLOFF,NAT KALMAN AND ISADORA KALMAN, 3481 La Sombra Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90068 AGENT: FIESTA MEXICANA MARKET, ATTN: BEN BEQUER, 1221 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1221 South Anaheim Boulevard -Fiesta Mexicans Market. Property is 4.0 acres located on the southwest corner of Ball Road and Anaheim Boulevard. To construct a 1,600 square foot addition for one new retail space in an existing commercial retail center with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces, minimum structural and landscape setback and permitted encroachments into required yards. Continued from the Commission meeting of August 18, 1997. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-129 SR6756JK.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Applicant's Statement: Ben Bequer, 9491 Braymar, Villa Park, CA: Stated he has been in operation for over two years. He was responsible for cleaning up the building which was in very .poor condition. He feels he--has done a good job. The building has proven to be an asset to him. He is doing very well there and he would like to continue improving it. He has an option to lease for another 2 years. He has plans to `redo the face of the building and put in new landscaping. He has plans to add an addition of 1600 feet as part of that. He wanted to add trash enclosures which are needed. He had concerns on the following items: P~8 • Item No. 8 - He did not feel there should be any objections to the vending machines. • Item No. 11 - He is not certain what that the plan sheet for the solid waste storage is referring to. • Item No. 12 -There is a private alley between his building and the apartments next door and the trash truck comes through there. He is not clear what he needs to provide for a turnaround for the truck. They receive merchandise with semi trucks almost every day. The trailers on the semis are 50 feet long plus the front of the tractor and they need to go to into 09-15-97 Page 11 Iris Street to back into the back of his building. As he understands, after the completion of the project he should replace the drive with a standard curb gutter. He asked whether that means that the driveway will not longer be there? Page 9 • Item No. 18 -Also refer to the delivery trucks. He understood a neighbor objected to the trucks and tour buses (which have nothing to do with him) parking near his home and leaving their engine running. The trucks do need to go on Iris Street whether they come in from Ball Rd. or they come from the driveway. They have to go into Iris and back into his building or they have to back all the way into the alley, blocking the alley while they are unloading, otherwise he does not know where to unload the goods received. When he started construction in that building, there were many semi trucks parked in their parking lot. The reason he put the wheel stop parking lot was that the people instead of stopping at the light at Ball Road, in front of Pollo Loco and Burger King. They would race through the middle of the two business and through their parking to cut the corner. Therefore, he tried to eliminate that by .putting in speed bumps and curbs. Also big semi trucks would go in there and would tum around in the parking lot. By having those stops it would make it more difficult for the semis to do that. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Staff's Response to the Applicant: Kevin Bass, Associate Planner: Regarding the vending machines, they are to be located within 15 feet of the main entrance. Chairman Bostwick: The dumpsters need to be in the enclosures and there is a plan which needs to be followed. Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer: She confirmed that was correct. What is listed as Conditions No. 11 .and 12 are the standard conditions. The intent is for the applicant to have his bins in an approved location and to have his recyclable separated away from the trash, to either have an on-site trash turnaround or to have away that it could move and turn on public alleys and off the property. So there is a little flexibility on Condition No. 12. Chairman Bostwick: Stated it is a matter of the applicant putting a plan together on their blueprints and taking it to the Sanitation Division for their approval. Melanie Adams: Suggested Mr. Bequer meet with Sanitation staff (Rod Halleck or Doris Monzon) to ensure that his locations are correct, the bins are in the proper enclosure and that the trucks are moving properly. - - Ben Bequer. Stated regarding Condition No. 11, he has a trash cardboard dealer that comes and they sometimes put the cardboard outside for the those trucks to pick up. That is what he thought the condition referred to. Kevin Bass: Stated Sanitation is not referring to the bailers. Melanie Adams: Concerning Condition No. 13, they had a report from a Field Engineering inspector that there is a driveway approach behind the wall and when they build the new wall there will still be one approach that does not lead anywhere; it leads to a wall. The intent is not to close the existing opening as of right now.. 09-15-97 Page 12 Ben Bequer asked for a clarification of which driveway they were referring to. Melanie Adams showed him and he then asked if the City was responsible for maintaining it. Commission Bostwick indicated it was the property owner who is responsible. Ben Bequer: Stated if this applicant builds the other wall five feet away from the present wall he still has to maintain the old wall because it is a retaining wall. Chairman Bostwick: Asked wouldn't the new wall become a retaining wall? Ben Bequer: Responded it would be very difficult to do. He explained that the existing retaining wall is, for example, three feet and the rest of the lot is at that level. Art Portillo: Explained that there is a five foot setback between the brick wall and the new wall that is going to be installed. The brick wall is actually a retainer wall. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated then the applicant would need to plant the space :between the retaining wall and the new wall. Art Portillo: Responded exactly. So that wall can not be removed. Chairman Bostwick: Stated if he leaves the existing wall he has no way protect it from graffiti with plants. Ben Bequer: Stated the five feet that he is being asked to give up are very crucial to him. They .are very tight as it is now. If he only has room for one truck, then other trucks will have to be in the alley. Commissioner Boydstun: Explained that the condition states is that the existing chainlink fence with the barbed wire shall be removed upon completion. Kevin Bass: Stated if the brick wall is actually on the property line adjacent to Iris Street and the five feet between that retaining wall and the new 8 foot high block wall, that would give an opportunity not only for landscaping to screen that t3 foot high wall but also to have ivy type ground cover of overFlow down on the brick portion in order to screen that low retaining wall. So, they do not have to have that retaining wall removed as long as the overall height of the wall is shown on a cross section of the plans submitted for Building permits and they show that they have the retaining wall, the landscaping that covers that retaining wall, as well landscaping that fully screens the new wall. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated to the applicant that the wall would not be a problem, he would need to leave it. He just needs to show it on his plans. Ben Bequer: Stated regarding one of his neighbors that called and complained about the trucks. He came up to him and stated that he was responsible for getting the petition to make the landlord~lant the trees in the back of the building and if they put up a wall back there is going to be nothing but graffiti and he is going to get a petition to have it removed. