The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1998/10/12~;:;; :~n SUMI~ARYACTION AGENDA CiTY OF AIVAH~IM PLAIVNiNG COMMISSION MEETINC MONDA`~, OCTOBER 12, 1998 9:45 A.M. • FOR CDBG PRESENTATION-COMMUNIT`( DEVELOPMENT ADVlSORY BOARD STRATEGIC FLANNING INPUT~ BY CODE EiVFORCEMENT DIViSION 10:00 A.M. • PLANNING COMMISSION EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOP, PART I. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.M. • PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BJSTWICK, BOYDSTUPJ, BRISTOL, KOOS, NAPOLES, NJILLIAMS ABSENT: ESPING STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Mary McCloskey Cheryl Flores Linda Johnson Greg McCafferty Don Yourstone AI'red Yalda Peter Gambino Margarita Solorio Cssie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Deputy Planning Director Senior Planner Senior Planner Associate Planner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Principal Transportation Planncr Associ~te Civil Engineer Acting PC Support Supervisor Senior Secretary 10-12-98 Page 1 1999/2000 REQUESTS ~OR CDBG FUNDS Planning Commissian Meeting - October 12,1998 Fo!lowing is a summary of the discussion which occurred in the moming study session of the October 12, 1998, Planning Commiss~on meeting regarding 1999/2000 Ciry Requests for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds. Roger Bennion, Code Eniorcement Supervisor, I would like to give a brief overview of the CDBG activities that Code Enforcement is doing for the up-coming year. Last year, the Code Enforcement Division responded to approximately 66,000 complaints and of that 31,000 were in the CDBG area, so a little under fifty percent of our cases are in those target areas. We have also increased our enforcement efforts with the addition of a full-time officer to work wlth the community policing team. This program was created to address apartment owners that continually fail to maintain their rental properties. It has been a very good program. The weekend enforcement program is continuing. We have one Part-time Senior Officer supervising two Part-time Officers on the weekends. They address such issues as garage living, street vendors, garage sales, sign removal, auto repair in the streets and alleys, shopping cart retrieval, and unpermitted banners on the weekends. The West Anaheim Code Enforcement Officer Program started on July 1,1997 and the residents have been very responsive to their work. Since that time he has conducted approximately 2,200 inspections resuiting in 3,100 violations and ihat is all in the Knott and Ariel Area. The pro-active graffiti remova~ program is continuing and has had a tremendous positive impact, from tne people in the Ciry. The ~DBG funded attorney filed 79 cases during Fiscal Year 1997N998. These cases addressed the nuisance, zonirig and h~using code violations located within the CDBG target areas. The City Attorney helps the code enforcement officers with trairiing and legal advice on some of the cases. Coming up this week, but not CDBG funded, is a pilot apartment inspection program that we are starting to address the substandard housing conditions in the apa~tment buildings in West ~naheim. This program will consist of one full-time officer to conduct a pro-sctive apartment inspection program in conjunction with the City's Housing Authority. Thai will be starting up this Friday. If you have any questions you can ask John Poole or myself. Chairman Bristol, how does that work? What are they looking for in fhe apartments7 Mr. Bennion, what they are doing i: taking a pro-active approach starting from Lincoln, and Euclid, west and going through the apartments from one side to the other. There are a lot of apartment buildings in the west end that we have not been able ;o get through. On some of the buildings ihey have housing for "HUD" people in there and at the same time we will be doing an inspection for housing. Ghairman Bristol, can you actually go inside the unit? Mr. Bennion, we knock on the door and ask for permission to get in. John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager, What is unique about this, compared to what we have been doing before, is that most of that type of apartment inspection has been in the CDBG areas where we go door to door. It is the most cost-effective way of doing it. We have not been able to go into these non- CDBG areas and we were able to work with the Housing Authority to get funding. There will be many of them that, after vre look at a couple of the units, we won't need to go through the whole building, but there are others where we will probably have to go intn each and every unit. It is just another step of trying to clean up West Anaheim and it is something we have never done before. It will be the most systematic approach we have ever used out there. 10-12-98 Page 2 Roger Bennion touched on how well the west side officer has done in the Ariel-Knott neighborhood. We had the clean-up in the Jeffrey-Lynn Area last Saturday. We had fifty people from a church group, people from probation, we had free towing, free trash plck-up, free bins, graffiti removai and all sorts of things. There are a lot of things going on in different neighborhoods. We hope that when the parking restrictions kick-in in November for the Jeffrey-Lynn Area that it will be a stimulant to get the neighbors more involved. Commissioner Bostwick, are there a few owners that have a record of being bad owners in West Aoaheim that you can identify? Mr. Poole, we know of several. In fact, that will be the focus of the community policing code enforcement team because we know that the same owners continually will not maintain their property. That was the purpose of putting that position together. A Iot of these apartment buildings have both criminal activity and substandard housing conditions. In this way, we have a more consalidated approach. CommissionQr Boydstun: Last week I got the graffiti phone number from the Anaheim Beautiful issue and called. When I got back this morning there was message on my machine that I should have called a different number and to talk to Andrea. Is the number on the Anaheim Beautiful issue wrong? Mr. Bennion, There is a hot-line number. Did you diai the 5200 number? Commissioner Boydstun, i think that is the number they gave me and there is somelhing different in the Anaheim Beautiful issue. John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager, I can't understand why they printed that because we have kept that same number so that all the literature would have the same number. Commissioner Boydstun, I am not sure which I called, but I got the recording and I just left a messagE. I got a call back that said i should have called a different number and talk to Andrea Underhill. Mr. Poole, was that the monthly newsletter that just came out from Anaheim Beautiful. Comnissioner Boydstun, Yes. Mr. Poole, I will look and see. Commissioner Boydstun, The way the message was is that I should have got a live person. I changed it on my list. M~. Poole, I will check that because we would rather have everything go through the hot-line. Commissioner ~ostwick, how much money is allocated in the Block Grant for Code Enforcement? Mr. Poole, $1,100,000.00 I believe. Commissioner Bostwick, What is this year's request? Mr. Poole, It wi!I be basically the same. Last year we did not request any increase, but through citizen participation, an officer was added by the public hearing process. We were trying to maintain what we had, but it grew one more person last year. Joel Fick, Pianning Director, The WAND Group submitted a request separately. They requested an additional officer for that area. Mr. Poole, There is a lot of support for using CDBG funding for Code Enforcement. 10-12-98 Pac~e 3 Commissioner Bostwick, How many officers does that one million, one hundred thousand cover? Roger Bennion, Code Enforcement Supervisor, I believe it covers 7 field officers, 2 senior o~cers,l supervisor, and part-time/over-time hours. Mr. Poole, A lot of part-time hours. One of the things we are trying to do is to cover things in tho weekend and get more flexibility in scheduling. Hiring people to work part-time saves us money and we are able to get the job done for that. The part-time hours in the CDBG are equivalent to weil over a couple of full-time positions. Chairman Bristol, That is a good deal. Is that the what you had envisioned Phyllis? Is Code Enforcement doing exactly what they were doing when you voted on it? Commissioner Boydstun, Yes, they told us what they were going to spend the money on. Commissioner Napoles, How many officers are on duty on weekends? Mr. Poole, There is at least two part-time officers and a senior officer on a regular basis. There are certain Saturdays when our regular officers work and we also have our record staff work every other month on a Saturday. Commissioner Napoles, My friend has a neighbor who repeatedly has garage sales on weekends and I referred him to City Hall. Mr. Poole, That was one of the purposes of the weekend activities. We have people who bring brand new merchandise in certain parts of the City from Riverside. They just rent a space in somebody's yard and sell their goods, Commissioner Boydstun, I have a question about yard sales. There is an elderly gentlemen who lives east of us who had a yard sale to get rid of a lot of things when his wife passed away. That was the only one he had ever had and some lady came out, gave him a ticket and made him close it up. I did not know you were not a~lowed to have garage sales. Mr. Poole, Under the Code your are not allowed to have any, but by policy we allow three garage sales in a calendar year. Usually by the time someone complains, there have been several garage sales at that location. The officer goes out and gives them an informational brochure and if they have had more than three garage sales, they are asked to stop. Mr. Bennion, It is usually not a ticket, it is a notice of violation or a warning. Commissioner Napoles, How long does it take to removs graffiti? Mr. Poole, A lot of it depends on how fast we know about it. There are certain areas that we go out every day to be pro-active. Most of the time reported graffiti gets removed within forty-eight hours. Mr. Bennion, Sometimes when people call and complain they do not leave the correct address and that makes it more difficult. Mr. Poole, We are making a real concentrated effort to work with Police Department volunteers and Code Enforcement volunteers to do more surveillance and we are also tryinc~ to harden the target in some of the graffiti-prone places b~ installing lights, fencing and other things. We give that a lot of effort. Commissioner Bostwick, It seems that every time when the school year starts there is a new group of kids that are, obviously, brought into the gangs and probably their first iested "gangdom" duty is to go out and hit the fences, walls and buildings and put their slogans on so they can prove themselv~as to the gang. Mr. Poole, There is a noticed increase on Christmas vacation and when school year reces~ses for spring. 10-12-98 Page 4 Commissioner Bostwick, Maybe we cari work samehow with the Police Departrrent and have a police officer at the first assem~ly of the new school year with the Junior High's and High Schools and have the officers remind students of the penalties, fines and h~~urs of community service they may put fn for being caught at this. Mr. Poole, The courts take this seriously. A lot of the people on our white van that are painting out graffiti are peopie that have been caught. It is not unusual for c.ne of ihem to get t.vo to four hundred hours of community service. It is pretty substantial. Lucy Yeager, Senior Planner, There fs one additional request that we will 4e makfng to CpBG this year and that is for the Census 2000. I am sure most of you are aware that the census is done every ten years and obviously the Census 200Q is upcoming and there will be a lot of activity. This is the first year the Planning Department is responsibie for overseeing the :ensus 2000 on the City's perspective. There are a lot of different reasons why it is very important for the City to get an accurate count. The goal for this next 2000 Census is to get a specific count. For example, we get a lot of our federal and state funding through the a~locations that are arrived through the census count. We get congressional allocations and a lot of direct and indirect benefits. We have an estimation that in 1990 we tiad an under-count of more than 7,U00 people which equated to just under one mill?on doliars. Our goal for ths Census 2000 is to have ~n accurate and compiete count. For the 1999/20U0 CDBG funding we are requesting an aliocation to be provided for the Census 2000 efforts. Those doilars will be used primarily for out-reach efforfs and promotionai activities trying to reach the various dernographics in the City. Tne CDBG areas will have a great benefit from achieving a complete count. doei Fick, Planning Director, The City of Santa Ana did that very effectively. You all may remember that while Anaheim used to be the No.1 City in Orange County with the most population, with the last census the City of Santa Ana came out with a higher number. They had outreach efforts similar to what Lucy Yeager is describing and had special programs through the Census Bureau at the timR and they did an incredible job of counting people that otherwise would not h~ve been counted. Commissioner Boydstun, How much are you asking for? Lucy Yeager, Senio~ Planner, VVe are asking for $75,000. Commissioner Koos, Is it true that this next census will only have five spaces per unit so ihet people can write down how many people live there and then the person ha ~ to ask for additional forms? I heard that it was a tactic by East Coast politicians that knew that we had a liuge population gro~vth in our cities and if we were counted properly we would Set more congressional seats. They only put five spaces and that ~vould require the head oF household to ask for additional forms, which, what is the likelihood that of the lower income home persons saying yes, twenty people live in this unit? Lucy Yeager, Senior Planner, I