The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1999/01/04SIJI~MA~Yl~C~'I~N AGENDA CITY O~ ANAH~IM PLANNiRlG COlVIMISSION n/IEETIN~G MQN~AY, JANUARY 4, 1999 11:00 A.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUE~ (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW ~ :30 P.M. • PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: B~STWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, ESPING, KOOS, NAPOLES ABSENT: WILL!AMS STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Assistant City Attorney Mary McCloskey Deput~,~ t=)anning Director Greg Hastings Zoning ~ivision Manac~er Cheryl Flores Senior Planner Greg h4cCafferty Associate Planner Karen Dudley Associate Planner Alfred Yalda Principai Transportatian Planner Melanie Adams Associate Civii Engineer Edith Harris PC Support Supervisor Margarita Solorio Senior Secretary Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary 01-04-99 Page 1 ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 Co~curred wlstaff b) VARIANCE N0.193 • REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF Determined to be SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: Alive Again2ully Duenas, 211 in substantiel South State Callege Blvd. #207, Anaheim, CA 92806, requests conformance determination of substantial conformance to establish a nor •profit counseliny/educational, spirituai seminar center end bookstore. Property is located at 301-305 North Harbor Bouievard. Continued from the Commission meeting of December 21, 1998. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Esping and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Williams absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed p~oject falls ~vithin the definition of Categoric:.i Ex~;mptions, Class 3, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, there~~~;:, categor~cally exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Commissioner E3oydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Esping and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Williams absent}, !hat the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that this request is in substantial conformance with all th~ provisions of the original approval for Variance No.193 based cr the fiollowing: (a) That the proposed use operates in a fashion that is similar to the previousiy- appioved dental office. (b) That based on the submitted letter of operation, it appears that the site will be adequate in size for this proposed use to operate in a fashion that is not detrimental to the surrounding land uses. (c) That the applicant stipulated to stripe the parking lot to denote required parking prior to commencement of the activity. (d) That the applicant stipulated to screen the air ::onditioning unit located on the roof. 01-04-99 Page 2 ApplicanYs Statement: Rosa Jones, 7950 East Santa Clara Avenue #18, Santa Ana, CA: Stated they are trying to purchase a buildi~g and it is dependent on whether they recei~ ed approvai for the use that ttiey are rer~~esting. (She reference a letfer dated Decem6er 1, 1390 that th~y mailed explaining what fhey do.] Commissioner 6ostwick: Asked Ms. Jones whether the smai; bookstore referenced in her letter is goiny to be used by the outside r.ublic? Commission is concerned that parking is very limited for this facility and the uses listed such as the bookstore, conf~~;:, ~ce center, etc. appear that there may be a parking problem. Rosa Jones: 7he books that they offer in their bookstore are basically for people.v~ho come in for their counseling services. It wuuld be, for example, only a family, couples or individuals 2t a time and not many peopie at one time. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked the applicant if they could screen the air conditioner located above the roof? Rosa Jones: She agreed to this. The variance was originally approved in 1953 for a 2 X 2 foot sign and asked if they could receive approval fo~ a I~rger sign? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Responded that would take a readvertisement of the variance in order to amend the condition of approval that is currently on the variance. In the staff report it requests that the applicant stipulate to restriping the parking lot. Rosa Jones: She was in agreed to this. 01-04-99 Page 3 B. a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION 15061 (b) (31 Concurred wistaff b) CODE AMENDMENT N0. 99-01: Ariel Valli, 19700 Fairchild, Suite 230, Approved Irvine, CA 92612, request for consideration of a Code Amendment to the site development standards of the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Recommerded that Zone to permit outdoor self-storage of recreational vehicles and boats as the City Council a conditionally permitte~ use. adopt the draft ordinance ACTION: Cornmissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner presented to the Boydstun anci MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Williams absent), that the Planning Anaheim City P{anning Commissicn does hereby concur with staff that the Commission at the proposed project falls within the definition of Ca:egorical Exemptions, Class meeting ~~vith 15061 (b) {3), as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefora, modifications categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIP.. CommissiQner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Williams absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council the adoption of the draft ordinance presented to the Planning Commission at the meeting to amend the conditionally permitted uses within the RS-A-43,000 Zone as follows: "Uutdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats, personal water craft, motorcycles, and trailers with or ~vithout an on-site o~ce or caretaker o~ce/dwelling unit; provided such use is found and defermined to be located on a property which: (i) is integrated into a single development having a minimum overall site area of five (5) acres; (ii) is located on an irregularly-shaped property which may be constrained by accessibility, visibility or easements which may not be suitable for conventiorial types of development; (iii) is not adjacent to any residential zone, or is shown to be s~Kciently buffered from such zone; (iv) is screened from tlie public right-of- way, and (v) is not located within the SC (Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone. Furfher, that the development of fhe property shall incfude quality landscaping and be designed to be compatible with surrounding land uses." SR1 (ITEM NOS. 1-B AND 8 VVFRE NEARD TOGETHER.J Greg I-lastings, Zoning Division Manager: Suggested this item be trailed and heard with Item No. 8 and ,;aff Faran~ was in agreement. Chairman Bristol: Announced that Item Nos. 1-B ~end 8 are going to be heard together. ApplicanYs Statement: Paul Kott, Realtor, 1225 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA: He assists property owners by advising what is the best use for their property. He gave a description of how he helps people e~,~aluate property for use. He gave general location of property and stated that if it were not for the Southern California Edison easement, this property would probably have been developed long ago. 7he size, 6.2 acres and narrow irregular rectangular shape prevents it from being a viable development site for over 95% of uses currently allowed within the CL Zone. The staff report implies that there is a concentration of self storage, it doesn't create jobs or generate sales tax. He stated this is an unfair depiction of the proposal. They are requesting approval for storage of recreational vehicles, boats, motorcycles and personal watercraft alone. He researched all other RV facilities in Orange County, and there are only 4. It will create jobs for onsite 01-04-99 Page 4 staff, also, he asked considering the characteristics of the property, what other kind of business could staff recommend that would generate tax revenue. The owner has contacted neighbors within a 300 foot radius to ge~ feedback. Approximately 20 resident attended a meeting and all feedback was positive. He read. a letter from one of the resident supporting the project. He also spoke to WAND representatives, Esther Wallace•and Judith Gollette and they support the project. Jeff Farano, 2300 East Katella Suite 235 Anaheim, CA: He is representing the applicant. He discussed the zoning and the concerns the staff may have to reclassify this to Commercial Limited. if this project