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated Commission would like him to plant ivy along the wall so they can not graffiti it. Ben Bequer: Stated he really does not need five feet to plant ivy. One or two feet would be sufficient. Kevin Bass: Stated he will have the opportunity to put in shrubbery that will give a layered affect as well as the ivy pockets planted on three to five feet center. 09-15-97 Page 13 Commissioner Henninger: Asked how big is the delivery area behind the wall; how wide is it between the wall and the building? Ben Bequer: Responded two trucks fit very tightly; 20 feet. Chairman Bostwick: Stated regarding Condition No. 17, that trucks and trailers shall not be parked in the parking lot. The truckers like to pull in and they would prefer to discourage that. Also when there are trucks parked in his lot that encourages other trucks to also park there. Ben Bequer: Stated the Police Department informed him to call a tow truck company and have give them authorization to tow the trucks away and he has done that. Commissioner Peraza asked if he understood correctly at the morning session that the applicant could sign an agreement with Code Enforcement in order for them to site the vehicles? Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement Supervisor: Responded the property needs to be posted which would stipulate the section that no large commercial vehicles or large commercial trucks be parked on the property. The applicant can submit a letter to Code Enforcement and whenever they see a semi truck on the parking lot .actually site those vehicles. They will do everything they possible can to assist him in this manner. All Code Enforcement needs is his cooperation. Chairman Bostwick: The new landscape plan putting planters out front and at the end of the isles and changing the traffic pattern will help the situation. The trucks run over the parking stops and break them up. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if it was clear regarding the water machines that they have to be 15 feet away from the doors. Kevin Bass: Responded actually that would be within 15 feet of the entrance so that the operator can keep control. Ben Bequer: Stated currently they are 20 feet from the entrance and did not think he could get them any closer. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if there was a problem with the :machines in their current location? Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Stated staffs intend was to reduce, citywide, the advertising to the public right-of-way from these different machines. In this particular case the building is set back quite a distance. If it is adjacent to the building rather than the parking lot that should be adequate for this case. - Commissioner Henninger: Stated that they could stipulate that it be adjacent to the building. '- Greg Hastings: Responded it would not eliminate it but it would reduce the problem. Bruce Freeman: Stated in reviewing a photo of the east side of the building the concern is that there appears to be seven magazine or newspaper racks, two water vending machines and three other types of vending machines which total about 25% of the face of the building (facing east). The intent is to keep this from spreading across the entire face of the building. Ben Bequer: Stated if they would like to put a notice to remove it, then that is fine with him. He has never been contacted about that. 09-15-97 Page 14 Bruce Freeman: Informed him that if he did not want those racks there. He could contact the newspaper companies to remove them because it is his property. Ben Bequer: Stated he will be contacting the newspaper companies to remove those racks. There was further discussion about the vending machines and newspaper racks. Ben Bequer: Asked if he understood correctly that the curb stops located in the front of every parking space are being requested to be removed by staff. Kevin Bass: Responded that the main problem is that there are so many broken stops on-site it is difficult to control the truck traffic. If they can not go one way then they will change their traffic pattern and go the other way. if the landscape islands work then they start to maneuver around them. He thought that the wheels stops will still be damaged by the passing trucks and still be a nuisance on the site. Removing the wheel stops would be the best way to solve the problem. Chairman Bostwick: Suggested replacing them with recycled plastic stops that can not get broken. Ben Bequer: Stated the wheel stops have already been replaced two times in two years. He felt the wheel stops do help curtail the trucks traveling through is property. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, Traffic pivision: Stated the applicant is trying to prevent the trucks from going through the side because the parking lot is so big that many times drivers have a tendency of driving across his parking lot and is understandable why he would like to curtail that activity with the wheel stops. A solution to that would be, if Mr. Bequer chooses at some later time, to create a pocket of landscaping there then that would eliminate all of the Criss-crossing and all the truck parking (i.e., Anaheim Plaza). He is not aware of any recyclable bars. Chairman Bostwick: Knew for a fact that they do exist. For example, there is a company located near the Stadium that sell them. They are made of a recycling plastic material in various colors. Bruce Freeman: Stated if the applicant chooses to keep the wheel stops then that is fine, however, he is going to maintain the wheel stops on-site at all times. Another issue that he felt would be a benefit to the applicant is that when he has his parking lot swept at night that there would be no obstruction as the wheel stops are right now since debris blows up to them. Most of the supermarkets do not have wheel stops. It is just a concern that Code Enforcement has in the maintenance of Mr. Bequer's property. Kevin Bass: Suggested modifying Condition No. 19 to read that existing wheel stops in the parking lot shall be maintained in good condition. - Ben Bequer: Stated that regarding the time element for this project, he would like to take care of the wall in the back, the trash enclosures and work on the parking lot and the landscaping, but he felt he would need a longer period of time than one year. Kevin Bass: Stated within a year of complying with the conditions and obtaining a building permit there is a time leeway because if plans are in plan check, staff considers that an intent to meet the requirement. The main concern staff has is that if after a year these conditions have not been complied with then they would prefer that he go with an extension of time. If he needed more time. The applicant does have the project broken down into three phases. If he starts with those phases then staff could certainly work with him to getting his building permit. Kevin Bass: Stated regarding the condition on the vending machines, that the water vending machines 09-15-97 Page 15 shall be :maintained at a location adjacent to the building and that the newspaper vending machines shall be either relocated to the north end pf the property or removed. Ben Bequer: Asked what he is to do with the retaining wall in the back. Chairman Bostwick: Stated there is nothing in the conditions that indicate it should be :removed. It only refers tp the chainlink fence. So he could leave it there and with his landscape do some type of a ground cover that crawls up the new wall and also falls over the front of the existing wall to keep the graffiti off. ACTION: Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3959 with the following changes: Modified Condition Nos. 8 and 19 to read as follows: 8. That the water vending machines shall be maintained in a location adjacent to the building and that the newspaper vending machines shall either be relocated to the north end of the property or removed. 