am not sure af the response to that. We will find out. The discussions on the forms are still outstanding. They are still trying to figura out exactly how they are going to erd up with it, but it is going to definitely have less questions than what we've had in the past. The way they will be conducting it is going to be different. It will be more oF the City's responsibility to help in trying to identify who to couni and anything else we ca~~ do to facilitate that, but we will definitely find out. Commissioner Koos, I think that it is impo~tant for us to be on top of it because our federal govemment will not look out for us. Joel Fick, Planning Director, You are very right and since this is done every ten years, the number that you get lasts a long time. Commissioner Bostwick, We need to make sure that there are other forms availabla and we get them out to lhe neighborhooas if tha! ~~ the case. Lucy Yeager, Senior Planner, We will be creating a Complete Count Committee and it will be composed of people inside the City and people from schools and churches. We may be looking to get some input 10-12-98 Page 5 ~~ ~ ~y M . . ~ ~~'. .. . . . . ~. ; from you down tfye road. If you know of groups or individuals that you can (dentify to help us out, it would be very appreciated. Joel Fick, Planning Director: Santa Ana, Fullerton and Maheim are the three ci8es that I am aware of that have already formed a census bureau. Commissioner Koos: I think a lot of it has to do with education in that the lower income groups are afraid of any sort of questioning. We have to educate them that this is for us as a whole and we wiil not be tying it to some enforcement agency. Joel Fick, Planning Director, You are exactly right, in fact, it is iliegal under the Census to actually do that, but getting people to understand and accept that is the mission that we are talking about. Lucy Yeager, Sen(or Planner, So we did want to bring that to your attention because ft is samething new and different. Chairman Bristol, it looks good. Thank you. Submitted by: ( J~~ ' ~S~ot?.c~ i ~~ Mag ' Solorio Acting PC S~pport Supervisor 10-12-98 Page 6 ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a) CEf~A MiTIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV: APPROVEDI Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3954 - REQUEST FOR Determined no to DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: Sa-Rang be in substantial Church,19200 South Pioneer Boulevard, Cerritos, CA 907Q3, requests conformance with determination of substantial conformance pertaining to heights of the previously- parking lot lighting. Property is located at 1111 North Brookhurst Street approved site plan - Sa-Ra~g Presbyterian Church of Suuthern California. Correspondence in opposition to subject request was received at the meeting. ACTIQN: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration serves as the appropriate environmental documentation for this request. Commiss;~ner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that this request is not in substantial conformance with the site plan (Exhibit No. 1) approved in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 3954 based on the following: (i) That the requested 14 to 24 foot high parking lot light standards will be placed on a highly visible site, and installed in a manner whic~ would have a detrimental aesthetic impact to the area. (ii) That the installation of excessively-high light standards would set an undesirable precedent since all parking lot light standards adjacent to residential properties in lhe City are currently required to be 12 feet high max~mum. SR6902AS.DOC Cheryl Flores, Senior Plannar, Rlanning Department: The plans that have been submitted for substantial conformance show parking lot lighting in excess of 12 f~et. Code states that when adjacent to a residential neighborhood the lights shall be a maximum of 12 feet. Since this is a large property the applicant is asking to have higher light standards up to 24 feet, where they are farther away ftom the residential zoning. Chairman Brisiol: Asked staff for confirmation that in this item Commission is reviewing whether ar not the lighting that the applicant is requesting for the parking lot is in conformance with what has aiready been approved? 10-12-98 Page 7 ~"F . . . . . . .. . . . . .. ~ .~ 'r1 ~~` ~~ ; .r,,, ~ c-. Cheryl Flores, Senior Plannee That is correct. The City Attomey may want to comment more b;it she (Ms. Mann) has recommended to staff that there are due process concems. If they are going to be . considering light standards in excess of 12 feet that it should be done at a public hearing. Chairman Bristol: For the record, a le4ter was received from Dale Magaro, West Falmouth Avenue, indicating that the neighbors agree with staffs recommendation that the requested lighting height is not in conformance with the plans. ApplicanYs Statement: Myung Chung, architect for the church, 9480 Terrace Star Avenue, EI Monte, GA 91731: The parking lot is not going to be ~~sed every night during weekdays and on weekends. It will be used once a week for their evPning prayer meetings. During weekdays they are going to have minimal securiry lights around ;he property, along the buildings. They are going to provide the cut-off light, which will provide lighting around pole not towards the residential area. 'i'hey wiil provide an 8-foot high block wall as part of the mitigation to protect any transmission of noise, light, etc., to minimize any impact to the neighbors. The grade of the residential neighborhood is about 3 feet higher than the church grade, which gives additional height to the block wali from 8 feet to 11 feet. (He displayed a map from the podium to Commission.] Item No. 4. They feel tha4 by installing the 8 feet block wall, 3 feet of higher grade, and 20 feet of lighting pole, lhat they can minimize about 30% of the lighting pole. Therefore, they are requesting just part of the parking lot to have 20 feet. This is a large lot and as it is 150 feet away from the residential area it should not have an impact to the residential neighbors. Commissianer Bostwick: Commission can not approve it as it is presented because it is not in substantial conformance with what was originally proposed. Chairman Bristol: He agreed. It does not meet what Commission approved. Commissioner Williams: If this item were set for a public nearing then he would like to see a lighting study conducted by an engineer. Chairman Bristol: Suggested to the applicant to also meet with the person who submitted the letter regarding their concerns. 10-12-98 Page 8 B. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3952 - REQUEST FOR A Approved extension RETROA~TIVE EXTENSION OF 71ME TO COMPLY WITH of time (to expire CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND REQUEST FOR 9-29-99) SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: Robert Weiss, Anaheim Indoor Determined to be in Marketplace,1440 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, conformance with requests a retroactive time extension (until September 29,1999) to rreviously-approved comply with conditions of approvai for a previously-approved ~lans television studio and entertainment area with sales of beer for on- premises consumption in conjunction with an existing indoor swap meet and a determination of substantial conformance to modify the previously-approved television studio and entertainment area. Property is located at 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard - Anaheim Indoor Marketplace. ACTIOtv: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and PAOTION CAP,RIED (Commissioner Bostwick declared a conflict of interest and Commissioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaratian serves as the appropriate environmental documentation for this request. Commissione~ Boydstun oftered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick declared a conflict of interest and Commissioner EsFing absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve a retroactive time extension for Conditional Use Permit No. 3952 (to expire on September 29, 1999) based on the following: (i) That the proposed plan remains in conformance with the current Zoning Code and General Plan land use designa#ion, and that there are ~o current Code violations on this property. (ii) That the property is adequately maintained and further that there is no additional informatian or circumstances that would contradict the findings made at the time of the original approval. Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Wi!liams and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick declared a conflict of interest and Commissioner Esping absent), that lhe Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine substantial conformance with the original approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 3952 based on the following: (i) That the proposed revisions are minor and do not affect the required parkiny for ihe site. (ii) That the revisions are necessary to construct the buildin.g on the property in conformance with Uniform E3uilding Code requirements. SR1074JK.DOC (Commissioner Bostwick declared a confiict of inferest.] 10-12-98 Page 9 rf ,,r 's~:. '' ; ' Applicant's Statement: Robert Weiss, General Manager of the Maheim Indoor Marketplace,1440 South Maheim Bivd., Anaheim, CA: ?his is ~: request for a substantia! conformance of a previously-approved conditional use permit for thc!r Pntertainment center. There was an issue with the Building Division regarding the property line and they needed to modify the shape of tha building. It is basicaily going to be 18 feet more to the west and a little northerly, but will maintain the same size. They request an extension af time since they have not been able to build it yet. 7HE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. C. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH TME Determined to be in ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAfV FOR COUNTY USE OF DONATED confo-mance with the SPACE: Thurman Hodges, Senior Real Property Agent, County of Anaheim General Orange, Health Care Agency, 515 North Sycamore Street, Santa Plan Ana, CA 92701, request for determ;nation of conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for County use of donated space for a Preventive Health Care Program for the Aged. Property is located at 250 East Center Street - Community Center. ACTION: Commissioner hapoles offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the County's proposed use of donated space for a Preventive Health Care Program for the Aged is in conformance with the Anaheim General Pian. This item was not discussed. D. VARI~ANCE N0.1144 - REQUES7 FOR TERMiNATION: Kaufman Terminated and Broad, Attn: David Hutchins, 36 Technology, Suite 150, Irv:ne, CA 92618, requests termination of Variance No. 1144 (to permit (Vote: 6-0, installation of firvo electric signs). Property is located at 112-218 Commissioner South Brookhurst Street, Esping absent) RESOLUTION N0. PC98-159 ~ S~t6508DS.WP This item was not discussed. 10-12-98 Page 10 ~ ~ ~k,~,; . : . ~~ ,,;,-; ;;:; .., R E. a) NEGATIVE DEC~RATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVEDI Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3598 - REQUEST FOR Determined to be fn SUBSTANTIAL CONFOR ANCE: Calvary Chapel Anaheim - Mark substantiai E. Bove, Pastor, 270 East Palais Road, Anaheim, CA 92805, conformance with requests determination of substantial conformance to convert 1,146 previousiy-approved square feet of an existing multipurpose room into 2 additional plans classrooms in conjunction with a previously-approved pre-school and elementary school within an existing church facifity. Property is located at 270 East Paiais Road. ACTION: Commissioner Bnydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissfoner Williams and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick declared a conflict of interPSt and Commissioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commissior does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration serves as the appropriate environmentai documentation for this request. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick declared a conflict of interest and Commissioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Rlanning Commission does hereby determine that the proposed two sdditional classrooms within the ~xisting church/school facilibj is in substantial conformance with the original approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 3598. SR7245TW.DOC (Commissioner Bostwick declared a conflict of interest. j This item was not discussed. 10-12-98 Page 11 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 313 (PREV.-CERTIFIED) Approved 2b. ANAHElM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN N0. 92-2 Deni^d request to AMENDMENT N0. 2 amend the Specific Plan OWNER: ChPVron Praducts Company, Attn: Mario Bautista,1300 S. Beach Bivd., La Habra, CA 90631 AGENT: RFI Inc., 2058 S. Santa Cruz, #2100, Anahelm, CA 92805 LOCATION: The approximate 555•acre Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area is generally located adjacent to and southwest of Interstate 5 between Ball Road and Orangewood Avenue and is accessibie from Harbor Boulevard, Ball Road, Freedman Way/Disney Way, Katella Avenue, West StreeU Disneyland Drive, Orangewood Avenue, Haster Street/Anaheim Boulevard and Walnut Street. Proposal to amend the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Zoning and Development Standards (Section 18.48.070.050 of Chapter 18.48 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) to add "Coffee House" as a Conditionally Permitted accessory use in conjunction with an automobile service station. Continued from the Commission meetings of August 31, and September 28, 1998. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMEN'f RESOLUTION N0. PC98-160 DOC ' FOLLOWWG 1S A SUMMARY OF THEP~ANI~ING COMINIS5I.ON AC'TION . Linda Jahnson, Senior Planner, Planning Dep2rtment: On August 31st the Commission initially considered this request to amend the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Zone t~ add "coffee house" as a conditionally permitted accessory use in conjunction with an automobile seroice station. At that mee:ing the Commission requested the applicant to return with a more specific definition of a coffee house as well as a list of products that would be sold in a coffee house. The applicant submitted a letter (attached to the staff report). Staff ~~viewed the submitted informatien and as indicated in the staff report, staff is still recommending denial of the amendment. The proposed wording is even broader than the initial wording that was presented to the Commission at the August 31 st meeting. Staff continues to have a number of concerns about the amendment as outlined in the staff report. A letter dated October 12th from Ned Snavely with the Anaheim Marriott was received today and provided to the Commission. A copy of the letter has also been provided to the applicant. Applicant's Statement: Tracey Meronyk, Property Development Specialist, Chevron Products Company, 1300 Beach Blvd., ~~ Habra, CA: She wanted to clear up a misunderstanding on Chevron's part regarding process. It was the~~ understanding through staff that the text amendment procedure would be a judgment on use, then there would be a second phase, the CUP phase where they would return with their project specific plan whicn would include the hours of operation parking, landscaping, interior/exterior architecture, site plan, None of this has been finalized yet. She did not know if that was the misunderstanding that it was not what was expected as iar as their last submittal. They merely wanted to suggest what the text amendment would 10-12-98 Page 12 look like. In researching the amended Code, they looked at several different cities to see if they had "coffee house" use in their Code. Brea, Newport Beach, and Laguna Beach, to name a few, were researched and they couid not find any specific description of a coffee house. They incorporated it as other retail type codes. This coffee house fs embedded into the service station code. It is not a generic code that would be outside of a service ~tation use. After reading the staff report, it seems the word "primary" is causing some problem. It was not iheir intention to do anything underhanded or have any hidden agenda. They would be happy to eliminate the word primary if that is causing a problem. They were not even thinking about secondary. Chairman Bristol: Asked if she was referrinc~ to the products being sold? Tracey Meronyk: Yes. There is some wording in the text and coffee houses may be permitted as an accessory use in conjunction with a service station facility subject to the following requirements: The primary products to be sold at coffee houses are coffee drinks and coffee related products. The word primary can be eliminated if it is causing some confusion. Coffee related products means such items as mugs, tea pots and coffee beans. Currently they are upgrading their site with new tanks, lines and dispenser~. They are half way therP in making their investment to stay at the facility. They are just looking for an opportuniiy to make this site . look even better with this added coffee house use. Chairman Bristol: Asked if she was at this morning's pre-hearing? Tracey Meronyk: She was not because she was not aware that Commission was going to start earlier than 11:00 a.m. Ted Grove, Chevron's architectural and engineering consultant, 2050 South Santa Cruz Street, Anaheim, CA: They first tried to add a general definition of what a coffee house is to establish what type of retail business they are talking about (page 1, item 4(a)). In the staff report there was some indication that the word primary function to sell prepared coffee drinks and coffee related goods and products is a little ambiguous. They can delete "having a primary ... ", and deiete that ~~.~hole section out and reword it to say, "A commercial retail use as its function to sell prepared coffee drinks " They wanted to make sure that this type of use is a use that has to go through the conditional use process. In the conditional use permit phase you can look at architectural, landscaping setback, parking requirements, accessibility issues for pedestrian traffic, vehicle tra~c - these issues can be discussed fhrough the CUP process and more conditions can be added to this project. They wanted to list products, which wiil be prohibited, and products that will be permitted and that are what sections 2(a) and 2(b) represent. Again, there is some ambiguily with the word "primary" and that word can be deleted. The intent is to see coffee products that are listed and nothing more. The prohibited items are those specific items that are convenience market type items (tobacco, alcohol products, fountain drinks, etc.). Public Testimony: Phillip Vandermost, Manager of Public Relations for Walt Disney Imagineering,1221 South West Street: Anaheim, CA As the result of the City's comprehensive planning for the Disneyland Resort 2nd Anaheim Resort Specific Plans, the City is uniquely positioned to encourage the growth of an integrated hotel and entertainment capital in the Anaheim Resort. Implementation of these plans is essential to ensuring the quality resort experience that will drive guests to the Anaheim Resort for many years. Also ensuring that Iocal and regional environmental impacts are mitigated. They reviewed the staff report for the proposed amendment to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and beiieve that there are some important issues for their consideration. The specific plan currently prohibits mini markets and convenience markets. The proposed change in la~d use ~epresents a policy decision 10-12-98 Page 13 for the Ciry that will effect the entire Anaheim Resort Area, not Just this property The staff repo~t states that all of the existing service station sites in the specific plan area are ali too small to accommodate adequate on-site circulation and the additional parking spaces that woutd be required for this proposed use. The staff report siso predicts that the app8cant will seek exceptions from the landscaping and site development standards of the Anahefm Resort Specific Plan. The report states that the City believes there will bo off-site impacts such as tra~c circulation and parking. They have not had the opportunity to review a comprehensive analysis of these potential impact associated with this change to the specific plan. It is note worthy that the particular service station under discussion is located on Katella, which is a County SmaR Street. There is no evidence that the proposed land use will be compatible with the County standards for Smart Streets. The revitalization of the Anaheim Resort Area can be achieved through well planned development that avoid significant environmental impacts to the extent feasible, as required by the environmental quality act while contributing to the enhancement and future of this area. They suggest that the Commission may wish to consider an additional traffic study based on staff's concern that the proposed specific plan amendment may cause adverse effects on traffic circulation and parking. Betty Ronconi,1241 South Walnut Street, Anaheim, CA: She believes that the City now has a good specific plan that was weil thought out and would not like to see it messed up with a lot of different things. Changing the specific plan would probably result in going back to the same situation of waiving minimum parking restrictions, etc. There is currently a good traffic circulation plan and that is really what she feels the issue is regarding this item. A good example of a current traffic problem is the business at Ball and Walnut, a station that presently has a gas station plus mini market, donut shop, tacos, etc. If Chevron's praposal is approved then they anticipale that others will also want to do this. She asked that Commission go with siaff's recommendation because she feels that would be better for the City. Applicant's Rebuttal: Ted Grove, RFA: This is a use hearing. It is a request for an approval for the use of a coffee house with a gas station. The traffic circulation it~ms, parking setback landscaping, architecture of the building, all have to come before Comrnission through the CUP process. Commission can theoretically approve the text amendment this afternoon and not approve Chevron to redevelop their site with a coffee house if they can not come up with mitigation that meets all these landscaping, parking setback, traffic impact, architectural requirements for tliis site. They realize theoretically that that can happen. Before they invest in traffic studies, to come up with all these different types o' architecture for this facility they need to have a use that is approved at the site, which is the first step. They are ready to deal with all these issues when they return through the CUP process. But until they have an approved use they can not even get there. If they need to tie these iwo together, perhaps that is a suggestion that the Commission would have. They would rather not do that, They would rather get approved for the use, have time to prepare their site plans, architectural, traffic studies, everything they need in order to get this project approved and come back before Commission for that type of CUP hearing. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwi.k: He thoughF at the previous meeting that they might be able to do this as two separate items but it looks like they really do tie together as far as the change in the specific plan and the site development, CUP process, so that there is physical drawing that they can look at, which may ~eed to be finalized. In the staff report it states that there is not enough parking, etc. Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: They recognize that there are two processes that need to happen. First the code amendment and then the CUP application. However, staff is reacting now to the code amendment change itself, not the conceptual drawings that were submitted by Chevron which they use to illustrate that they did not think that the site would be large enough to accommodate a heavy vehicular traffic generator as well as high pedestrian generator as well. Fundamentally, staff does not support the code amendment that woutd allow a senrice station to have multiple retail uses, similar to a 10-12-98 Page 14 convenience market, which are prohibited in the specific plans throughout the Resort Area. From staff s perspective on this they do not support the code amendment nor would they conceivably support the conditional use permit if there were one to be filed in the future. They do have very real concems about having service stations in the resort that have convenience type sales in them and that is where they are recommending denial of the code a;nendment itself. Chairman Bristol: He thought this would be a great idea but the parking requirements but it potentialiy looks like a convenience store. He understood where they are coming from as far as the parking requirements. Mr. Grove talking about other people getting involved with the two uses, it was more of Chevron bringing up the two uses because they had to have both. In combining them he did not know if it would ever work. They have serious concerns about the traffic issue, pedestrian circulation, tables, whether the parking would ever work at that site. Staff is also seriously concerned about the precedence it would set throughout the resort area because while they are talking with Chevron at this pa~ ticular site, this code amendment would apply throughout the resort area and all three specific plans. Commissioner Koos: This is a great idea for any service station in the city, county or in southern California because as stated by the applicant this is a unique use to Chevron. But within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Area it is totally separate issue. The City has gone through a lot of effort to set up a sense of place in the area, without even getting site specific, there is an issue behveen heavy automobile use and the heavy pedestrian use that is occurring in the resort area and will continue to grow with the number of rooms that are being added over the next few years with hotels and other entertainment uses. He did not feel this is a site-specific issue, he is referring to the specific use in the specific plan area. If this would be anywhere within the specific plan then his concerns wo~~id be the same. Chairman Bristol: Staff confends this is not a good location to have that kind of tra~c. Commissioner Koos: He concurred. Commissioner Bostwick: There are some areas such as Ball and West, a vacant station there that could redevelop into something similar to this. The opposite corner of Katella and Harbor, Katella and Haster, :•hat all could redevelop into something similar to this. This is not unique fo this particular corner. Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Diractor: Nor any other site that might want to come in and apply for a conditional use permit in the resort area. Commissioner Bostwick: Would any of those work for this? Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: They took a look at those and all those sites are generally service station size sites that they have seen in past. When you take the dedication requirements and improvements space orf of the fronts of the propertiES you will always have that same general concern about the pedestrians and traffic conflicting. They are all very small. Chairman Bristol: Asked Mr. Grove how he thought he could possibly bring up anything that would qualify with parking for both uses? Ted Grove: He has done several conceptual site plans for this site and has made the parking work. He has not submitted these to staff yet. He has shared them with Chevron only because these plans are in such a preliminary development stage, Physically he can make this site work as far as the landscaping setback, the building and the parking. He can also make circulation work and separate traffic cirr,ulation from vehicular cars from pedestrian traffic. Their company works with tight siyhts all the time. If Commission gives them an opportunity, they will show them a plan. If they need to be tied together then they need to hear that but they can not be counted out until they have given them something. They were told ~ot to put together a plan that incorporated the entire site design until the use was approved. Linda Johnson, Senior Planner: As a clarification, staff did not tell the applicant that they could not prepare a plan. That has always been an option. They did as indicated in the August 31st staff report, they did include a conceptual site plan at that point. She did call Chevron before they attached it to the staff report to ensure that it was what the applir,ant wanted to convey to the Commission. 