was not built under the proposed plan, what wauld happen in future? The staff report indicates that if this 6 acres were built out commercially, it would generate more traffic, noise and other problems. Because of the irregular shape of the project the only thing available commercially is or. the front oi Euclid. They have previously proposed deed restrictions on property that has been difficult to deal with in which the City coul~ be named as a beneficiary to a deed restriction stating the property shall only be built limited to a particular use. He suggested a code amendment that allows the type of use under a conditional use permit under RS-A- 43,000 so they would not have to change the zoning. If staff wants to impose conditions, or charge the proposed language they do not have a prablem with that. He just asks that's~ ~:hey go with a code amendment he wants to continue and parallel the CUP with this process, se~:d them ~n to City Council for their approval but he would also like to consider this project into ihe CUP so they don't have to wait for that to go through and start over. If they approve the language thst is proposed, the code amendment going on to City Council as well as this CUP could be approved on the condition that the City Council adopt that code amendment. He addressed the following proposed conditions: • Condition 2 that CUP would terminate in 2002-he said developers ti~ill not develop a property wiih oniy a 3 year CUP, then tie the CUP to say that if the power lines are no longer built there then the CUP expires. • Condition 3 page 11 - to require them to p~t a cul-du-sac at the end of a public road. There are only 6 propertie- on the cul-du-sac and this property is not affecting that traffic. • No. 5- they want low level lighting below the fence unless there is a breach of security after hours and would like some 10 foot poles to have lighting. • Item 10 - regarding mature landscaping that mus! be preserved. They are going to leave the existing home and landscaping around the home but want to clear the lot that they are going to build on. They want to remove that condition so that they don't have a probler~i. • I!em 13 regarding propane tanks or dumping stations - They will have a dumping station at the beginning as you come in off the property only for people .^~ho ~`.ore RV's there. It will not have public access. They would like to see the condition modified to say there will be no public propane tanks or no public dumping stations permitted on the property to allow thern to do the holding tank emptying for the people that are renting spaces. • No. 23 - They would like to see a maximurri height of 12 feet but applicant is w~illing to make it lower if staff desires. • No. 25 - Would like modification to include personal motor craft and motorcycles. ~ No. 29 - No storage of inoperable vehicles, wo~ld like to modify to say no salvage vehicles on-site. Some other conditions that are not on the report that they are willing to consider to address staffs concern is parking along the northern wall will be limited to vehicles that are lower than the height of the wall. Another proposed restriction would be not to permit any business to be operated out of the storage area. Mike Brittingham: 1615 South Pounders Lane, Anaheim, CA. He does not oppose the project. He asked if the dump station was a septic tank or holding tank, or go down to a main sewer line? He is worried about spills in a holding tank. He likes idea of lights being on a sensor so that after closing hours they go on a dimmer. He advised that he would not like to see this classified as a commercial project because if it falls through he does not want something else moving in there. 01-04-99 Page 5 Chairman Bristol: He asked Mr. Brittingham if he thought the nursery is more noisy than a storage place would be? Mike Brittingham: Fle feels with the wall being there, it will cut down on the railroad noise. Regarding the concern from staff about the diesei powered tractor there on site, he said that he feels it would be bett~r off to have a vehicle there with someone knowing how to operate it to pull trailers etc. He doesn't feel there will be diesel noise, no more than the normal hours. Jesse Duarte, 1726 West Chris, Anaheim, CA Speaks on behalf of himself and in-laws who live at 1608 South Varna. Some past problems with nursery are traffic, and burglaries because nursery is used as a walkway to get into neighborhood. He feels this new project will get rid of those problems. Also, traffic coming in at both sides of Chris off of Euclid are larger older trucks that go into the nursery and have concer~ with the children's safety. Also, trash that falls out of trucks as they go by. There is a major pro~lem un Varna where trucks leave big tracks on the streets. [He submitted photos.] As of today there is a pile of trash almost 10 feet high. In 1996 there was a petition circulated through the neighborhood. They received a letter back from the City that the complaints would be forwarded to Code Enforcement but to this day no one has checked this out or notified to the neighbors. There are a~so dumpsters that can be seen over the fence. He supports the project. They did speak with the neighbors in the area and let them kne~v what happened and told them that they were supportive. Mr. Farano has had an open line of communication with everyone in the neighborhood. He is a boat owner and is definitely going to look into using the facility. He feels the project will definitely beautify the area. Applicant's Rebuttal: Jeff Farano: As far as working on vehicles, there will not be any working on vehicles on the property. Ariel Valley, 19700 Fairchild, Irvine, CA: Stated he is the architect for the project. If the preference is to connect the septic tank from the house to a sewer system then it can be done. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer : If the applicant desires to go toward with the sewer dump station then the Public Works Department would request that this matter be continued for them to provide more details on the dump station because they have s~~ri~us concerns such as how, many vehicles would be able to dump a; one time? What would the operation be7 They have serious concerns of sewer capacity in central Anaheim. • Commissioner Bostwick: He did not feel this use would impact the sewer capacity siynificantly Melanie Adams: Suggested Commission place a restriction of one station and that there would not be multiple stations throughout the development. Jeff Farano: 7hey are willing to do that. Regarding Varna Street, currentiy there is a drivEway at the end of the cul-de-sac to go through a parcel onto the easement which they access. That will no longer be there and will be closed off. Thereafter, the only access will be at the front of the building off of Euclid. The home will remain in exisience, it will be remodeled. They have no plans to do anything with the other parcel which is being bought as part of parcel three. Chairman Bristol: Asked about voting on item no. 1-B. Mr. Farano requests that Commission go forward with it. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: It could be considered concurrently. The recommendation was for denial but what was previously being processed was a General Plan Amendment and a Reclassification that was processed concurrently with the CUP. The CUP was conditioned upon the General Plan 01-04-~9 Page 6 Amendment and the Reclassification being finalized. Ce~tainly the process could be used. Stafi's concern is that the analysis on Item No. 8 was done with reference to the CL standards and not to the RS- A-43,000 standards. They would require a contin~ance in order to evaluate the project assuming that the Planning Commission approves the proposed ordinance that would authorize these uses subjeGt to a ~UP. They would still need to meet whatever the zoning requirements are for RS-A-43,000 as o,pposed ko CL but it need not be a continuance until the ordinance is finalized. Commissioner Bostwick: Could Commission pass a motion approving the code amendment and then continue the CUP for two weeks? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Staff would prefer a minimum of four weeks, if they need to consider ihe appeal period in conjunction with the adoption of the code amendment which she deferred to Ms. dVla~n. They would like to know if Southern Ca~ifornia Edison has appraved the site plan that has been present~d. There is no clarity on that yet. They want to evaluate the site plan according to the RS-A-43,000 standards and also compare it to the potential code amendment. They would like to clarify that the fences particularly on the north property line whether the new block wall will be provided only where there is ch3in link now or whether new block walls will be built abutting the existing block walls? The issues regarding signage, she was not certain how much signage, if any, the applic2nt wanted. They would be limited in the RS-A-43,000 Zone. Regarding landscaping along the railroad track, they would like to see more landscaping in that area. They wrote their other issues in the staff report regarding the compatibility versus commercial ancJ residential uses. Jeff Farano, Applicant: On the S.C.C. easement issue, they spoke with S.C.E. about this and have not received any objections to their proposal. They do not believe that there are going to be any problems. On the block wall, they are going to build an entire new block wall around the whole facility. Commissioner Boslwick: He 4hought building a new block wall would be a good idea. Cheryi Flores, Senior Planner: Staff had issues regarding the development of the detached condos on Muller S!reet. Where some of the RS-7200 Zone properties are they did not want their existing block wall remoued and to take precautions whenever there are two abutting block walls that the top be capped to prevenkspace: Jeff Farano, Applicant: It appears to be a building code problem that they can address with the Building Division at the time that we do this. The signage permitted, in the RS-A 43,000 is acceptable to his client and wiil not need additional signage. There are vines being requested as landscaping along the railroad track. It is 1,200 feet of space along the railroad tracks and they are not ce~tain how necessary it is really going to be to plant vines along the whole railroad track. They are not proposing to do that at this time. Commissioner Bostwick: He visited the site this morning and spoke with the person who currentiy leases it for the nursery. hie indicated to him tnat there is gang activity along the south fence along the railroad tracks. Perhaps vines may help discourage that activity. Jeff Farano: He was not certai~ that the vines were going to discourage the gang activity. As a security measure there will be motion sensor lights around the property. Regarding a continuance of this item, the application has been pending for now almost a year and another four weeks would delay the project further cause a financial hardship on the applicant. The application for the code amendment is not anything new, and it has been pending for awhile. They have suggested language under Item No. 6 to the staff report and if it is acceptable to Commission to recommend that as the amendment to the application, and if the CUP is approved today, subject the comoliance with these conditions on that item then ihere is ho reason to continue this item. Buk if 01-04-99 Page 7 Commission does not agree with the language on Item No. 6 and decides to make some changes in the drafting, then it will have to be reviewed all over again. i-le thought Commission can at least approve the CUP subject to the City Council adopting that code amendment. The applicant is willing to take a risk on that and hopefully it will go through but if the City Cuuncil changes it th~n that is something they have to deal with. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: The site plan that staff i~c°?v~d nas waivers in the RS-A-43,000 Zone that have not been advertised. Staff would need four weeks to get it advertised, to get revised plans. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked what waivers would need to be advertised? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: The side yard setback, rear yard setbacks and front too. There may be more. Jeffrey Freeden, 35331 Camino Capistrano, Dana Point, CA: He has been working wit~i the staff and is amazed by the eleventh hour changes and accommodations and he cannot afford to wait another four weeks. They are on their 6th month of escrow extension. Chairman Bristol: Commission can move on Item No. i-B but staff is informing Commission that if they try to move on this reclassification that they could be aparoving a conditional use permit with waivers that have not been advertised. This is the first time that Commission has received this informatian. Jeff Farano: He did not knotiv exactly what the development standards are on the RS-A-43,000 Zone. If they are different than this site then there would be problems to deal with. The raquest for the code amendment was back in November 1998. It was a handwritten request that was submitted and it was in conjunction with this project. He was not intending to ask for a code amendment by itself. It ~vas in conjunction with the project. If the development standards are different from the Commerci~:l Limited Zone then they are going to have to deal with it. If they are less restrictive or the same between both zones then what Commission approves today would not be a problam. They would like to get this resolved within the legal perimeters so they can get the project moving forward. Greg Hastings, Zoning Divisiaii Manager: It appears that the only waivers eifect are probably the side yard setbacks, the front yard setback and the rear yard. In the Commercial Limited Zone ihey do not have a rear yard, it is just adjacent to enother zone. If the applicant is willing to comply with the requirements of those setbacks then there is the possibility they may be able to go forward. It is his understanding that they do want to h~ve this from property line to property line. Therefore that in itself would require waivers to be advertised. The only waiver that has been advertised is the setback adjacent to the residentia~ zone. In a Commerciai Limited Zone it is different from a Residential Zone in terms of the waivers that ara required. This was advertised for Commercial Zoning. Ttie front setback for an RS-A Zone ~~ould be 25 feet and in a commercial zone it is only 10 feet. The side yards are 10 feet in an RS•A Zone and in this particular case in a commercial they had actually abaut the same. The rear setback is 25 feet in a residential zone and in this case it would have aciually been less. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked why would there be a setback? Greg Hastings: It is like a single family lot. If they had a single family zone that backed int~ anotner singie family zone then a house could not be built up against the Iot. It is odd beca~se the residential zone does not pertain specifically to this type of use. They have to use the same type of set~ack. Jeff Farano: They can go front to 25 feet. On the side they are asking far a ze~ o setback because the fence butts right up to it and they are going to have the car backed up to that. TFiat is the landscape waiver that they have asked for. Commissioner Bostwick; There is a waiver for th~ north side ag~inst the residential. Mr. Farano is indicating the south side is the commercial side becausa of the railroad tracks. 01 •04-99 Page 8 Greg Hastings: It is ~ctuaily residential. If the applicant is agreeing to compiy with the front and the rear setbacks the side yard setbacks which were advertised as th,~ setbacks adjacent to residential zon~s. Commissioner Bostwick: So it waives the north and south and would then only be for tha front and back setbacks as 25 feet. ~ Jeff Farano: The 25 foot setbacks would work. Greg Hastings: Hcr could not guarantee that there may not be another waiver but that is the only one that they could think o: at this tim~. For the records, there is onty a 20 square foot sign tha: is ailowed ir. residential zone. Following the vote: Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Staff asked that a plan be submitted sl~owing where the faci~ities would be so the information could be put in the file. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: She is certain that the applicant ~nderstands that the processing of this application has been done here during the meeting as an accommodation to the applicant and is not a representation that these are the oniy waivers that are going to be required under the RS-A-03,000 Zone or under the ordinances that its adopted that there may be additional waivers. It is being done this way as an accommodatibn and may not be complete, .:. ::`~;~; ~ . 01-04-99 Page 9 C. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PRFVIOUSLY-APPROVED ~ Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4055 -~2~QUEST FOR Approved RETROACTIVE EXTENSION ~F TIME: Pastor Stan Managbanag and Jeff Smith (Youth Director),1171 North West Street, Anaheim, CA (To expire 2-28-99) 92801, request a retroactive time extension to comply with conditions of approval pertaining to block wall fencing, security lighting, and a trash enclosure. This pLtition was originally approved on August 31,1998. Prope~ty is locat~~i a:1171 North West Street - Free Methodist Church of Anaheim. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Williams 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 subject request. Commissioner Bostw~ck offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Williams absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for a retroactive time extension for 90 days, until February 28, 1999 based on the following: (i) That this is the first request for a~ extension of time to comply with conditions of approval. That this request does not extend the request beyond two extensions of time, nor alter the request as previously approve~ by Resolution No. PC98-139. Further, that the petitioner is in the process of completing con~,iition nos. 3, 11 and 12 with a 90 day time requirement. . (ii) That this use is consistent with the City's Genera! Plan Land Use Element and the RS-A-43,000 Zone in which it is located. (iii) That this propeity has been maintained in a safe, clean and aesthetically pleasing condition with no unremediated code violations. SFZ7377KP.DOC Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Staff noticed that there is an RV that is parked to the rear of the church building. It appears that someone is living in it. Code Enforcement will be checking into that prior to :he next meeting to try to gei this resolved. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 620. 2430 AND VARIANCE N0. Terminated 838 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Chueh Hsu, CFO, c/o Qrange County Association for Buddhist Practices, Inc., 1501 West Katella (Vote: 6-0, Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802-2702, requests termination of Conditional Commissioner Use Permit Nos. 620, 2430 and Variance No. 838. Property is located at Williams absent) 1501 and 1503 West Katella Avenue. TERMINATION RESOLUTION. PC99-1 SR7183DB.DOC This item was not discussed. 01-04-99 Page 10 E. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLA4ATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED~ b) COiJDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3996 - REQUEST FOR Approved Determined to DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: Shin-Tze be in substantial Pan,1501 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802, requests conformance as determination of substantial conformance to construct a six-foot high modified at the wroughl-iron fence along south and east property lines. Property is meeting located at 1501 West Katella Avenue - Orange County Association for Buddhist Practices. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Williams absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determin2"that the previously- approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the requ;red environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Williams absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that a 4-foot high fence with lotuses on top of the pilasters not to exceed 5 feet and with a 6 foot landscaped setback all the way around Katella and Ninth Street is in substantial conformance with previously-approved plans. SR7378TW.DOC Applicant's Statement: Larry Lazar, 64 Rainwood, Aliso Viejo, CA: Stated he was present on behalf of the Anaheim Buddhist Temple. Chairman Bristol: Steff is recommending that they move the fence back to the frontage of the building. would require a variance to have the fence the way the plans were submitted. It was recommend reducing the size of the fence down 2 to 3 feet. Larry Lazar: He has had a number of ineetings with members of the Buddhist Temple. The way the plans were proposed was to put the fence immediately adjacent to the property line for security and safety reasons. There are many cnildren that come to the church seivices. They mill around the site and it gives them a little more room. Also they thought it would look better to have tiie fence in front rather than moved back adjacent to the building. In reviewing the staff report it is clear ti~at the City currently does not have a standard as to where a front yard fence is required to ba. It indicates that there are standards under consideration and will be approved. They are looking to exercise the existing property ri~hts. They have complied with height, setback, and parki~g standards. The only standard that has to do with the setback of the fence is a Traffic Division standard that the fence needs to be setback 20 feet, which is probably for vehicle stacking. At the point of the driveway on Katella Avenue, they could set that fence back 20 feet as long as the rest of it could be up against the property line. The fence was proposed to be 6 feet and there is a"lotus" symbol that was proposed in a few locations that would exceed the 6 feet by 1 U or 11 inches. The lotus symbol could be lowered to be incorporated as part of the fence but it is still the request of the Buddhist Temple to have ii up near the property line or between the pron~;ty line and the building. Commi:,sioner Boydstun: Asked whether the fence could be lowered to a 3 to 4 foot fence and still provide a barrier? ' 01-04-99 Page 11 Larry Lazar: He was concerned with the difficulty of security. Katella is a very busy street and they were looking for something that was attractive and yet a visual sign of security to discourage people from trying to enter unlawfully onto the templP grounds. It is their preference to have the fence at 6 feet. Chairman Bristol: There was concern about the aesthetically plsasing aspect of the fence, perhaps the 6 foot fence took away from ihe building elevations. Larry Lazar: The aesthetics of the fence is more of a subjective opinion. If the City had an adopted standard then they would have complied to that standard. But the City does not have a standard. Che,yl Flores, Senior Planner; RS-A Zone property has a 2.5-foot setback. There was a waiver for a str~ctural setback down to 21 faet for the Temple. As far as the 6 fo~t high fence, it is a permitted encroachment within the setback. area, which is true. However, when there are entitlements under the conditional use permit process, Commission does have the authority to S~rther limit the height or location of the fence. Commissioner Bostwick: Basically the look of the fence is going to interfsre with the landscaping that would abut to Katella. As massive as the fence is in design, the applicant is intruding into that. That is why the suggestion was made that they reduce the fence 3 or 4 feet as a way of providing a barrier and security and yet not affect the appearance of that corner. Larry Lazar: If it was 3 or 4 feet would it be situated at the property line or closer to the building? Commissioner Bostwick: At the property line if they put it 3 or 4 feet high. Larry Lazar: Asked if they move the fence closer to the building couid tha height remain at 6 feet, since their major concern is security? Is there a point between the property line and the building where enough landscape material could be put on either side of the fence to make it appear more attractive so all the landscape materiai was not behind the fence and still remain at 6 feet7 Cheryi Flores, Senior Planner: Staff thought thaf it would soften the look of the 6 foot high wrought iron fence if there were landscaping in front of it. It would be up to Commission if they felt there was a midpoint between the building and the fence that would give the ability to do that. Commissioner Bostwick: He is not clear what they ar~~ trying to fence in. There are no windows that he observed when he visited that side of the building. Larry Lazar: The security is addressed by the height of the fence - a 6 foot high versus a 3 or 4 foot high, mov;ng it at some distance closer to the property line provides more space for peopls to be on an occasionai basis. They would provide landscaping on both sides of the fence if it were to be at a midway point. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: The consensus of staff is that the fence should be 10 feet which is half the size of the landscaping. The other alternative would be as Commissioner Boydstun mentioned which would be the lower fence height closer to the property line. Adjacent to Ninth Street the setback is required to be 12%: feet or even with the building a~ that point, if it is going to be 6 feet high. It might make sense to make the setback 12%: feet all the way around so that the fence is 12Y2 feet back fiom the property line both on Katella and Ninth Street. Larry Lazar: The portion along Ninth Street does have windows on the outside ~f the building and that is where they would like some distance for security reasons. Commissioner Bostwick: If the ~ence was set back 6 feet from the property line and had a maximum of 4 feet for the fence and 5 fs~t to the top of the latus symbols, then that would work. 01-04-99 Page 12 Larry Lazar: Their architect feels that if there were a 4 foot high fence along Ninth 5treet, whether that could be at the prope~ty line facing Katella if it were a simifar fence halfway back. Commissioner Bostwick: He suggested 6 feet from the property line and that gives them half the distance on Nir~th Street and not quite as far on Katella (21 feet which gives them more space). Essentially, 6 feet setback from the property line all the way around Katella and Ninth Street, with a 4 foot high fence. If the applicant chooses to put the lotus symbol on top of the fence it should not exceed 5 feet. 01-04-99 Page 13 F. a) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 322 {PREV.-CERTIFIED) Approved b) CONDII'IONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4034 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW approved landscape AND API~ROVAL OF FINAL PLANS: Burnett Development plans. Corporation, Attn: Joseph Swain, 200 East Baker Street, Suite 100, Costa Mesa, CA 92780, request for review and approval of final Revised architectural building elevation, (including materials and colors), sign program, plans and a revised fencing, and landscaping plans. Property is located at 1500 South sign program shall be Douglass Road - Arena Corporate Centre. submitted for review and approval by the ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Planning Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Williams Commission absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified EIR No. 322 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTIQN CARRIED (Commissioner Williams absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the landscape plans (Phase 1, Plan Nos. 9-14, inclusive) as submitted. Revised architectural plans and a revised sign program shall be submitted to the Planning Commission at a future Planning Commission meeting as a Report and Recommendations item for review and approval. SR6919DS.DOC Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner: This is a request by the applicant to review final plans for the project. The first and second floors have architectural embeliishment such as the stone, etc. but once on the second level it is essentially the E.I.F.S. material whi~h is a plaster like material and there are some concerns about the views from the surrounding streets and freeway as to the quality of that above the second floor. The architect will explain the concept for the elevations. John Killen, Burnett Polygon Davelopment: He suggested their arci~itect Lang Wilson, Robert Braun who can explain the concept behind the architectural approach. Robert Braun, from Lang and Wilson Architects: Within the Commissioner's packet there are some drawings th~c represent the overall elevations. He has with him a sm211 section of the elevations that may better define what the differant materials are in an isolated area of the building. On the base of the building the green material is a lime plaster. They have been able to get it so it has the green color that is iniegral throughout the matrix of the lime plaster. From the base to the second floor of the darker beige color is also a lime plaster. It has the integral color as well. Above the second floor is an E.I.F.S, material. They are taking the E.I.F.S. material to give it a continuity around the building in using reveals and mullions to break up that to get it inio smaller panel sizes. There is a hierarchy over the front entry where they break up the mullions and have different width mullions. It adds some texture and interest at the entrance areas. The two ends of the buildings flanking the entry area have been intentionally kept simple to have them work as a background and maintain the focus of where the front doors occur. The great thing about E.I.F.S. is that it is an extremely flat material and it can be obtained with no waving, a very nice true material. Chairman Bristol: Asked if the lime plaster material is going to be smooth7 ~?1-04-99 Page 14 Robert Braun: Actually they want it to look like a natural stone that has been saw cut so they are doing some larger mock ups and it is difficult to get a good representation on that small of a sampie. The contractor that is developing that is doing some 4 X 4 foot paneis that they can look at. They wouid like to get a little more texture to it so it looks like a natural stone and less like a manmade product. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked if they could take some of those columns and take them with ihe lime stone all the way to the roof to give the building more of a look to it rather than just the square glass block building9 . Robert Braun: One of the reasons they used the lime p~aster on the base of the building was to give it a strong base and to get that modeling around the base. As you get further away from the lime plaster it becomes more monolithic looking. That is why they kept it in the lower two floors. Commissioner Bostwick: On the end of the building it appears there are three columns that go up from the corners, cutting this into four sections. If those columns could go all the way to the rooF and even to the face of the building to break up the upper portion of it, giving it some more definition than just the "glass cube" look. It appears very plain and simplistic. RobeR Braun: The rendering may not be a good depiction af how the mullions stack out and the lines of the columns carry up to the top of the building. They are doing additional renderings on the overall concept. On the entry (south) elevation rendering, they are doing a similar expression on the building as they are on the parking garage where they stack out the vertical lines to carry the columns. They are doing it on the building with mullions and reveals in the E.I.F.S. The intent was to have the large glass expanse at the entries, both (ront and back (south and north facade) and tie all that glass with the ribbon windows wrapping the building from front to back and link it to glass elements on the north and south elevations. The column expression is a little more subtle. They did not want to do a"punched" expression on the building, they wanted to have the ribbons and make the vertical columns a little more subtle. The lines carry through but the material is not continuous, top to bottom. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked if this is going to be the same format for the three office buildings? Robert Braun: The two 6 stories would be similar, the 10 story would potentially have a slightly different expression through its height and the importance on the site, becomes a focus of the project. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked if the other 6 story building is going to backup to the Pond? Robert Braun: Bet~ieen ihe second 6 s`ory and Pond there is a parking structure. John Killen: They were trying to get "as much bang for the buck" and the project has been designed three times in terms of the landscape concept plan. The last plan being developed by EDAW a renown landscape architecture firm and they have really taken a significant part of their on-site improvement budgets and developed a nice landscape concept for the project. Where Arena Center Drive comes in at the center of the court where the three o~ce buildings occur (the two 6 story and the 10 story) they have a water feature there, a palm court. What they want to do with the landscape plan and with the complete cunfiguration of the three buildings (the two 6 stories and the 10 story) is create a focal court which occurs between the two 6 stories and the 10 story as a backdrop. The main drive of the project comes into the center court and the fountain feature occurs in the center. The whole center court is done in a concrete paver material. They are using lime stone on the entry walk and along the pedestrian access on the front of the building. They are doing tne landscape improvement along the frontage of Douglass Road and carrying the theme of the Fond, plant materials and the finishes and the light fixtures all the way down the Douglass frontage. 