19. That the existing wheel stops shall be properly maintained at all times. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 35 minutes (2:10-2:45) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. 09-15-97 Page 16 5a. CEQANEGATIVEDECLARATION Approved Sb. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3956 Granted 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: 641 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 permit an 11,736 square foot expansion of a private educational facility in conjunction with an existing church with waivers of minimum parking lot landscaping and minimum number of covered parking spaces. Continued from the Commission meeting of August 18, 1997. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-130 SR6786KB. W P FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition Applicant's Statement: Riley Marquis, representing the Orange County Christian School at 5772 Garden Grove Blvd. #147, Westminster, CA: Stated their proposal is to install two modular structures with restroom facilities. One consisting of 7 classrooms, an attendance office and an auditorium that will serve at a meeting place for4he church on weekends and Wednesday nights. The building will be along the northerly property line adjoining a Carbon Creek Channel. The other building will consist of two classrooms, a book room and restrooms to the west of the existing preschool facility which is in the central portion of the property. They reviewed staffs conditions regarding the refurbishing of the trash bins and they are in agreement with all of the conditions. He has worked out with Alfred Yalda (Traffic Engineering Division) that a turnaround is not necessary because their trash bins are in the westerly side of the front parking lot so that the trash trucks do not have to go down the southerly driveway to the rear of the property. He explained briefly the condition regarding the dead end ;portion of the street that comes in the southerly portion of the property. They have proposed to come in with a 2%: foot high retaining wall and then a 6 foot block wall an top of that. It sets back in about 1'/z feet so they can get in there and maintain it and have it landscaped and sprinklered so their people can get there to fix it. They propose to do this without having to get on the City property from Courson Street. That will clean up the unsightly area the at dead end of Courson Street. 09-15-97 Page 17 David Lewis, 641 S. Western Avenue: Stated he is a member of the school board of directors and also one of the ministers at the Western Avenue Church of Christ which meets in the auditorium. He apologized for not being at the last meeting. He was sick with the flu. He was present to address any questions or concerns regarding the use of the facility, the operations and concerns of neighbors. He meet with two of the three neighbors who were at the last meeting. David Lewis: Regarding the Wainwrights who live on Courson, there was a light in the church's parking lot bothering them and they have adjusted it. They are happy with the idea of taking down the chainlink fence which is on the City property, removing that and putting up a nice wall that matches with what the Wainwrights have now because they already have a retaining wall that was put in when the earlier development on the church property took place when it was owned by the Lutheran and Bible Institute. The neighbor to the left of them had expressed a concern with regard to debris. It was from the area immediately behind the apartment units. There is an area there about 20 or 25 feet wide. It has .been fenced off since they have owned the property. It is completely locked so the children can not get back there. What had happened, because of a failure on his part to properly maintain the fence, some of the boards had been kicked out. The kids had gotten onto the property and disturbed the neighbor. They are genuinely sorry. Their purpose as a Christian School and as a church is to build character and to train children to be good neighbors and to be one of the foundations of their community. David Lewis: Stated he met Mrs. Huff, located to the north of their property, regarding her concerns, including the concern with parking that they are going to need to put in the front of the property to accommodate the requirements of City parking, could potentially create a problem with lights going into her home. Cars pulling in would be directing lighting in that direction. They suggested to Mrs. Huff that they could build a wall, but she rejected that proposal. They suggested to her that they would landscape. That was unacceptable to her. They have not been able to resolve her concerns. There seems to be some concern of the way things are handled at the Orange County Christian School. They have tried to resolve that by setting up a procedure whereby if anyone calls or comes in with a complaint or if he is not on the premises then his name and phone number will be obtained and Mr. Lewis will be given that information to follow up, Public Testimony: Ida Huff, 623 S. Westem, CA: Stated it is not only the lights that concern her. Her bedroom is upstairs so she knows they are going to shine lights into her bedroom. She said she was home on a Saturday and called Mr. Lewis personally to ask him to respond to her but she never heard from him. She has dealt with him numerous times and he has given her answers but has not responded. The fencing on the churches north boundaries is hers. They have not put anything up. They even attached their fences to hers. They have been very negligent of maintenance. The parking lot is in very poor condition. They have done nothing for years on it. They have made promises that have not been kept. She does not want to see them expand any further. Mast of the neighbors who have attended the hearings are older people. They have everything invested in that area. She suggested to Mr. Lewis that to solve the problem, the church could buy her property. In addition, she was concerned about the dormitories. Applicant's Rebuttal: David Lewis: Stated there was a few items that needed clarification. 1) That they have been renting to tourist and using them like motel rooms and not paid taxes. That is not true. They purchased the property about 6 years ago from the Lutheran Bible Institute. It is his understanding, which is unofficial, that some summer times that member of 09-15-97 Page 18 the Lutheran Bible Institute support group from Minnesota would come out and they would let them use the housing units but it had nothing to do with Orange County Christian School and they are no way connect the Lutheran Bible Institute. 2) Regarding the fence, it is true they did tie their fence into hers and that was because they were trying to prevent people from using that side of the property or cutting through lawn areas which could be a disturbance to Mrs. Huff. 3) The parking lot issue, they have slurry sealed it and patched it twice over the years. it is a very expensive process. There is a drainage program that has to be addressed which they are addressing in their current plan. Part of the improvement applicant will not only include building a new concrete parking area but also putting improvements in the existing parking to get the property drainage. 4) The lighting - he felt landscaping can certainly address that. Headlight do not shine onto 2nd story windows. Mrs. Huff did offer 6 years ago to sell them her property. At that time she asked then to pay her 425,000 and this time the price went up to 600,000. Unfortunately, they are in no condition to pay that kind of money. They do want to resolve this issue and if the only way is to let Mrs. Huff to move on. They are non profit. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Bostwick: Stated if the church could take the 15 feet and put a 3 foot high berm with a hedge on top. It might be a way to defeat the lights and some of the traffic from affecting Mrs. Huffs property since a fence is not agreeable to both parties. David Lewis: Acknowledged that is a goad suggestion. Their architect, Mr. Marquis, is working with the City on that issue. He gave his assurance that they would give their utmost attention to try to address that issue. Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer: Stated on Condition No. 14 related to the retaining wall next to Courson Street, that it should be fully on private property and not encroach into the public right-of-way. If the applicant desires to do some work within the public right-of-way (extending pavement or sidewalk) then they should obtain aRight-of-Way Construction Permit. Riley Marquis: Stated his understanding is that if they do anything within the City right-of-way they must have an encroachment permit and that would include removing dirt, removing an old timber retaining wall (three 3x12 with 6X6 posts most of which are rotted out). Their intention was to do the construction within their own property. Melanie Adams: Stated the proper permit he should get is the Right-of-Way Construction Permit. The Encroachment Permit would be if someone would want to leave some article or structure within~fhe public right-of-way. That is not what he is going to do in this case. He is only going to construct. Riley Marquis: Stated the intent is not to construct within the public right-of-way. Melanie Adams: Stated the applicant will be constructing a wall completely on his own property and the activity that he wants to do is covered by a Right-of-Way Construction Permit. David Lewis: Indicated there is a correction to Item No. 15 (page 5 of the staff report). It does indicate correctly that they have a preschool operation from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and that school is from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He clarified that school does not actually start until 8:30 a.m., therefore the actual school operation hours are from 8:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. But 09-15-97 Page 19 between the 6:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. and between 3:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. there is a day care/preschool operation on the facility. There are some parents that drop off their children as early as 6:30 a.m., those children are kept in their facility until 8:00 a.m. At that time the children are allowed to go outside to play on the playground. Mrs. Huff: Stated this is the first she has heard of the berm and asked what is being planned? Chairman Bostwick: Responded a suggestion was made that the applicant take on their 15 foot setback from their property line to build a 3 foot high berm, landscaped, with a hedge on the top of it so the head lights from the cars will hit the ground and the hedge growing above it would help defuse the flair from the headlights. Commissioner Boydstun suggested planning some other trees along there in positions that will help block Mr. Huffs bedroom windows. Mrs. Huff: Stated that would be amicable, however his suggestion to her was that he fill in where her Cypress trees are missing. She indicated she has concerns about traffic on Western Avenue. Before, about 1991, they wanted to relocate driveways and there are three streets within a short distance that come on to Western Avenue. She is not certain what the impact will be with more parking and more cars traveling in and out of that property. Chairman Bostwick; Responded Traffic Engineering Division has already reviewed that issue ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3956 with the following changes to conditions: Modified Condition No. 14 to read as follows: 14. That the property owner shall remove the existing wood retaining wall and chain link fence abutting Courson Street, and construct a masonry retaining wall and a six (6)-foot high masonry block wall in its place to match the height of adjacent walls. Said block wall shall be build on private property and shall be planted and maintained with clinging vines to eliminate graffiti opportunities. The property owner shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits and/or right-of-way construction permits from Public Works Department, Development Services Division. Added the following condition: That there shall be a minimum 3-foot high landscaped earthen berm with a-fledge on tap, .across the north property line adjacent to the abutting single-family residence. Said planter shall be fully irrigated and planted with minimum fifteen (15) gallon size trees planted on 20-foot centers. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 27 minutes (2:45 - 3:12) 09-15-97 Page 20 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Continued to 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 9-29-97 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3960 OWNER: BHUPESH PARIKH AND KUMUO B. PARIKH, 427 West Colorado, #201, Glendale, CA 91204 AGENT: JOHN E. BUTTERS, 27410 Laurel Glen Lane, Valencia, CA 91354 LOCATION: 212 South Beach Boulevard. Property is 1.93 acres located on the east side of Beach Boulevard, 900 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. To construct an 05,000 square foot, 2-story self-storage facility with one caretaker's unit with waivers of minimum landscaped setback adjacent to an arterial highway, minimum landscaped setback adjacent to a residential zone boundary and required site screening. Continued from the Commission meeting of August 18, 1997. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR6793KB.WP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the September 29, 1997 Planning Commission meeting in order for the property owner to meet with staff regarding the revised architectural plans for the self-storage facility. VOTE: 7-p DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 09-15-97 Page 21 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3940 OWNER: SHELL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY, P.O. Box 25370, Santa Ana, CA 92799 AGENT: SERVICE STATION SERVICES, Attn: April Smith, 3 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 711, Santa Ana, CA 92707 LOCATION: 3085 East La Palma Avenue -Shell Service Station. Property is 0.51 acre located at the northwest corner of Kraemer Boulevard and La .Palma Avenue . To construct a 1,200 square foot service station with an accessory convenience market and automated car wash facility with waivers of minimum required landscaping abutting an arterial highway and minimum required landscaping adjacent to interior site boundary lines. Continued from the Commission meeting of June 23, 1997. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to 1-21-98 SR6519DS:DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 21, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, as requested by the applicant, in order to obtain funding for the project. VOTE: 7-0 - DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 09-15-97 Page 22 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Continued to 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3843 (READVERTISED) 11-10-97 OWNER: SHAKOUR CYRUS/LAURENCE CYRUS, YAHYA CYRUS, 2600 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 2600 West Lincoln Avenue (Wheel Service Texaco 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. Continued from the Commission meeting of August 4, 1997. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. S R6775MA. W P FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Applicant's Statement: Shakour Cyrus, owner of 2600 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim: Stated he wanted to bring to Commissioner's attention some concerns he had (regarding page 3 of the staff report). Condition No. 1 regarding a letter requesting termination. He was not certain what is needed in the letter requesting a termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1592. 