10-12-98 Page 15 Commissioner Bostwick: He gave them that opinion last time that Commission would actually consider the item separately and that is why he stated at today's meeting that they need to be put together. Linda Johnson, Senior Planner: There are two things she wanted noted: The first is that the code amendment does need to be pure in the sense that if it is adopted any property within the Resort can apply for it and because of the nature of the code references any property in the Disneyland Resort SpECific Plan, CR Overiay and District A could aiso request this amendment. Therefore, they are really two separate issues. One is the code amendment. Even if the property was able to demonstrate that buildings pumps and parking spaces couE~~ be put on the site that is not saying that it could happen on any other site nor is it saying that the basic land use is a good one and certainly not one staff is recommending. ' The second thing is that the plans that they have seen thus far have not accommodated the additional 8 feet of dedication that is required for the property along Harbor and Kateila in the event ihat the property redevelops, they can coniinue to operate as they are right now and not dedicate. If they pull a building permit they would need to dedicate that ultimate right-of-way. All. of the setbacks are measured from tho ultimate right-of-way and that would be a 26 foot fully landscaped setback on Harbor and an 11-foot fully landscaped setback on Katella as well as a special intersection landscape area at the corner. Chairman Bristoi: Asked Mr. Grove if he was still comfortable with that? Ted Grove: Yes. Commissioner Koos: Asked Ms. Meronyk regarding the actual language that they are willing to drop the word primary. Commissioners at the morning session had concerns about the items towards the end of the list as well (salads, sandwiches, bottled vrater, etc.). Asked if all these uses ar~ normally available at Starbuck's? Tracey Meronyk: Yes, Starbuck's has smoothies and there are other coffee houses that incorporate all these items. They are not offering a convenience market they are offering a coffee house. Chairman Bristol: This is a difficult decision. He does not know how this could work. Commissioner Williams: This is like a fast food restaurant or convenience market. There was further discussion from the Commissioners regarding how they felt about this use. Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: She did not think any design would show them that this would address staff's fundamental problem with having dua~ retail uses in a service station in the Resort Area. Even if they were to go back and try to come up with a design that would work at that corner. It is not just that corner that they are concerned with, it will be available through the Anaheim Resort Area including the Disneyland Resort, Hotel Circle Specific Plan Area. All staff tried to do was to show Commission exactly where their concerns were as it relates to that type of use, using that as the illustration because the applicant had submitted it. Commissioner Bostwick: All of the sites that he mentioned would need to be simply gas stations only unless they have a tow truck or car wash which are the uses approved now. Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: They have carefully prohibited convenience markets or that type of facility in the Anaheim Resort Area. She does not believe there are any larger service station sites in the entire Anaheim Resort in those three specific plan areas that exist. They all front on arterial highways so you would have the same dedication requirements, Perhaps at this particular corner there may be a greater concentration of traffic and pedestrians then at some other corners. Particularly at this corner that is prompting this code ame~dment request - it is probably one of ihe highest volumes that there is in the resort. They are concerned with that type of use thraughout the Anaheim Resort Area including all three specific plans. If this code amendment is approved and the CUP were brought forward, 10-12-98 Page 16 staff would probably have similar concems becaus~ lhey have lookad at the layoui of their one conceptual plan and she did not know how they would do ihat diffetently. Donna Chessen: They would be able ta da a devgfopr~ent agreement with the City, which would be site specific, which would relate only to tk~is ~ite, ather cities have dane development agreements. It is a very common thing among many cities. Linda Johnson, Senior Pianner: Their development agreement procedures require a minimum acreage of 5 acres or more. Then tf~sre needs to be obviously a benefit to the City but again that does not play to a code amendment il~~ause the code amendment would apply to any property within the Anaheim Resort or [Disneyland Resort ArEa. Then anybody could then apply for it and they could not require a deWelopment ag; eemEnt with any developer who choose to apply with a CUP. Donna Chessen: She was trying to get it so it wouid be specific to this particular site and she knows development agreements are done and thought that would eliminate some of their fear of other stations coming in ~nd repeating what they think is a good project to begin with. She thought that would help alleviate some of the issues that staff would have. Linda Johnson, Sen;or Planner: A development agreement also needs to be in conformance with the general plan and specifc plan and the zoning. Commissioner Koos: It is als~ an equity problem. Donna Chessen: A development agreement is between two parties. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if they are planning on keeping the tow truck service also? Donna Chessen: No. They are pianning on only one use, the coffes house and not a convenience market. Commissioner Bostwick: There has been a lot of effort and time in creating the resort plan and we do not want to "tweak iY' to all the different uses that come in. There is that entrepreneurial side of him that thinks that there are things that can be done to provide other economic avenues for the people who have businesses in the area. It is up to the applicant if they feel they would like to take the time for a site- specific plan, the wording from primary products, leavP out the prepared sandwiches and salads. Trying to keep farther way from a convenier,ce ~~+arket that is a specific use. Mary Mr,Closkey, Deputy Planning Director: Staff cioes believe that coffee houses are certainly something that the tourist in the resort would find attractive and they have made provisions in all three specific plans to have coffee houses. If this were a coffee house ~oming onto this site wilhout a service station, she is certain staff would have no obj~ctions. They have also made provisions in specialty retail centers that are going to be 4 acres or more in size for them ~o have coffee houses. They just do not believe that a gas station is the piace to do that. l.inda Johnson, Senior Planner: At many of the gas stations in the resort there really is only one driveway off of each of the streets. Typically you drive in off of one street and drive off of another. If you are going in for a quick cup of coffee and you want to keep on with the same street then you are turning around. The small configurations of these sites make that difficult and so that is just an added factor that they would have to consider safety wise, with cars circulating on the site. Commissioner Williams: He personally feels 90% of their traffic is going to be foot traffic. Commissioner Boydstun: She did not feel someone is going to drive to get a cup of coffee. Commissioner Williams: Asked if this is a high volume station? Tracey Meronyk: It is average. They were cut back by lwo driveways as a result of the condemnation. Previously they had four driveways. 10-12-98 Page 17 Commissfoner Koos: He did not feel that reviewing site plans would be necessary. By the applicanYs own opinion these are two separate issues - an amendment to the specific plan, and would not consider tfie site at this time. Now they are suggesting that they perhaps review the slte plans. This item has been before Commission twice now and feels that Commission can vote on this today. Askin~ the applicant to return with more language regarding the amendment is not going to result in very mucn. Ted Grove: If the Commisslon feels that they would support the project and need to see more, then they would tie the two together. Chairman Bristol: No, that is not his understanding of it. He understood that the applicant wanted to bring something back and could convince them without variances that this site would fit. Staff feels it can not fit and can not even conceive of this use fitting on this site. He agrees with them. Ted Grove: The idaal s'stuation for them is to get the use approved so that they know they have an approved use at the site, then spend the money to develop the conditional use permit plans, studies, etc. Chairman Bristol: So, the applicant wants to know today whether Commissicn agrees with the use. Ted Grove: If the two have to be tied together then it wouid be up to Ms. Meronyk to decide. Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: Th~t would not'aRe care of the precedence satting nature of the request itself and its application resort wide. OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke with concerns/corresp~ndem:e was received. ACTION: ~etermine that the previously-certified ~nvironmental Impact Report No. 313 is adequate to se~•oe as the required environ~nen;al documentation for the subject request. Denied pe+itione~'s request t, a,;,~nd the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Zoning and Development Standards i~ add a"coffPe house" as a Conditionally Permitted Accessary Use in conjunction with an autemobile service station based on the following findings: (1) That the adopted Specific Plan specifically prohib~ts convenience markets, either stand-alone or in conjunction with an s~it~;nobile service station, and the proposed use, for all intents and purposes, is the same type of use as a convenience market in an automobile service station; (2) That the proposed amendment would not enhance the Anaheim Resort nor would it be consistent o~ compatible with the goals and policies of the General Plan and Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and with the purposes, standards, and land use guidelines therein; (3) That based upon the information submitted by the applicant (including the April 15, 1998 letter (along with a preliminary site plan) and the September 14, 1998 letter), it has not been demonstrated that the proposed amendment would result in development of desirable character which would be compatible with existing or permitted development in the surrounding area; and, (4) That the Specific Plan currently provides for a balance of land uses without the proposed amendment (a use such as a coffee house is currently allowed !n connection with a restaurant, hotel or a specialty retail center). 10-12-98 Page 18 F _ _ . f . ~ _ -. , . : . . . . . VOTE: 4-2 (Commissioners Bostwick and Boydstun voted no and Commissioner Esping was absent) DISCUSSIQN TIME: 44 minutes (1:58-2:42) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. The Planning Comm~ssion's action denying the amendment to the Specific Plan is final, unless an appeai is filed. 10-12-98 Page 19 *S° ;.r.,'... . a~ ~ . . . . . ~ ~, :},:.,::',', . ~'~;;, is ~ ~.'"~ . ~ 3a. CEQA NEGATNE DECLARATION 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3c. CaNDITIONAL USE PERMff NO. 4059 OINNER: Valencia lnvestment Group, LLC,1985 S. Santa Cruz St., Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Mary Ann Chamberlain, 2426 S. Rita Way, Santa Ana, C~ 92704 LOCATION: 1576 West Kateila Avenue. Property is 0.27 acre located on the south side of Katella Avenue,130 feet east of the centerline of Bayless Street. To construct a self-service automobile car wash with 5 bays and accessory outdoor vacuums with waiver of minimum landscape setback. Continued from the Commission meeting of September 28, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. Withdrawn • • • • • ~ (This item was initially irailed, then during the meeting a written request tvas received from the applicant requesting a withdrawal of this item.J OPPOSITION: None AC710N: ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim C~ty Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request to withdraw Conditional Use Permit No. 4059. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) AISCUSSION TiME: 1 minute (4:12-4:13) 10-12-98 Page 20 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 4b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 358 Recommended adoption of 4c. AMENDMENT N0. 3 TO THE SUMMIT AF ANAHEIM HILLS Exhibit A to City Council SPECIFIC PLAN (SP88-2~ Approved Amendment 4d. TENTATiVE TRACT MAP N0.14124 AND FINAL SITE PLAN Approved TT 14124 4e. DENSITY TRANSFER NO. 98-01 Approved 4f. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEVJ OF 12a.12c 12d and Approved 12e OWNER: New Millennium Homes, Attn: Dave Redillion, 2823 McGaw, Irvine, CA 92614 AGENT: Douglas Bender & Associates, Attn: Alan Oveisi, 22936 Mill Creek Drive, #A, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 LOCATION: Property is 4.8 acres located at the northwest corner of Oak Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road (Development Area 208 of The Summit of Anaheim Hilis Specific Plan ~fo. 88-2). General Pan Amendment No. 358 - to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate this property from the General Commercial land use designation to the Hillside ~ledium Density Residential land use designation. Amendment No. 3 to the Summit of Anaheim Hilis Specific i~lan (SP88-2) - to amend Exhibit No.10 to redesignate Development Area 208 from commercial land uses to single-family attached residential land uses and to amend the Development Area 208 Zoning and Development Standards to permit attached single-family dwellino units. Tentative Traci Map No.14124 and Final Site Plan - to establish a 27-lot (including 5 lettered lots) 22-unit single-family attached residential subdivision. Density Transfer No. 98-01 - in order to transfer a total of 22 units from Development Area 205 to Development Area 208 to justify the proposed 22-unit attached single-family residential development. Continued from the Commission meeting of September 28, 1998. GENERAL PLAN AMENDPAENT RESOLUTION NO. PC98•161 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION N0. PC98-162 SR7246KB.DOC • • o • • s Applicant's Statement: Gene Shieh, Forma (planning and design firm),17500 Redhiil Avenue, Irvine, CA: The site is approximately 4.8 acres and is within the communiry plan of the Summit. It is on the northwest corner of Weir Canyon and Oak Canyon Road. Their request today is for a change of designation fram General Commercial land use desiynation to the Hillside Medium Density Residential iand use designation. 10-12-98 Page 21 ?~ c a: ~ ~ r;.r ` In going through this process they had three considerations: consistency, compatibility and fiscal impact. 1) Consistency. The request they are asking for fs from General Commercial to Hiilside Medium Density Residential. With that change they are not requesting any additional units within the specific plan of the Summit. The number of units is wfthin the certified EIR. By deleting the General Commercial IaRd use they are actually reducing the environmental impact significantly, particularly in regards to traffic. 2) Compatibility. They are proposing a project with 22 homes with a density of 4.6. Within the Hillside Me~ium Density Residential they are far below the allowable 16 units to the acre as well as low in the number of density as well as the type of character that is surrounding the particular site. Within the square foot of their homes they are anticipating about 2,250 square feet. In terms of architecture represented by the elevations they are suggesting a Califomia contemporary residential style which is consistent with the homes within the communiry of the Summit. 3) Fiscal impact. They were required to do a fiscal impact repo~t which evaluated the situation and concurred that given the use it would be a viable use and it would not impact the City's General Fund or the CFD in a negative way. In conclusion, they have been through the development review process, have worked with staff, and made changes to the site plan and architecture. In their conversations with adjacent residents it wili be a positive change, from a commercial use to a residential use. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITlON: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved General Plan Amendment No. 358 - Recommended adoption of Exhibit A to Ciry Council. Approved Amendment No. °~ to The Summit of Anaheim Hilis Specific Pian (SP88-2). Approved Tentative Tract Map No.14124 and Final Site Plan. Approved Density Transfer No. 98-01. ACTIQN: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the Council review of the CEQA Negative Declaration, Amendment No. 3 to the Summit of Anaheim Hilis Specific Plan (SP88-2), Tentative Tract Map. No.14124 and final site plan, and Density Transfer No. 98-01 in connection with Council review of General Plan Amendment No. 358. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated this matter will be set for a hearing before the City Council DlSCUSSION 71ME: 6 minutes (2:~F4-2:50) 10-12-98 f'age 22 V G~iF1 1~ Cl7M I 1 V C UC V LHRN 1 1 V IV Continued to 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT October 26,1998 5c. COPIDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4057 OWNER: Hinn-8 LLC, Attn: Shan Namvar,11601 Wilshire Blvd., #1400, Los Angeles, CA 90025 AGENT: Travis Engineering, Attn: Karl Huy,12453 Lewis Street, #201, Garden Grove, CA 92840 LOCATION: 1101 North Magnolia Avenue. Property is 0.92 acre located at the northwest corner of Magnolia Avenue and La Paima Avenue. To construct a 4,807 square foot service station with convenience market and integrated fast food restaurant with drive-through lane with waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) permitted number of freestanding signs, (c) permitted types of signs, (d) minimum drive-through lane requirements and (e) minimum landscaping adjacent to interior boundary lines. Continued from the Commission meeting of September 28,1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. DOC • • o • • • ApplicanYs Sfatement: Karl Huy, Food Maker Inc.,12453 Lewis Street, Suite 201, Garden Grove, CA 92840: They have had the opportunity to review the staff report, and other than one specific item they concur with the recommendations and conditions of approval. On page 7, Recommendation 31(c). It is a two-part recommendation. The first part they are in complete concurrence with in lieu of the fact that they have eliminated all the needs for Waivers B, D and E. Their concern is Waiver C regarding the interpretation of the signs, The project proposes wall mounted signs within a parapet region of the building. Previously when they proposed this project, as is typical wi!h this type of building, there are tower elements above each of the entrances. During the pre-file and through the IDC comments, it was identified that the towers exceeded the height of parapet wall constituting the signs as being roof-mounted signs. They revised the building elevations to incorporate a mansard room surrounding the building except for those areas where the signs are placed and those would be placed in a wall that is essentially a parapet type treatment. According to staff, the interpretation of the sign code is that those signs are considered roof signs because they exceed the roof line. They feel that the true roof line on this buildi~g is not the top of the fascia, or in this case, the bottom of the mansard roof, but in fact it is the top of the mansard roof portion which is also the parapet flushing level. They are therefore requesting that Commission approve Waiver C to allow the signs to remain as identified on their building elevations. Other than that they are in complete concurrence with staff s recommendations and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED, Commissioner Bostwick: At the marning session there was a major concern regarding the driveway off of La Palma, trying to create a safe entry and exit and into the drive aisle for the drive up. The feeling was that they either need io move the gas station to the front and the fast food business to the back or move 10-12-98 Page 23 the fast food back from La Paima to give adequate clearance so that the traffic would allow for some stacking in the driveway into the drive up window aisie. Karl Huy: Previously the project was proposed with the ,1ack-In-The-Box facility in the no~thwest camer with the gas portion out towards La Palma Avenue. It was presented to the WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council) which they did not approve it and asked them to completely redesign it. In addition they did receive comments from the Planning staff that also had the same opinion. They revised the plans and returned to WAND and received unanimous approval. He understands the concern of the entrance of the drive-through and its proximity to the La Palma driveway. He felt if given the opportunity to work with the Transportation and Ergi~eering staff that they could come to an agreement that would be acceptable. Chairman Bristoi: There were two suggestiors the first was what they had originally pr~posed and reversing them. TF~e second was to move Jack-In-The-Box further north and reconfigure the entrance on La Palma. Stacking is a major concern. Commissioner Koos: Asked Mr. Huy if he is stating what his preference is for this proposal? Kar! Huy: He is not identifying a preference at this time. They have spent a considerable amount of time and effort on the originai site plan that did have the building in the back. The unfortunate part about this is the entire 13 or 15-acre complex has many easements running through the parcels. There is a recorded easement that runs from P~lagnolia towards the Don Jose's Rest~urant. According to the originai comments from WAND th:at building being placed in the corner has the drive-through area on top of that. That was a concern of the other owners within the complex. Chairman Bristol: Suggested a continuance to allow the applicant time to work with Traffic Engineering. Karl Huy: Asked if that is an item, the actuai design of the access way that can be removed and the project approved as a whole. Is that an item that can be conditioned upon the approval of thls project? Chairman Bristol: That is not a Reports and Recommendation type item. Alfred Ya!da, ?rincipal Transportation Planner, Traffic Ergineering Division: They recommend the approval of tne pa~ F;ng study for 40 spaces and if they do redesign the project then that may impact further the number of parking spaces. They would recommend that they stay within lhe 40 parking spaces with whatever changes they are ~oing to make. Chairman Bristol: They are discussing moving the Jack-In-The-Box to the north, and reconfiguring the entrance to the speaker boxes in such a way that there wnuld be no stacking on La Palma. Karl Huy: Thay will go back end review the situation relative to that driveway and will schedule a meeting with the Traffic and Transportation staff. In developing the site plan, they designed the site plans to satisfy the davelopment codes and can only go so far before they end u~ to the point where they have to design fcr conditions that are undesignable. He does understand the con~:ern of the potential of people coming off of La Palma and trying to make an inadvisable U-turn to get into the drive-through lane. The site has been designed to accommodate and meet the design standards for drive-through lanes. In addition to that they exceed the specified requirements for drive-through ianes. He suggested continuing this item until October 26, 1998. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: She asked Commission if they would like to discuss Waiver C, the permitted types of signs. Chairman Bristol: Comrnission discussed at the morning session regarding the height of the buildings tliere is 1'/z feet difference between the canopy and the building - G line of sight problem. Karl Huy: They submitted complete building elevations that identified all the proposed signage. (He submitted 11 X 17" copies of ihe elevation.] On the elevations the top of the ~oof is the parapet height or lhe top height of the mansard roof. 10-12-98 Page 24 ~ } . ., . , . , , `'.` , ~ . . . .. Commissianer Wiiliams: Why d(d he say he did not have the towers on thi~ building? Karl Huy: in the originai elevations submittal the tower exceeded the top of the parapst and the signage was within that tower element. At that time the Planning staff had indicated that because the towers exceeded the height cf the roof and through their interpretation was the roof line, those were removed. Commissioner Williams: The purpose of a mansard is to raise a roof iine and lower the silhouette. That takes the fascia board and puts it on the top of the marsard and not at the bottom. Karl Huy: They have proposed this architecture in opposition to coming in with a standard parapet wall. They believe this architecture with the tiled roofs, the varied roof elements and the setbacks on the fascias would be more appealing to the area and to the building as opposed to having four walls. Commissioner Williams: He believed he solved ths applicanYs problem. Explained it again, that if their fascia board is at the top of the roof and not at the bottom of the parapet, that is the purpose of a mansard to lower their silhouette and raise the ~oof so it is not a roof mounted sign. Chery~ Flores, Senior Pianner: They have had to analyze it both ways and to keep a clear policy for their direction to their applicants. They hava based a roaf-mounted sign on that which is above the roof lino, meaning the actual roof line of the building. The applicant had presented to staff that this would look better the way it is with the mansard roo~ than it would with strictly a para~,et elevation which staff did agree with. However, it does appear th~ ~e are areas below this mansard roof that are suitabl~ for signage. There may be a problem with li~:s-of-sight as far as the canopy is concemed and that is the type of thing they would look at. Commissic ~2r Bostwick: The applicant is doing an architecturai relief over the doors and the drive- through window that actually pop that nut so that the roof does not just sloFe all the way around. it does give some architectural relief to the building. Ms. Flores' description is that the roof line starfs ~rhere the tile ends instead of at the top of ttie mansard. Commissioner Williams: It simply becomes an overhang. The roof line is the top. Commissioner Bostwic!;: He agreed he thought the mansard is the roof line. Commissioner Bo:slwick: Offered a continuance to October 26,1998, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and motio~~ was carried. OPPqSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to ihe October 26,1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to meet with Traffic Engineering staff to discuss circulation issues. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) DISCUSSION TI~dE: 19 minutes (2:51-3:10) 10-12-98 Page 25 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 6b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 98-99-05 11-9-98 6c. CONDITIOIJAL USE PERMIT N0. 4047 OWNER: Hunter's Pointe Homeowners Association,14600 Goldenwest Street,102-A, Westminster, CA 92683 AGENT: TDI, Inc., Attn: Adan Madrid, 3150 Bristol Street, #250, Costa Mesa, CA 52626 LOCATION: 6900 Ea~t Can~n Rim Road. Property is 3.05 acres located on the south side of Canyon Rim Road,180 feet west of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard. Reclassification No. 98-99-05 - to reclassify subject prope~ty from the RS-HS-10,000 (SC) (Residential, Single-Family Hillside, Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to the RS-A-d3,000 (SC) (Residential/Agriculfural, Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone or a less i~tense zone. Conditiorial Use Permit No. 4047 - to construct telecommunications antennas on an existing lattice tower (Fdison) structure and ground- mounted accessory equipment. Continued from the Commission meetings of August 31, September 14, and September 28, 1998. RECLASSIFICATION RES~LUTION N0. CONDITIONAL ~!SE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. SR7239TW.DOC • • • • • s Chairman Bristol: For the record, a letter w~as received from Patrick Pepper, Chairman of the Anaheim Hilis Citizens Coalitio~~ oppasing the use. Applicant's Statement: Adan Madrid,'fDl Inc., representing Cox Communications: (Presented a slide presentation.] Since their introduction wireless telecommunication nehvorks have proven to be convenient for personal use. More and more people are relying on wireless phones to keep in touch families and colleagues at work. They have also proven to be necessity for business communication, Wireless telecommunication networks are Used by public safety ayencies that provide emergency response services such as fire departments, police departments, ambulance response services, etc. Wireless telecommunication devices and phones ha~ie also proven to be invaluable during natural disasters and other emergencies where normal land lines are often disabled or not accessible. PCS is an acronym for Personal Communications Services. Wireless telecommunications system uses digital ter,hnology to improve on the array and quality of services that are available to consumers. Some of the serv~ces that will be available at PCS include t~vo-way mobile voice communication, two-way paging, two-way shnrt message service, mobile faxing, mobile E-Mail access, mobile video telecommunications, data transmission, voice mail access, and conference calling. All this can be done via a mobile device. 10-12-98 Page 26 Subscribers can expect to have a higher quality voice transfer, calis will be much clearer, they expect the elimination of fading and static interference which is common in many other systems in operation today. There are also fewer dropped calls because of something cailed "soft hand-off'. As a caller travels and gets along the fringes of coverage between two different cell sites there is a"soft hand ofP' from this cell sfte to the next which fs something that not all technologies offer that. Since PCS is 100% digital the calis are encrypted and any data transferred is encryptsd so the likelihood of someone eavesdropping on a telephone conve~sa;ion is minimai which means there is more privacy and the possibility of having a phone "cloned" is less likely. The Federal Communications Commission determination that wireless telecommunication system is a public necessity and convenience. For someone to be abie to make a phone call via a mobile phone or transfer data there needs to be an infrastructure of cell sites that are strategically located in relation to one another. For wireless telecommunicatian technologies it is required by the technological perimeters of the system that antennas be located at a certain ground elevations in order for signals to properly transmit and receive. In addition each cell site has a set of antennas pointing in three different directions wh;ch mak2a it possible for signals to propagate 360 degrees. They realize that these types of instaliations are not acceptable in all typas of land uses so wherever possible they try to integrate their antennas onto existing commercial structures where available. Unfortunately they do not always have the luxury of having a building that can provide the height that they need for their antennas and at the same time the system does not give them the freedom to lower ihe antennas. Unlike other types of land uses that could be specifically determined based on land use compatibiiity, wireless telecommunication projects need to be located adjacent to and within all different types of zones and land uses including residential. That creates a challenge for the applicant as well as City staff. They are reGuesting approval of a conditional use permit and zone reclassification to construct a telecommunications facility on an existing (Edison) lattice tower since this area in Anaheim does not have coverage. They feel that the Edison tower is the best location and the best design they can offer, given the situation. It is the only non-residei~tial land uses up there. There is a golf course but the golf course is in the valley and they can not locate a site in a valley without constructing a new structure and even that would not work. The property itself has a topographic advantage. Not only is the tower tall but the property is located at the very top of the hill and overlooks the intended coverage area. The Hunter's Pointe Homeowners Association board owns the property and they had to obtain their approval to do the project, which they did. They have done these rypes of installations in other jurisdictions and they have proven to be acceptable solutions (for example in Irvine, Newport Beach). There are a lot of trees on Canyon Rim Road that provide additional mitigation. Drivinc~ up and down Canyon Rim Road not only is there a lot of vec~etation but it is a curving road. The likelihood that it will be noticed is not very high. There are 5 findings that Commission needs to make for the project to be approved: 1. Make a determination that it is a conditionally permitted use. The underlining zone for this property does not allow it and that is why they are requesting a zone reclassification. 2. Will the proposed use adversely effect the adjoining land usesl For all the reasons he has given, it is their opinion that it does not. 3. Is the aubject property adequate in size and shape? Again, they are dealing with an existing iattice structure. It makes perfect sense and is conducive for the placement of the antennas. 4. Will the project generate traffic and impose an undue burden on streets and highways? No. Once it is constructed and optimized they have +echnicians that go out periodically depending on the need. 10-12-98 Page 27 5• Will the proposed use be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Anaheim? They think ft will not. On the cantrary lt will promote the public health, safety and general welfare and the economic development of the Ciry because of all the benefits that wireless communications has to offer. Condition No.1 on page 4 of the staff report states that the telecommunications antenna shall be approved for a period of five years from the date of this resolution to expire October 12, 2003. He requested that language be added in their allowing Cox the option for renewal and that additional language be added stipulating the grounds for revocation. He asked why that condition needed to exist in the first place? In conclusion he asked that Commission approve the project. Approve both the zone reclassification and the CUP despite staff s recommendation fior denial. Public Testimony: Bruce Ickes, 6592 E. Villa Corral, Anaheim, CA: His back yard faces the towers in question, approximately 300 yards away from the western most tower. There are a least seven residents on Villa Corral and all five residents on Paseo Rando oppose this application. The basis for the opposition is that the towers look awful and installing the antennas would make them look worse. They want the towers removed. They believe that the power lines that are hanging from the tower constitute a fire hazard, especially in the high wind areas. Adding panel antennas along the side 71 feet high will increase the wind load on the towers. Probably not significant, but enough that it raises their concern. They have winds in excess of 100 miles an hours at that hillside location occasionally, not often. A barbed wire fence is not going to add much charm to a scenic corridor community. They are concerned about the presence of barbed wire as a hazard to pets, wild liFe and children. He urged the Commission to follow staff recommendation and reject the application. Harold Beckford, 501 Fairmont Circle, Anaheim, CA: His property is immediately to the east of the subject location. His bedroom is approximately 150 feet from the tower. He can look out and see the tower. He is opposed to the change in zoning to facilitate adding the PCS to the existing SCE towers on the basis that it is detrimental to aesthetics of the region and corresponding adverse effect on property values. He has learned over the past 14 years to live with those towers as they are, but not to love them. He has fertilized the trees, hoping that they would grow high enough to obscure them. He feels approval u~ this request would impinge on his aesthetics. If he should decide to sell his property he would have to disclose to a prospect buyer that the Anaheim Planning Commission considers the towers ugly and anything that they approved could not make them any uglier - what a great selling point! He is interested in the fact that Hunters Pointe Homeowners Association approved this use. They are probably going to receive compensation to be paid to them. There must also be some compensation to the Southern California Edison Company for the use of their towers. He reference slide 23 which he noted that his house is located behind the shrubbery and trees. Chairman Bristol: Asked Mr. Madrid about the line of s;te and the number and antenna locations in relation to Mr. Beckford's yard. Adan Madrid: Tnere would be a set of antennas on two corners and there is another set of antennas on the other side of the tower. 'fhe panel antennas are approximately 6 inches wide, 2 inches thick, and 51 inches long. The antennas have a surface area to them, it is not continuous but rather broken up. If you look at the existing lattice tower and measure the square footage that each individual structural member represents. Of course they will come up with a quantitative square footage number. They are not proposing to put sheathing material on this towsr, they are just panel antennas. 10-12-98 Page 28 Chairman Bristol: Knowing where that is proposed to be from Mr. Beckford's backyard, knowing that he has a lot of vegetation, because he did not see his backyard when he visited the site, his assumption is that he has a lot of trees back there. Is he ever going to see that particular part of that tower? Haroid Beckford: He checked it before he came to the meeting, he laid on his bed, looked up and there it is, visible from his bedroom. Cor,imiss~oner Bostwick: It appears thev will be approximately 55 feet from the ground level. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: In paragraph 8 it explains that it would be 62 to 71 feet. It is in an area that slopes. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked Mr. Beckford if the towers were there when he purchased the home? Harold Beckford: Yes, but they were not operable at that time. Commissioner Bos!wick: So the physical structures were there so he knew what was coming? Harold Beckford: Yes, that is why he fertilized the trees. Commissioner Bostwick: Who owns the right-of-way? Harold Beckford: No, Hunters Pointe owns the land (and leases it to Southern California Edison). Commissioner Bostwick: is there is nothing else that can be built on this under their lines? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Correct. They do have additional information that they would like to offer when it is appropriate. Harold Beckford (continued): On page 5, the praposed PCS facility will be ancillary to one of the existing SCE transmission lattice towers and will be innocuous and unnoticeable to the casual passerby. That may be true but not for him. He looks at them everyday. In conclusion, he feels the SCE got his n~se under the Anaheim Hills tent and now the rest of the animal is trying to get in. He commended staff for their proposal and urged Commission to follow the staff report To do otherwise will diminish his property values and others and the aesthetics of his views and many others. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Adan Madrid: They appreciate all the comments but they feel they have done their homework for this project. It is absoiutely the only piece of property that is available up there. It is the only property in that area (referenced slide 93) that is non-residential other than the golf course. They are making the best use of the property and the situation that they have. It is very challenging. It is entirely residentiai and !here is varying topography that makes it difficult for other sites to reach that area. It is Cox's obligation as part of their license agreement with the Federal Communications Commission that they provide complete coverage. Currently they do not have coverage in that area. Aesthetics. When it comes to aesthetics it is subjective, tenuous. They lean on the Commission to look at this project not simply through the eyes of aesthetics but look at it with an overall prospective of the cost benefit. l.ook at what Cox has done to find the best solution. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked Mr. Madrid why they could not put three palms trees (that actually served as antennas) in that group of trees? Commissioner Bostwick: There is also one that is made to look like a plne tree because they are not just limited to palm trees. 