2. Condition No. 6 pertaining to removal of an existing pole (part of a previously use pole sign). He did not understand why he should remove the pole sign if the previous one has been removed. ChairmarrBostwick: Stated staff could provide Mr. Cyrus with an example of a letter if needed. The letter should simply stated he is requesting a termination. All the conditions were on his original conditional use permit to use the property and the issues should have been addressed at that time. The item was that the existing pole sign should be removed and a freestanding sign shall be of the monument type. To ask Commission to change those conditions, he needs to have a new CUP hearing and request for that type of change in his CUP, not just the extension of time, but he is asking for other things. Chairman Bostwick stated all of the documents were given to him when he received the approval and he needs to read them. Shakour Cyrus: Stated he did not know what was going on at the public hearing the first time because he had never been involved in this type of process before. The previous pole sign has been removed, however. The sign pole on the northeast corner of the property has not been removed because he would like to retain it. 09-15-97 Page 23 Chairman Bostwick: Stated that is not what has been approved. He will need to remove the sign and if he wants a sign he must come up with plans for a monument sign. All of those items needed to have been done long ago. Staffs job is not to tell him how to do it; they are to give the applicant ideas of what he could do. Then the applicant would need to come back with plans of what he intends to do. Staff will review those and let the applicant know whether the plans will meet the requirements that have been given to him. Then the applicant goes back and matches what the requirements are. He, as the property owner, needs to develop his own plans to take care of his property. It is not the staffs job to do that. Shakour Cyrus: Stated he has gone to the Planning Department numerous times and when he spoke with staff about the post and they suggested he come before Commission and present his case that because the first time he did not know what was happening he had agreed to something he does not want to do. Chairman Bostwick: Stated if the applicant wants to make certain changes to this then he need to put together a plan, go to the staff and get a CUP for the property in the way he intends to use it. Then it is brought before Commisston and they will let him know whether the plan is acceptable or not. At this time, all of the items which were requested to be done in his original CUP have not been completed. Staff has requested a four week continuance to allow time for the applicant to bring this into compliance. Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Stated, for the record, staff did meet with Mr. Cyrus and at the time staff indicated to him, which is why it is advertised differently, that if he took any exceptions to the existing conditions that he had the opportunity today to explain his reasoning. However, staff did indicate to him that staff was standing behind these condition but if there was anything persuasive that the applicant wanted to bring forward to the Commission, then today would be the opportunity to do that. Staff is recommending that the conditions be kept but they wanted to give Mr. Cyrus to opportunity to explain. Shakour Cyrus: Stated he has no problem with the letter requesting termination (of Conditional Use Permit No. 1592). The pole sign, he would appreciate if Commission would allow that portion of the sign to remain. Landscape has been completed. Regarding the canopy, one of the biggest part of the canopy has been removed. He has not removed the other canopy because he does not have the money to do it. He asked if he can be given more time to remove the canopy. The fence is vital to his property because the neighborhood has a problem with crime. He can not leave a car on the .property overnight with it getting vandalized. As an example of the neighborhood problem he recalled a Code Enforcement Officer who came to inspect his property. He took notice that the officer locked his car. Mr. Cyrus asked why he locked the car and the officer responded there are items that he did not want stolen. He stated he does not need the fence for storage but only to park cars safe from vandalism. The trash enclosure is behind the fence and he has not been having an problems with the Sanitation Division. He asked for three things from Commission, 1) allow him to keep the fence, 2) give him time to remove the canopy, 3) allow him to keep the sign pole. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Bristol: Stated Mr. Cyrus's major concern is the same issue that was discussed about a year ago, the outside storage and fencing area, that is why he has a guard dog there. Shakour Cyrus: Responded he does not have a guard dog all the time. Commissioner Bristol: Stated Condition No. 12 of the original condition states that the fencing enclosing the exterior portion of the property shall be removed and also on Item No. 4 it states that no outdoor storage or display of or work on vehicles or vehicle parts shall be permitted. That was the 09-15-97 Page 24 main point of discussion a year ago and Mr. Cyrus said at that time that all the vehicles could go inside his building and he appears tp not be doing that. Shakour Cyrus: Stated he is not storing anything. The dog is not his. It belongs to his brother. His brother was out of town for 2%x months and that dog is going to go when he returns. Chairman Bostwick: Stated but there are vehicles stored outside overnight. Shakour Cyrus: Asked where else should he store the customers cars? Commissioner Bristol: Stated Commission did not think this was the right site a year ago. The canopies, the pole sign, fence, dog and the storage, they had their reservations as to whether he could do what he said he would do. Shakour Cyrus: It was discussed about storing parts and no he does not store parts there. The fence is not to protect outside storage but simply for protection from vandalism. There was further discussion about outdoor storage and the fencing. Commissioner Henninger: Moved for a continuance of this item for S weeks (November 10, 1997) to allow the applicant more time to compliance with all the conditions of the existing CUP, seconded by Commissioner Bristol. Commissioner Henninger: Stated to the applicant that before he return Commission would like him to come in compliance with all 6 conditions as agreed. ACTION: Continued subject request to the November 10, 1997 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to comply with the existing conditions of approval outlined in the staff report dated September 15, 1997. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 22 minutes (3:12 - 3:34) 09-15-97 Page 25 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Denied 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3961 Denied OWNER: GERALD G. PYLE, SCOT A. BROWN AND STEVE A. PARSONS, 469 Cerritos, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: JEFFREY L. FARANO, 2300 .East Katella, #235, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 865 South East Street. Property is 0.46 acre located on the west side of East Street, 565 feet north of the centerline of Vermont Avenue. To permit and retain a taxi transportation and dispatch center within an existing 4,147 square foot building. Continued from Commission meeting of September 3, 1997. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-131 SR6525DSDOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke in opposition Applicant's Statement: Jeff Farano, representative of the applicant, office address is 2300 E. Katella Ave., Suite 235, Anaheim, CA: Stated he did request an extension of time and he faxed in a letter on Friday to ask for another extension of time. There are items in the staff report which address some problems with the existing operation. They are not disputing them but the applicant is reviewing them to decide if and how he can deal with those problems and take care and be able to resolve them for the satisfaction of the Commission. The applicant feels he needs two more weeks to be able to do that. Public Testimony: James Chamtilis, 1219 E. Diana Ave., Anaheim, CA: Stated he is present to speak in opposition of granting a permit for this taxi operation at this location. The building that the applicant is currently using without a permit is approximately 6 blocks south of the intersection of South and East Street. It is a very heavily travelled intersection and one of the higher rated intersections for accidents. This is caused by a large number of massive trucks that come down to the truck distribution center on East Street. They come across South Street and turn left to the east or go back the other way for their trucking route. It jams up that intersection. Those trucks are too big .and cannot make the turn. They either drive over the sidewalk or they pull out in the other lanes. They have had to replace a light standard. Just south of that there is a motel type rental operation; next to that is a 2-story apartment complex. There are 5 driveways coming out of those two buildings. Just below that is a construction company. They pull their tiig construction trucks in and out of their at all times during the day creating more traffic. The school bus district is south of there. He walked by the subject property this morning and noticed at the left corner of the lot there was a car that did not appear to have any rear axles or tires up on blocks. On the right hand corner 10 days ago a cab was towed in that had a front end 09-15-97 Page 26 smash in. As of this morning, he noticed there was major repairs being done to it. There is no place for them to dispose of toxic materials. Looking in the driveway there appeared to be three puddles of what appeared to be motor oil. He was concerned that if it had rained as was predicted, all of that would have been washed into the street, down the gutter, into the drain and out to the ocean. He did not feel that is an appropriate operation for this neighborhood. Claire Chamblis, 1219 E. Diana Ave., Anaheim, CA: Stated she wanted to go on record as also opposing this proposal at 865 South East Street. They moved to Anaheim in 1955 and it has been a .nice place to live until the last 5 to 10 years when the distribution center was installed across from a public elementary school down South Street near Olive. At 4:00 a.m. at that intersection, the traffic noise often wakes them up. To approve this proposal would be adding to the traffic noise and congestion in that area. A number of their neighbors would have wanted to attend the public hearing but were either out of town or had other engagements. Mable Pleshas, 819 S. Dawn, Anaheim: Stated her house backs on East Street and she has lived there almost 30 years. Behind her house across East there are families with small children and they cross at East and South. There is so much noise and pollution from the trucks, and the air is so bad that she has to close her house up completely on the back side. She was also opposed the this proposal. Applicant's Rebuttal: Jeff Farano: Stated he understands their concerns. The taxi cabs only go to the facility once a day and are out on the road all day, most of the time. Chairman Bostwick: Stated the Commission is concerned with a number of issued. One is this is the second time the operator has done this in the City of Anaheim. He sets up shop at a location without permits then stretch out the .permit process and when it is done he moves on to another location. This is why a continuance was not given when it was requested earlier on in the meeting. It is fair not only for the residents to be heard because they had been present two weeks ago but also to continue this item. He questions what would be accomplished. Jeff Farano: Responded what it would accomplish is that there were a couple of items brought out by Code Enforcement and by the neighbors as far as some things happening on the .property. For example, a storage bin building that was built without permits. That was a surprise to the people leasing the building because they did not build it. It was there when they moved in . A contractor was in there before and he assured them that everything was fine. There was a question of the taxi cabs being stored in a parking lot next door. He stated it was related to the need to repair vehicles. The repairs are basis of their CUP to ask for some minor repairs to be permitted. They want to explain how that is going to be done. They do not want to continue this indefinitely. They started in business almost a year ago and they selected and leased a facility on Katella. They do not have a taxi cab permit in the City of Anaheim; they do not pick up customers here. The applicant leased a building thinking they could operate from that location and it turned out that they could not, so they moved down the street. They were a functioning business with no where to go. They understand that they are going to have to operate somewhere until they get a CUP. Therefore, they feel if they get the two week continuance, they could make some decisions on this and move on their way. They understand the concerns of the neighbors and they would like to a chance to speak with Code Enforcement about their concerns. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if the applicant didn't know that they needed to get a permit if they have operated in other cities. Jeff Farano: Stated they are not picking up customers in Anaheim. He understands Code 09-15-97 Page 27 Enforcement might say you might find a few occasion where they have but that is not a regular practice of theirs. They definitely have licenses. There are 7 or 8 other cities that they pick up customers. What they need in is a CUP to have their facility here, to have their dispatch office and their business office. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if they were in the same zone before on Katella and they knew it was wrong there so they moved to the same zoning. Jeff Farano: Stated in the zone they were in before there was not the opportunity for a conditional use permit to have a taxi cab dispatched company. The only .place they could do that would be at an ML Zone such as this location is. Kevin Bass, Associate Planner: Stated the previous address 1914 East Katella, the property does have an office building, however, it is zoned ML (Manufacturing Limited). It would have allowed them the opportunity to request a conditional use permit as well as does this property on South East Street which is also zoned ML. Jeff Farano: Stated he was mistaken, he did not know Dick La Rochelle, Code Enforcement Supervisor: Stated when the cab company was at 1914 East Katella, they were given notice regarding that. In fact, they had attempted to start a CUP process but changed their mind at that time. The owner of the cab company business had informed him that they were going to 865 South East Street and Mr. La Rochelle :informed him that property was zone the same. So they have had prior knowledge. Commissioner Bristol: About 80% of the drivers having 65 vehicles will come there in a 24 hour period and take a cab out, according to the applicant. He asked staff how many parking stalls are on-site? Kevin Bass: There are 24 spaces on-site, 14 on East Street in front of the building and 10 marked spaces in the back. Commissioner Bristol: Asked if drivers coming in wouldn't exchange their cars for a taxi, most of the time? Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: Said the majority drive some kind of vehicle to get there to pick up the taxi. If they operate on a 24-hour basis and the person does not drive a car, a taxi picks them up and the other person drops them off. There is only one other location he could think of off hand which is located on Lincoln Avenue but that location has buses that they operate and they have plenty of parking. Jeff Farano: 80% are on a 24-hour lease and what that means is the driver leases the vehicle on a 24-hour basis. They keep the vehicle and they come in every 24 hours to pay for that lease. They drive their taxi., pay their lease then they leave to go back out. The other 20% are on a weekly basis so they only come back in once a week. They do not leave their personal vehicle there. The vehicles on site belong to the administrators: 2bookkeepers, amanager, 3 dispatchers (2 days and 1 at night). Their operation is basically from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p:m. and only between those hours can the drivers come in to pay the lease. there is no one there to receive payment after those hours. Their .philosophy is to keep the vehicles out of the yard and out in the road because that is the only way they make money. A car which has broken down is brought in and left there. It is then either moved to a repair facility to is repaired there then returned to service. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if they change oil at this location? 09-15-97 Page 28 Jeff Farano: Responded the rule in the letter of operation is no fluid changes to take place on the property because they have local repair shops where which they send their cars to have the oil changed. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated there was testimony that there was oil there today on the ground. Jeff Farano: Responded in the testimony it was indicated that he did not know for a fact whether it was oil. .Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer: Stated she reviewed the photographs in the Code Enforcement file and that was a concern of the Public Works Department also. Apparently, there is some fluids on the ground and it appears that things are not being handled properly. This may in fact, be a big violation of City Code Chapter 10.09, the national pollutant discharge elimination and they would like this investigated further. Even if this operation ceases to exist, the property may need to be cleaned up immediately. Commissioner Bristol: Stated on September 2, 1997, He personally went to speak with the property owners directly south of this site and asked them whether their parking was affected. They said it really did not affect their parking but they understand why early in the morning or late at night they see people walking down the street from that direction. They thinks the drivers are parking off-site because there are several cars parked on the other streets. According to his conversation with those owners, this seems to indicate there is not enough parking available. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Stated Commission may want to consider, whatever their decision is going to be, that their finding regarding the California Environmental Quality Act be consistent with the decision that they are proposing to make. There has been information that has been placed on the record with regard to potential spills on-site with regard to potential fume impacts upon the neighborhood, with regard to potential traffic impacts by the neighborhood which they may wish to consider in the Environmental Determination. ACTION: Denied Negative Declaration Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 3961 based on the following: That the size and shape of the site for the proposed use is not adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare. Based on information contained in the petitioner's letter of operation and the Code Enforcement memorandum attached to the staff report dated September 15, 1997, the establishment of this use will continue to create parking and traffic problems on and around the property. In addition, the size of the property is not large enough to accommodate the storage, leasing, and repair of 65 taxicabs. 2. That the proposed use does and will adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located. As indicated in the Code Enforcement memorandum dated August 16, 1997, this use has created a blight in the area due to ongoing violations such as outdoor auto repair and parts storage, off-site parking of taxicabs, unpermitted structures, and storage of inoperable vehicles. The 24-hour operation of this facility is not compatible with the residential neighborhood across East Street. VOTE: 7-p Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 30 minutes (3:34 - 4:04) 09-15-97 Page 29 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2703 (READVERTISED) OWNER: CHANCELLOR GROUP INC., Attn: Michael G. Blasi, 2510 North San Miguel Drive, Orange, CA 92867 LOCATION: 1441 North Baxter Street - Stor-A-Lot. Property is 2.8 acres .located at the southwest corner of Via :Burton Street and Baxter Street. To amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain a truck rental facility in conjunction with aself- storage facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-132 Approved Approved amend- ment to conditions of approval (To expire 3-6-02) SR6515DS.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Applicant's Statement: Frank Martin, Property Manager for Stor-A-Lot, P.O. Box 2977, Crestlake, CA: He did review the staff report, he was in agreement with staffs recommendations and was available to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject requesk. Approved request. Amended Condition No. 24 of Resolution No. PC95-25, adopted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2703, to read as follows: "24. That the moving truck rental operations, in conjunction with the self_storage facility, is hereby approved for a period of five (5) years to expire on March 6, 2002." VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (4:05-4:07) 09-15-97 Page 30 11 a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 (Concurred w/staff 11 b. VARIANCE NO. 4315 Granted OWNER: G & A PARTNERSHIP/JOSEPH T. KUNG AND EMMA W. KUNG, 20866 Quail Run prive, Diamond Bar, CA 91789 AGENT: QUALITY PROJECT COORDINATOR/JOYCE SEHI, P.O. Box 2653, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 LOCATION: 5625 East Santa Ana Canvon Road -Wells Fargo Bank. Property is 5.03 acres located at the northwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway. Waiver of maximum number of wall signs to construct three signs. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC97-133 SR6389TW.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Applicant's Statement: Warren Degree, representing Wells Fargo Bank: Stated currently the City has allowed them one sign located at the front of the building at 5625 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road, however, this creates a hardship for the bank due to it's topographic location and the shape of the building in relation to the surrounding roads. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if the street behind them has been abandoned? _ Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, Traffic Engineering Division: Responded to .___ Commissioner Boydstun that it had not been abandoned. ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the State EIR and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Granted Variance No. 4315. VOTE: 7-0 09-15-97 Page 31 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (4:07-4:10) 09-15-97 Page 32 12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 12b. VARIANCE NO. 4316 Granted, in part OWNER: MCP FOODS, INC., Attn: Gerard Strickler, 424 South Atchison Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: TIMOTHY W. SMITH, 424 South Atchison Street, Anaheim, Ca 92805 LOCATION: 424 South Atchison Street - Firmenich/MCP .Foods. Property is 5.54 acres located south of Broadway, west of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way, north of Santa Ana Street, and east of Kroeger Street. Waivers of (a) maximum structural height and minimum structural setback adjacent to a residential zone, (b) minimum structural setback adjacent to a collector street, (c) minimum number of parking spaces and (d) minimum landscaped setback to construct 3 new buildings at an existing industrial food processing plant. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC97-134 SR677t3KP. W P FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Applicant's Statement: Timothy Smith, Plant Engineer: Stated they have two types of products that they produce: a spray dry powder and a crystal material (Durarome). It is an expansion of the Durarome business that are requesting variances for new buildings. The project is going to be phased. Buildings 5 and 8 will be constructed first. When those buildings are completed the Building 2 annex will be construction. The area where they are proposing to construct Building 2 annex is the location of the former office building that is currently being demolished. That area will be used as an outdoor storage area until Building 5 and 8 are completed. Eventually Building 3 will be used to store all material that is currently stored outdoors. The following were comments on conditions {page 10 and 11 of the staff report): Condition No. 2 - he wanted to clarify that they want them to extend the block wall all the way along including in back of Building 4 which is the existing unit cold storage. It is not clear to him what the extent of this is. 2. Condition No. 5 -that was an oversight on the applicant's part to put a stairway there. They realized that it was a bad location and have .already discussed how to remove it. They are not proposing any stairway on the west side of the building. 3. Condition No. 6 -this is already addressed on the submitted plans, sheet 4; glass block for the openings which is to provide natural light for the offices on that side. 09-15-97 Page 33 4. Condition No. 7 - as they understand this it is to provide for some architectural relief affects on the side of the building. 5. Condition No. 9 -this is a sanitation issue for them. They have been asked to provide a maximum amount to landscaping and they are going to plant ivy along the side of the building but it actually provides a problem from a sanitation standpoint. Food storage or production buildings should have gravel all along perimeter because it limits the ability of mice to burrow under and for insects to crawl through, etc. It is not impossible to have a good control program with landscaping up against the building but it is typically not recommended. It complicates their abatement program but it is going to look nice and they decided to proceed with it. 6. Condition No. 11 -one of the old office buildings that they are demolishing. There is some landscaping in front that they are going to remove and there are no plans to replace it. 7. Condition No. 15 - a clarification that Condition No. 17 from the previously approved Variance No. 4262 that they do not conflict. They have an existing restricted use gate. It does not conform with the City's standard but they would like to be able to retain it because that gate is going to be used as a fire access. It is going to be made larger. S. Condition No. 17 and 20 -they would like to delay compliance on these two conditions until the permit is actually pulled for the extension of Building 2. They would like to be able to construct Buildings 5 and 8 without having to comply with Conditions No. 17 and 20 because they do not pertain to Building 5 and 8. They only pertain to Building 2. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Kevin Bass, Associate Planner: Stated regarding Condition No. 2, the six-foot high block wall along the property line that separates the single family residences and the processing plant. to order to separate the two uses, Code requires that a block wall separate the two boundaries. Staff just wants to reconfirm that requirement so that a block wall is existing or if there are places where it is damaged or not existing then it would be put up. Timothy Smith: Stated his understanding is that the block wall would extend from the alley way on the north of the project all the way down to the south east corner of a residential property then across to KroegerStreet. The entire residential boundary. Chairman Bostwick: Responded that was correct. Kevin Bass: Stated Condition No. 9 can be taken care of as the final detailed landscape plans that would be a benefit to both sides. Something to relieve the structure as well as provide the opportunity to control any pest problems that would affect the food operations. Chairman Bostwick: Asked staff about the emergency gate? Timothy Smith: Stated they have two gates. One of those gates will be removed and the one farthest to the south needs to remain. In fact, it is going to be made larger to provide approximately 20 foot wide fire exit as required by the Fire Department. They would like to leave the driveway the way it is designed without the 10 foot radius curbs and leave the 5 use per month restriction. Kevin Bass: Regarding the landscaping, that is being removed in connection with the removal of the original Building 1. Staff does not have a problem with that. 09-15-97 Page 34 :Melanie Adams, Associate Engineef: Stated on Condition No. 17, Building 2 is definitely a concern. Building 5: it is difficult to tell right now. The current site plan does not clearly show all the property lines and so she was not certain Building 5 meets all setback requirements from property line. Regarding Condition No. 20, there are public utility easements affecting Building 2 and possibly Building 6. So that should be reviewed prior to each building permit. If the particular building that they are requesting is not affected by an easement, they could go ahead, but if it is, then the abandonment would need to be finalized before they can move forward. Timothy Smith: The basic issue is that they are going to be phasing the project and to the extent that there would be items that would pertaining only to Building 2, that might delay the construction of 5 and 8 which they would like to avoid. It sound like it can be worked out. Timothy Smith: Wanted to clarify that Condition No. 17, of the previously-approved Variance No. 4262, remain in effect. ACTION: Approved .Negative Declaration Granted, in part, Variance No. 4316 as follows: Approved Waivers (a), (b) and (c) and denied Waiver (d) on the basis that it was deleted by design changes following public notification. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 12 minutes (4:10-4:22) 09-15-97 Page 35 13a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3964 OWNER: SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Attn: C. Scott Behm, 1200 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 100, Monterey Park, CA 91754 AGENT: BROOKHURST MOTORS, INC., Attn: Yong Ung Kim, 806 North Brookhurst, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 1406 West Broadwav. Property is 1.73 acres located on the south side of Broadway, 180 feet west of the centerline of Hessel Street. To permit a vehicle impound yard and towing facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Withdrawn SR6524DSDOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the request from the applicant to withdraw subject petition. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (4:22-4:23) 09-15-97 Page 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:25 P.M. TO MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1997 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respectfully submitted, ®.,r~.c~c..~ Ossie Edmundson Planning Department 09-15-97 Page 37