10-12-98 Page 29 Adan Madrid: S(nce they are located between two Edison towers they have multiple transmission lines, they run across the property and to erect such a structure would be extremely difficult. However, they have not looked closely at that option. Commissioner Boydstun: Transmission lines are going to be over their antennas also, so she did not see where that would be any different. Why don't they go back and look at any kind of trees that would fit with the shrubbery that is up there? Adan Madrid: They would prefer not to. The4 have already obtained approval from the homeowners association to do this. That would mean they would need to go back and obtain approval from them to change the design entirely. Chairman Bristol: Commission's concern is that there are neighbors right next to them that have expressed concerns of aesthetics, same as staff. The other concern is setting precedence on these towers. Commissioner Bostwick: This wil! set precedence. It will result in other carriers requesting to also have something hanging on a tower. He realizes there are additional costs but that is the cost of doing business. The applicant needs to look at, for example, a pine tree that blends with the landscape and the aesthetics af the neighborhood. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: in addition to the items noted under the staff recommendation, it has been discovered since the writing of the report that the actual general plan designation is General Open Space and that needs to be corrected in paragraph 13 and 20(b) cf the staff report. She asked Greg McCaffe-ty to explain the correlation between the General Ope~ Space and the General Plan Desi~nation as compared to the requested zoning. Greg McCafferty, Association Planner: Basically the Open Space Designation is intended for parks, passive open space and flood ways and man-made hazards such as the transmission lines and nof for commercial businesses. In fact, the tract that this is going to be located in is actually the open space lot for that tract (Tract No. 8463). When the tract was constructed they used that open space lot to give them the density that they received when they obtained their approval for the housing units. It is really a policy question on the Commission's behalf if they want to start opening up these open space lots to these sort of enterprises. The General Plan Designation is open space and really the only implementation for an open space designation is open space. They do have an open space zone and within that zone are really just passive uses (such as parks, etc.). C~mmissioner Boydstun: Asked if trees would be allowed? Greg McCafferty: It is a policy question as to whether that is something that should be entertained in the open space lots in the Anaheim Hills. Adan Madrid: He understands the position of staff, the Commission and the residents. He is hesitant to give any indication that they can have a different design because there are so many issues that lhey might come across. One of them is Edison's cooperation in allowing them to erect a freestanding structure on their easement. it might just "kill" the project entirely. If the project goes away Cox will not be able to provide coverage in Anaheim Hills. Greg McCafferty: Edison obviously wants to protect the area around their towers but they would probably be flexible recognizing the need for some compromise. He felt they should be exploring the trees as opposed to adding it to the tower. Adan Madrid: Asked if the Commission would entertain the suggestion for a continuance to allow the applicant an opportunity to research this further? Chairman Bristol: Yes. He suggested the applicant meet with the neighbors that are impacted there 10-12-98 Page 30 ~q 'a 1'. . . . . _ S,. ` Adan Madrid: Requested a four week continuance. Commissioner Bostwick: Offered a mution for a continuance to November 9,1998, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and motion ~~vas carried. OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition. ACTION: Continued subject request to the November 9, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to look into an aiternate proposal for the telecommunications antenna. i/OTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) DISCUSSIdN TIME: 54 minutes (3:11-4:05) jTh~are was a break fo!lowing this item.] 40-92-98 Page 31 }'~ ~ ~~ ~'t ~ ~~:= lT~~~.~ - . . 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARIiTION Continued to 7b. CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT N4• 4064 10-26-98 OWNER: Walter Friedman Trustee, WRBL T~ust, 9 Goodyear, Irvine, CA 92618 AGENT: Eiler Media, Attn: S. I. Castillo,1550 W. Washington Blvd., Lo~ Angeles, CA 90007 LOCATIQN: 1107 North Brookhurst Street - Guerrero Autu Renair• Property is 0.25 acre located at the northwest comer of Brookhurst Street and La Palma Avenue. To permit the cons4ructfon of two (2) 36-foot high, 300 square-foot biliboards. CONDITIOPIAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. SR7248KB.DOC s • e • • ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the October 26,1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to submil r~+vised plans. VOTE: 6-0 (Ccmmissioner Esping absent} DISCUSSION TiME: This item was not discussed. 10-12-98 Page 32 8b. CONDI710NAL USE PERMR N0. 4066 ~ Granted OWNER: Tien Seng Intemational Inc., Attn: Tsui Fang Huang, 800 S. Beach Bivd., Anahefm, CA 92804 AGEN'r: ~WS Design Group Inc., Attn: Jason Lfao, 2121 W. Mission Road, Alhambra, CA 91803 LOCATION: 3107-3115 West Lincoin Avenue - La Mirage Center. Property is 0.51 acre located on the north side of Lincoin Avenue, 95 feet west of the centerline of Grand Avenue. To permit one (1) additiona( tenant space (in existing floor area) for a total of five (5) units in an existing 8,684 square foot commercial retail center. CQNDI710PIAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC98-163 SR6903DS.DOC • • • • • • ApplicanYs Statement: Jason Sun, SWS Design Group, 2121 W. Mission Road, Suite 303, AI{iambra, ~A 92803: He read the staff report and concurred with the conditions of approval. Chairman Bristol: Between the time this property had approval `or another use some time ago there were some trees removed. Asked if he had any problems with replacing those trees? Jason Son: Responded they had no problem with the condition. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: In addition to that, the memo from Community Development (which is an attachment) asked that the applicant provide street trees in the planter area of the public right-of-way in addition to the trees in Condition No. 2. Jason Son: What about four trees? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: The memo does not state how many trees. They do have a streetscape plan. Commissioner Williams: Asked the applicant if he would be willing to put in a reasonable amount of parkway trees? Jason Son: If it is part of the Cify requirement then they have to comply with it. He felt it would be part of the owner's responsibility and will inform him. Commissioner Bostwick: Suggested adding a condition that the owner will install 24-inch box trees within the public right-of-way, not to exceed 4 trees. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Asked if the applicant could meet with Community Development staff to meet their standards (type of trees) but not to exceed 4 trees. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration 10-12-98 Page 33 Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4066 with the following added conditlon: That the property owner shall install 24-inch box trees wlthin the public right-of-way landscape area to the specifications of the Community Development Department, not to exceed 4 trees. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Att~rney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSlON TIME: 3 minutes (4:14-4:17) 10-12-98 Page 34 ' 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 10-26-96 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4050 9d. DETERM~NATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 98•07 OWNER: Pietro Troui and Maria Trozzi, 9471 Gateshead Dr., Huntington Beach, CA 92646 AGENT: David E. Harper, AIA,1321 W. Cerritos Ave. #15, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 3240•3268 West Lincoln Avenue - Centralia Center. Property is 1.49 acres located east and south of the soutYaeast corner of Westchester ilrive and Lincoln Avenue. Conditianal Permit No. 4050 - to establish conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing commercial center, a 2,200 square foot meat and produce market, a 2,610 square foot convenience market and to permit the sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption within an existing 5,005 square foot billiard hall with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 98•07 - to determine public convenience or necessity to allow the sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption within an existing billiard hall. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTION N0. a t4 SR1075JK.DOC e • • • a s OPPOSITION: None ACTiON: Continued subject request to the October 26, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to be able to attend the public hearing. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 10-12-98 Page 35 vw ~w ~uc 10b. RECLP.SSIFICATION N0. 98-99-06 11-23-98 10c. WAlVER OF CODE REQUIREMEN7 10d. CONDITIANAL USE PERMI7' NO. 4061 OWNER: Dong S. Kim and Myoung AI Kim, 969 La Paz Road, Placentia, CA 92870 AGEN7: Hill and Hill Enterprises, Attn: Tim Hil1,1652 W. Lincoin Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 1652 West Lincoln Avenue - Chain Reaction Property is 1.3 acres located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, 440 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Street. Reclassification No. 98-99-06 - to re:,lassify this property from the CH (Commercial, Heavy) Zone to ;he CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. Conditional Usc~ Permit No. 4061- to permit a public dance hall with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. RECLASSiFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT F~ESOLUTION N0. .DOC • • • • • • Chairman Bristol: Sefore the item was continued he asked the audience if there was anyone present for this item. There was one person in the audience that wanted to give testimony. Roger Emard (speliing not given): Stated he owns the property next door (to the east side), 1650 W. Lincoln Avenue. Apparently the applicant wants to change subject property into a dznce hall. He has been having a lot of problems with parking. The applicanYs customers are using Mr. Emard's parking lot at night and leaving trash. He has never compiained to the City but he has had a lot of things stolen from his property. He is going to be forced into calling the Police Department and have cars towed away. He felt Commission should consider this before they approve a dance hall, which will attract a lot of young people. Chairman Bristol: Are tP,ay having dances and can loud music be heard? Roger Emard: He is not complaining about the loud music but he is concerned w~th things happening in the parking lot. The manger is trying to control it but he just can not control what is h~ppening outside his parkinc~ lot. Chairman Bristol: Asked if Mr. Emard hears live music at night? Roger Emard: He doas not have a probiem with the music because he is not open at night. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: If he installs a chain link fence across his parking lot then no one cnuld go into their parking lot. That would soive the problem. Commissioner Bostwick: The parking lot doss not relate itself well fo putting up chain link fence off of Lincoln Avenue. They could put chain link with balusters so they can not drive into his property, that woulu be more appropriate. He is concerned that the appiicant is in operation without a permit. 10-12-98 Page 36 ~::~; ;,; ~::~; ; ~.~ . ,. :: ~..: Rog~r Emard: He does not know exacUy H;at fs going on at that site. Cheryl Fiores, Senior Planner: Currentiy the coffee shop is offe~ing music under an entertainment permit This is separate from what is being requested. The request that is continued until November 23rd is to charge admission for a public ~ance hall. Cornmissioner Boydstun: Offered a motion for a continuancs to November 23,1998, seconded by Commissioner Williams and motion was carried. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke with concems ACTION: Continued subJect request to the November 23,1998 Planning Commis~i~~n meeting in order for to allow time for readvertisement to include a request to est~uii;;h con~ormity with current zoning code land use requirements for the existinci r;on- conforming cornmercial center. YOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) DISCUSSION T{;1E: 5 minutes (1:37-1:42) 10-12-98 Page 37 ~~'M\ • . . . . . .. _ .. ,. }v7"~, . L'-t*; ):ir • . .-. . '~.'"~":.~~' ~ . , . . 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (P7tEVI0USL . APPR=~ 0 D 71b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3939 •(REAGVERTISED) OViINER: Changiz Zomordian and Rebecca Zomordian, 25105 Mustang Drive, i.aguna Hills, CA 92653 LOCATION: 301 South Anaheim Boulevard • Arco Service 5ta lon. Property is 0.93 acre located at the southwest corner of Broadway and Anaheim Boutevard. To consider amendment or deletion of conditions of approval pertaining to retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption in conjunction with a previously-approved service station including a cunvenience market and a drive-through car wash and iwo fast food restaurants. CONDITIONAL. l1SE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. • • • • • • (Chairman BrJstoL• Stafed for the record, a letter was received from the applicant requesting a continuance.J OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the Octaber 26, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the appiicant to be able to attend the meeting. VOTE: 6-0 (Cammissioner Esping absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 10-12-98 Page 38 12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 12b. WANER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 12c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 406T Granted OWNER: Imperial Prope~ties (Parcels 1 and 1A}, Canyon Plaza Shopping Center (Parcels 2 and 2A), P.O. Box 7250, Newport Beach, CA 92658 AGENT: Phillip L. Anthony,14101 La Pat Place #10, Westminster, CA 92683 LOCATION: 5765 East Santa Ana Canyon Road - Canyon Plaza Shonain~ Center. Property is 15.0 acres located at the northeast corner of Sar~!a Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway. To permit the 2,526' square foot expansion of an existing commercial retail center for a total of 59 units and to permit an additional 400 square foot " outdoor plant display area in conjunction with a proposed 9,826' square foot (total) hardware store with waivers minimun parking lot landscaping and minimum number of parking spaces. ' Advertised as 2,516 square (oot expansion and 5,765 square foot (total) hardware store. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC98-164 • • • • • • Applicant's Statement: Phillip Anthony, (representing the applicant)14101 La Patt Place, Westminster, CA: This is an existing business (Crown Ace Hardware) that wants to rel~cate within the City of Anaheim. Thay feel that they would be rnore suitable in the Canyon Plaza Center at Imperial and Santa Ana Canyon Boulevard. The problem ~s tt~at they wanted a little more space than was available in the existing center. This applicant proposes to combine three existing small retail units, add a little extra space to the rear and create a new tenant location. They are in agreement with the staff report except for Condition No, 1, dea!ing with the area out front of the building for display and sales area. They have a similar outsidc ar?a at the existing location in the Fes:ival Center and would like to do the same thing at the new location. The condition said only plant materials to be for sale outside. The applicanPs request that i! include the same ifems they have now at the Festival Center which is the related materials such as potting materials, fertilizer, etc., all to be in closed and sealed packages, neatly stacked and displayed. Commissioner Williams: Would that include shovels, lawn mowers, etc,? Phillip Anthony: No. They do not want toois other than the related plant materials. Chairman Bristol: Asked if Mr. Anthony had a list of those items7 Phiilip Anthony: The applicant sent a letter t~ staff ~Mr. Anthony provided a copy of the letter to the Commission.J They are requesting neatly st~~cked bags of soil amendments, fertilizers, top soil, etc. There will not be any garden tools, garden ch~~micals or other related hard-line items, It is their intent to keep a neat, clean, display area that will complement the store's exterior. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 10-12-98 Page 39 .; c~ ~ , - '~~~' ~~ ` ;~ `•' :i= OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative DeclaraGon Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditlonal Use Permit No. 4067 with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Modified Condition iVo.1 to read as follows: 1. That there shall be no outdoor storage or display of products (except for live plant goods, neatly stacked bags of soil amendments, fertilizers and top soil within the wrought iron enclosed display area at the front of the tenant space, garden tools, garden chemfcals and other garden-related items shall not be stored or displayed autdoors). VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (4:18-4:24} 10-12-98 Page 40 13a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED; 13b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3204 13c. CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 (PREV.-APPROVED) 13d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3528 (READVERTISED) OWNER: Canyon United Methodist Church, 101 Chaparral Cour':, Anaheim, CA 92808 AGENT: Hammill and Associates/Attn: Greg Hammill, 414 Fernhill Lane, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 101 Chaparrai Court - Light of the Canyon United Methodist Church. Property is 1.3 acres located at the southwest corner of Kaiser Boulevard and Chaparral Court. Conditional Use Permit No. 3204 - request for a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for a previously-approved 40-foot high church. This permit was originally approved on October 9, 1989 and has been granted two extensions of time with the most recent extension expiring on October 9,1992. Conditional Use Permit No. 3528 - to consider reinstatement of this permit which currently has a time limitation (until July 27,1994) to retain two modular structures used for a temporary church sanctuary, offices, classrooms and kitche~ facilities and to add two additional modular structures (720 square foot classroom and 300 square foot [library/cry room]). CUP N0. 3528 RESOLUTION N0. PC98-165 Approved extension Concurred w/staff Approved reinstatement (To expire 70-9-99) ~ • • • • • • ApplicanPs Stat~ment: Greg Hammill, Hammill and Associates, 414 Fernhill La~e, Anaheim, CA: State~ he is with Hammill and Associates and aiso a trustee of Light of the Canyon United Methodist Church. He read the staff report. He reluctantly agrees with all staffs findings. There are a couple of circumstances. One of those circumstances is that their facilities are used extensively by the Community College district as ESL classes. Out in the Anaheim Hills area (near the Festival Center) they have some 5,000 new homes that have come up there in the last several years. Those homes have been developed. People have moved in there. There is a large population of people that are first time residents of this country and have spansored and brought in their relatives, parents, uncles and aunts that do not speak English. They offer ESL classes at their campus in their two modular structures with a patio separating the two. The Community College District requested a meeting with their trustees and pastor (approximately 10 days ago) and requested that they expand the modular building that they have proposed on their plan, from a singie wide unit to a double wide unit so they might be able to put in a computer center. The Community College District is expanding their vision in Anaheim Hills to try to meet the needs of the community. lie did not have time to change the plan at the time, but then he noticed on the staff report that staff is recommending that they delete even the one modular building (12X60"} noted on their plan. The other area is not a modular building. There are already two walls of space existing with the sides of the two modulars. They are just going to ciose that in to create a"cry" room and a librar; - it would actually be erecling stud walls with the same wood siding that the modular buildings have. The only people who can see their faciliry are the people that are to the south of their property, from the second 10-12-98 Page 41 floor looking down. They have been in communication with them and have a cross easement parking agreement with them and have a good relationship with them. They do not seem to have a problem with thefr facility. One of the recommendations from staff is that they send a letter to their association. They have been requesting their association to take care of their slopes far some time and they receive no response because the property owners there do not seem to be interested in dealing with the items that are at issue. He just received notification that on the October 27th there is an emergency meeting of all the homeowners. That will be forthcoming. He thanked the staff for informing the association of the care of their slopes. He asked that Commission reconsider contrary to what staff is recommending, the approval of not only adding that modular building off to the west side, but making it a double wide, so that they could encourage the community college to continue using their facility. They have strong negotiations with their church conference to move forward on this building project within ihis next year. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Bristol: Asked for a clarification of whether this site is a church or a campus? Mr. Hammill: It is a church, but when they talk about church facilities, they refer to it as being a campus. He apologiz~d for using that word, it may be out of context and overlapping into the college criteria, but they are definitely a church. They use the building for worship every Sunday and have meetings and other types of events going on there during the week, primarily in the evenings. One of the groups that uses their facility is the Community College District for ESL classes. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, Planning Department: If there is a use for ESL classes, that might trigger a different parking requirement which has not really been analyzed. Mr. Hammill: They have a cross easement parking arrangement with the buiidings to the south and have use of their facilities on Sundays and in the evenings. So they can direct the overflow parking into that area. There was a requirement under their original CUP that could make arrangements with one ~f their neighbors for cross-easement parking. They ended up gaining all of their parking spaces in the evenings and on Sunday mornings. Mr. Chairman: Asked if they are closer to starting to the process of buildino ?he church? Mr. Hammill: Yes. This is one of the things that is putting the conference (Methodist Church) on notice as to whett~er or not this is a viable facility for them to be expanding the Methodist churches in the conference, Cheryl Flores: The plans as they are right now without adding the additional floor area requires 56 parking spaces. it requires 66 if they wouid be granted the two additional modular units. She had concerns becausa there are different operationai characteristics being discussed that were not part of the original approval. For those to continued they would need to do some type of readvertisement to permit those uses. Staff would really nesd a clearer letter of operation to know how many students attend the ESL, the hours that they are there, etc. to make a determination. Commissioner Bostwick: This is only going to be one year and there is no way they can come back and ask for another continuance. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: They have exhausted their extensions of time for their present facilities. Thay have advertised the request for the two additional modular units and are recommendir~g denial of that since it is for a one year period that they are recommending that they be reinstated. 10-12-98 Page 42 ~~;. ~~~>~ ~'. Commissioner Bostwick: That giv~s them time to get themselves organized with the modular. They have a year in which do it before it is gone and they can not go back and extend it. He thought Commission should give them the modular for the year. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey: Asked for clari8cation. The applicant has two existing modulars and he is asking for two additional. They are discussing graniing him two additional modulars? Chairman Bristol: Yes, two additional modulars. Cheryl Flores: Is that as shown on the plans and not the doubie wide that Nlr. Hammiil was referring to. Commissioner Bostwick: Mr. Hammili is asking for one modular and then a"stick built" addition between the two modulars that are there. So it is really whether you do a double wide modular instead of a single wide. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: if it is a double wide and it triggers additional parking that is not provided on the site then they would need to readvertise a parking waiver. Suggested Condi!ion No.14 be deleted since it has already been inciuded on the prior resolution. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the retroactive extension of time of Conditional Use Permit No. 3204. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Williams and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve a retroactive extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 3204 to comply with conditions of approval for a period of one (1) year, to expire on October 9,1999 based on the following. 1. That this is the last available time extens~on for this conditional use permit; 2. That the approval remains consistent with the General Plan land use designation (General Commercial) and the Commercial Office and Professional (CO) zoning of the property which has not changed s;nce the original approval of this request; 3. That no Code Amendments have been identified which wouid cause the approval to be inconsistent with the Zoning Code; 4. That the property has been well maintained and has had no Code Enfarcement activity; and 5. That no additional information or changed circumstances are present. Determined that previously-approved CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 3, Section 15303 (new construction or conversion of smali structures), serves as the required environmental documentation for the reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3528. 10-12-98 Page 43 5~~ ~ ~ I tix ~ ~} Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3528 for a period of one (1) year. Approved the lwo additional modular structures. Modified Conditlon No.1 of Resolution No. PC92-91 to read as follows: 1. That the subject conditional use permit is hereby reinstated for a period of one year, to expire on October 9,1999 " Added ihe foliowing new conditions: 12. That within thirty (30) days of the date of this resolution, the property owner shall send ~~ letter to the business owners master association requesting that the slope landscapfng be properly irrigated and maintained. 13. That the parking lot shall be restriped in accordance with Revision No.1 of Exhibit No.1, subject to the approvai of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. 14. That an on-site trash truck tum around area be provlded per Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 and as required by the Department of Public Works, Street Sweeping and Sanitation Division " VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absont) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 20 minutes (4:25-4:45) 10-12-98 Page 44 ~~ ~L~ ~ ~ . . .. ~ _ . ~.:`.:~:_:, . . . L:~. t.~,..:: . . ~... + I~I~ ,` ............................ .................. ............ ........«............y MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:45 P.M. TO MONDAY, OCTOBER 26,1998 AT 10:00 A.M. FOR A ~ PLANNING COMMISSION EDUCATIONAL WORKSNOP, PART II. ~._----- Submitted by: m ~~,~,,e~ E~~ Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary 10-12-98 Page 45