01-04-99 Page 15 They have developed entry signage and landscape feature at the entry to the project. They have taken more on a cost for foot basis than one would normaily see on an office project such as this one and applied it to the ground piane, applied it to the quality of the pfant materials and how the project feels at the pedestrian level. The lime plaster on a cost basis is considered a high quality material and equivalent to the concrete panels that are used on some buildings. The glass feature at the entries become the focal point to the entries on this center court area. The idea of extending the pilasters vertically wouid probabiy be utilized on that building. Even though it is a 10 story building, they do not want that rear building fo seem to "squatty", aa they would appiy the vertical column on that building to give it more verticality there are the end of the driveway. The reason they went with the ribbon windows was to create a clean line that is drawn back into this center court and the vertical elements would be on the 10 story which would give it some height. In their phasing of the landscape plan, they are intending in the first to do the f~~ll frontage of Douglass as a part of the first phase, to do the main driveway in and the full auto court and the fountain feature in the first phase. This tends to be a more utilitarian structure. They have done some features with the block and fhe mix of texture block and precise block that gives the building a nice presence but the money that is going to get spent on facades is intended to be the parking structure ~~hich will be built iii the later phases and adjacent to the Pond. They are in the process of working with Ogden to hopefully utilize this as an event structure as well. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked if they are going to do the north wall along the railroad track in the first phase? John Kilien: Yes, it would be in the first phase as well. They are trying to balance out how they utilize their resources out by phase. They are trying to get as much presence of the project upon the completion of the first phase. Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner: The concern both of Commission and staff is that once you get above the second floor the building tends to fade away, in terms of the E.I.F.S. ribbons and the mullions, it gives it more of a three dimensional look. John Killen: They are working with Caldwell Banker, Dunn Norris and Mark Friend who are very established in this market. They are out presenting the project to national tenants. They are under contract with Swinerton Walberg to build the project. They have ordered steel and intended for it to be delivered to the site on March 29th. They are under contract with Lomell to build the noriherly parking structure which is an 800 car structure. Tf~ey are moving forward on this project. Commissioner Koos: Asked if they were to take Commissioner Bostwick's suggestions and include tliose treatments to the 6 story buildings, how would that affect the overall project? John Killen: It would tend to break down the scale but also make the 6 story buildings be more compressed and squatty because they would be dealing with punched openings rather than ribbon windows which tend to create a more horizontal look on top. 01-04-99 Page 16 Commissianer Kuos: This would be viewed from the 57 Fwy. which is a heavily traveled corridor and at a distar~ce the buildings weuld be seen as "blocks" sitting with very little architectural design to them. From (the freeway) a distance the treatment on the first and second floors will not be seen. John Killen: The project has to be considered in its total context. If it was one freestanding building sitting in a parking lot then they would have to do a lot to scale ft but this is in the context of 3, 4 or 5 buildings, a hotel and parking structures. ' There has been quite a iot of thought that has gone into the project. It is particularly impo~tant to point out that they are working with quality materials on the ground; quality materials at the pedestrian level. There are legitimate compromises on the materials used on the upper portions of the building but in cor,text it works. Commissioner Bostwir,k: He stiil thought that he would like to see columns go up building all the way around to give it some more height and definition to the structure. He understands what they are trying to do but he thought it is going to look like a square flat block. John Killen: He would not like to see it end ~p loosing some of the horizontal qualities. They have thought a lot about that and have tried to implement that. They can look at perhaps not at all the str~!etural grid buk introducing a column on some kind of regular pattern that would Fick up the aesthetics of w~hat will be the 10 story. On the 10-story they will tend to use a more opened loak. Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner: Staff recommeniis that they move ahead. IF the landscape plan is acceptable then continue the building elevations, let staff review them with the applicant and try to come up with something more pleasing to the Commission, especially because it is next to the Pond. This is one of the last vacant pieces of land in that area so they want to make sure it is a quality project. G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 898 - REQUEST FOR I Terminated TERMINATION: Betsy Lehman, Secretary, c/o First Church of the Nazarene, Attn: Jarrell W. Garsee, Sr. Pastor,1340 North Candlewood Street, Anaheim, CA 92805-1198, requests termination of Conditional ~ Use Permit No. 898. Property is 1:f27 North Candlewood Street and 1326 Norwood Street. TERMINATION RESOLUTION. PC99i-2 SR7212DB.DOC This item was not discussed. 01-04-99 Page 17 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 19 Contir.ued to 2b. VARIANCE NO. 4352 January 20, 1999 OWNER: JMW Family Enterprises, LP,10401 Fernwood Rd., Suite 300G, Bethesda, MD 20817 AGENT: Lorenzo Reyes, 1224 E. Katella Ave., Suite 105, Oranga, CA 92867 Millie's Restaurant, c/o Ramm Associates, 27111 Aliso Creek Rd., Suite 195, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 , LOCATION: 1480 South Harbor Boulevard - Millie's 12estaurant. Property is 4.3 acres located on the east side of Harbor Boulevard, 282 feet south of the centerline of Manchester Avenue. Waiver of (a) permitted wall signs, (b) permitted canopy signs, (c) proteibited signs and (d) sign standard matrix to permit twelve (12) wall signs (including two business identification wall signs and nine internally- illuminated canopy signs with sign copy advertising products and/or services). VARIANCE RcSOLUTION N0. SR7371 ` FOLLOWING'1S A SUMMARY OF.THE PGANNING COINMIS510N ACTION. • : ~ ApplicanYs Statement: Lorenzo Reyes, 1224 East Katella, Suite 105, Orange, CA: They feel that by the letter of the code that the building itself does exceed the sign requirements for the area but the physical inspection shows that in fac; the sign program is not overbearing. It is in keeping with what is in the area and they ask special consideration that they be allowed to keep the signs at least until the entire area is held to the same strict conformance which is December 31, 1999. Up and down Harbor Boulevard the number of businesses on their same block are within 10 to 25 or 30 feet, right on top of the sidewaik. Millie's Restaurant is part of a 27-unit local chain that is only located in California. They feel ihat they do not have the same national exposure that some of the other bigger business in the immediate area have. They do not have the marketing budget that other businesses have. They ask that they be allowed to keep the paniflex back lit awnings. It helps identify the business. It is an aid to the pedestrian traffic that frequents Harbor Boulevard and hope that Commission will give them a favorable consideration. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Karen Dudley, Associate Planner: Mr. Reyes had indicated that the existing signs were in keeping with other signs in the area. In the applicant's submittal of his justification for waivers, he submitted some photos of adjacent properties ttiat had signage. 7hose signs are considered legal nonconforming and are under an abatement period of December 31, 1999. 7he Planning Department did send aut in accordance with the one-year notification requirements set by code to all the property owners and business owners 01-04-95 Page 18 within the Anaheim Resort Area cn the core streets of Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue. The requirement for removing or replacing any legal nonconforming signs by December 31,1999. ThE signs on Miliie's Restaurant are wliat they consider illegal signs. 7he canopy signs were placed on the property without permit sometime after May 1992. At the time the exisfing code which was the CR Zane which was adopted in August 1990 prohibited excessive canopy signs. It basically allowed one wall sign and canopy signs are considered by code wall signs, so they would be allowed the on~ sign. The existing nonconforming signs that were previously on the property were taker. down and relocated on the buildir~ and then the new canopy signs were put up which voided out the legal nonconforming status of the two legal signs and made them illegal signs. The applicant is requesting waiver of the code to allow more ~han one wall sign. Mr. Reyes had indicated that he would like to keep the signs up until the abatement period of December 31,1999. He would have to request a waiver of that code section for the abatement of signs in order to allow that and that was r.ot part of this request. Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: She did not believe that a request like this could be processed. With this proposal staff did not find any hardship associated with the request and would recommend that it be denied. Chairman Bristol: To be in conformance the applicant would have the m~mument sign that he has now and he could have one wall sign. ~o the current Millie's signs that he has on Harbor, the canopy signs instead of 30 inches it would be about 18. Karen Dudley: Yes, he ~~ould be allowed one wall sign, whether it be the lighted reverse-pan channel letter sign that he has or on the canopy up to a maximum of 160 square feet with 18 inches letter height. It would have to be the name or the logo of the business. Cor~missioner Esping: •Just the one sign. He can have the awnings but ~~an not have the name Millie's on each one of the awnings7 Karen Dudley: He can have the individual awnings as long as there is not any type of inessage of lettering on them. Chairman Bristol: Regarding the photos that the applicant submitted reg<3rding other signs, they are all on notice and they are all going to be conforming by December 31, 1999. Karen Dudley: Yes, they are all under the same ordinance. There are a couple of properties that are participating in the Anaheim Resort Signage Program. The nonconforming ground signs would be brought down and brought into compliance prior to December 31,1999. Wall signage would still remain unless they voluntarily bring it down prior to the 1999 da!e. Mr. Reyes: They did have Millie's signs on each of the canopies at one time. It was really a maintenance issue. When the s~rvey was taken in i992 it showed that there was nothing on the canopies at all. The faci that !he layout has a landscape buffer, parking, a 25 foot backup space, another row of parking and then landscaping in front of the building, they are effectively 100 feet off af Harbor Bouleva~~d. A single 18 inch sign on the building will not be effective. When the sign ordinance was drafted it addressed the fact that all of the businesses are literally riyht on top of the street. He felt theirs is a hardship. In order for them to get the same advantage that the other businesses have they would have to move their building virtually behind the sidewalk and he did not think that was the intent. He understands limiting the number end size of the signs but he feels they do not h~ve too many sic~ns. Commissioner Boydstur: Asked how tall the letters on the Millie's sign are7 01-04-99 Page 19 Mr. Reyes: Thirty-inch leflers. He feels it is a personai hardship. From a financial standpoint, how do you identify the business and attract business. Disneyland deals with intemational travelers and travelers from all over the United States. Millie's does not have the name recognition that for example, a McDonaid's or Denny's. There are other single use type businesses but their signage is much closer to the street. Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: Millie's is set back further than some of the businesses on the street, however there are other business that are setback just as far that have the same requirements. The monument signs that they are putting up are primarily oriented towards the pedestrians as well as vehicies but those are probably even larger than what used to be there. Karen Dudley: Millie's Restaurant is actually an accessory use. It is a primary accessory use on the Fai~e~d Inn Hotel property. It is a manmade hardship in that it is a detached accessory restaurant to the hotel independently operated. Fai~eld Inn is the primary business that is identified on the monument sign and Millie's is identified as a secondary use on the properry. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked whether Millie's has the same size sign as the rest of the business along Harbor? Karen Dudley: They do not have a separate ground sign. They are sharing a ground sign with the Fai~eld Inn. Commissioner Bostwick: Why can't they have their own? Karen Dudley: Code only allows one ground sign for properties with this size of frontage. They are a tenant of Fai~eld Inn. Coreimissioner Boydstun: She drove by there on Saturday night and commented that as far back as that building sits that sign does not look out of proportion on that building. She agreed with the applicant that the sign is going to be hard to read. Mary McCloskey, Depuiy Planning Director: They could take a look at the dimensions of the sign, however the way it would have to be dealt with would be thro~!gh a code amendment to the sign letter heights within the cade. The signage program created for that resort, they hired a communications firm to come up with the overall signage hierarchy for the Resort and that is what they recommended. Karen Dudley: Pointed out that the taller the building the larger the letters get. Commissioner Koos: It was mentioned that there are oth~r buildings where their setbacks are just as far and asked if those bus;ness have already gone through the signage program. Karen Dudley: The signage program deals with ground (monument) signs. The wall signs on the uuildings are all subject to the 1999 date as legal nonconforming signage. Mr. F~eyes: They are not trying to amend the code or rewrite it, they are simply asking that they be given the same advantage and to take advantage of another summer. Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: Variances are not granted with time limits. You either have a hardship or not. The only way that it could be addressed without the hardship would be to look at the code and have that reexamined as to whether or not, if you're set back fu~ther from the street if that would warrant a larger lettering on the sign. Commissioner Bostwick: The applicant currently has nvo wall signs wifh 30 inch letters. He wondered whether Cc~mmission could waive it for one wall mounted sign with 30 inch letters? 01-04-99 Page 20 Karen Dudiey: They would be setting a precedent with 30 inch signs throughout the Resort and there wouid have to be a hardship to it. They would have to do a code amendment, it is the vehicle that should be used to allow the higher letters as opposed to the variance. Once a variance is granted then a precedent has been set in the area and the City would then have to view all of the requests for variances under the same criteria. Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: Her preference would be if Commission would like staff to examine that circumstance of higher lettering that they get someone who is an expert on signage to give an opinion as to whether it is needed or appropriate. Commissioner Bostwick: ~lsked how long that would take? - Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: She could not say off hand. They would have to figure out how much that would cost to do and get someone on board to do it. Commissioner Bostwick: Should this be continued? Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: She did not know whether the continuance would be what they should be looking at there. The waiver request stands on its own, whether or not there is a hardship or not to approve the waiver or not. Commissioner Bostwick: If the study comes out that property sitting back so many feet should have a larger letter sign then wouldn't it prove that this is a hardship? Mary McCioskey, Deputy P!anning Director: Then he would not need a waiver. If a sign consultant concluded that it should be for, example 30 inches then he would be allowed to have it by right. All the rest of the signage in the Resort would be allowed to have the exact same size. Essentially the code would be changed. Chairman Bristol: The applicant is also trying to extend the signs that he knows that he is not going to have, until December 1999. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked whether the Millie's sign was put ~p with a permit? Karen Dudley: There are two Millie's wall signs which are reversed-pan channel letter signs that are on the stucco wail. Those signs did have permits when they were originally installed. In July 1998 those signs were removed and relocated on the wall which at that point they lost their legal nonconforming status and became illegal because they installed them without permit which code requires that they have a permit. They installed two signs where the code only allows one. Anytime they change their signage out then they have to bring it more into compliance with the code. When they changed the fabric on their awning they installed a transparent mylar fabric and fixed letters adve~tising products or services which is prohibited by the code and advertising the generic name of restaurant on the canvas awnings, for 10 canvas awnings. Total they now have 12 wall signs, anywhere from 3#010 feet separation on the same building. The code only allows 1 18-inch maximum height sign, whether it be on the awning or on the building wall. The code also requires that all signs on the same parcel have a separation. But these signs happen to be closer than the required separation. 16 feet minimum separation is required. The applicant is asking for a request of the number of signs that are allowed by code, a waiver of prohibited signs and a waiver of the permitted sign matrix which sets forth the size, number, the lighting, the separation for all signs o~ the property. Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: Staff did inform them that those canopy signs could not be put up and they were put up anyway knowing that the code prohibfted it. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: They would like to take a look at the possibility, not for the canopy signs but with regard to the Millie's sign, to the possibility to be able to keep that on a variance finding. 01-04-99 Page 21 .~ _ The first one would be the distance setback from the street, the characteristic of fhe property. The second one woutd be depriving the prope~ty owner of benefits that other properties in same zoning classification have. This would only be for a period of one year because after December 31,1999 this property owner will no longer be depriv~d of anything that other property owners have. She would like to ensure that there is nothing in law that would preclude them from granting a temporary waiver based upon findings that will be temporary. They will only have that second condition as an available finding until December 31, 1999. She wanted to see if based upon that circumstance it would be possible for the Commission, if it so wished, to grant a waiver until December 31,1999. ' Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: !f Ms. Mann was to find that then staff would be supportive of that as well. Mr. Reyes: He thought it was fair and was in agreement. Mary McCloskey, Deputy Plan~ing Director: The canopy signs should come down immediately. Commissioner Bostwick: Offered a motion for a continuance to January 20,1999, seconded by Commissioner Esping and motion was carried. OPPOSlTION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 20,1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for the City Attorney's Office to look into the possibility, and ensure that there is nothing in the iaw that precludes, the Commission, if it so desires, from granting a temporary waiver based on findings that are of a ter~iporary nature. One of the findings could be based on the distance the building is set back from the street and another finding could be based on the property being deprived of the benefit of wall signage that other properties in the same zone classification currently have. However, the waiver would only be for a temporary period of one year since the Code requires all noncanforming signage on properties located along Harbor Boulevard in the Anaheim Resort to be removed by December 31,1999, and the property owner would no longer be deprived of signage that other property owners have when said properties remove said non-conforming signage. If such a temporary waiver is determined to be possible, the waiver would apply to the two wall signs only (c~nsisting of 3a-inch high reverse~pan cha~nel letters reading "Millie's") and not to the internally-illum~nated canopy signs. The signs or the canopies shall be removed immediately. The canopies may remain without signage and shall not be internally illuminated. VOTE: 6-0 {Commissioner Williams absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 24 minutes (2:39-3:03) 0'i-04-99 Page 22 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT I 1-20-99 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4068 (READVERTISED) 3d. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 98-04 OWNER: Joseph T. Kung and Emma W. Kung, 20866 E. Quail Run Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91789 LOCATION: 5555 - 5665 East Santa Ana Canyon Road - Imperial Canyon CeRter. Property is 5.03 acres located at the northwest corner of Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road, on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon . Road. Conditional Use Permit No. 4068 (Readvertised) - to permit the expansion of an existing 55,557 square foot, 45-unit, commercial center by adding 4,607 square foot to an existing building and the construction of a new 1-story 3,854 square foot building with 17 new units, for a totai of 62 units (o~ce, retail, financial and restaurant uses) with a total of 64,018 square feet with waivers af permitted number and type of commercial identification signs, minimum number of parking spaces, maximum structural height adjacent to a residential zone, minimum structural setback adjacent to a scenic highway and minimum structural and landscape setback adjacent to a local street. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 98-04 - to permit the removal of 1 eucalyptus tree. Continued from the Commission meetings of October 26, November 9, and December 7, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PE?MIT ~rSOLUTION N0. SR6923DS.DOC ~ FOLLOVIIING.tS A 5UMMARY OF'THE PLANNING, COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSI7'lON: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 20,1998 Planning Commission meeting in order ior the applicant to address concerns from neighbors and the Commission pertaining to site design, circulation, signage, and waiver issues. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Williams absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This '~tem was not discussed. 01-04-99 Page 23 4a. CEQA N~GATIVE DECLARATION ~ Continued to 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 1-20-99 4c. CONDITIONAL USE !~ERMIT N0. 4080 4d. DE1'ERMINATION r~F PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY N0. 98-09 OWNER: Anaheim Ball Landmark,1536 Stone Canyon Road, Los Angeles, CP. 90077 AGFNT: Travis Engineering, Attn: Karl Huy, 12453 Lewis Street #201, Gardei7 Grove, CA 82840 LOCATION: 1150 South Anaheim Boulevard - former podae dealership. PropErty is 1.18 acres located at the northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Ball Road. To construct a service station and convenience market wi!h retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption and an integrated fast food restaurant with a drive through lane with waivers of (a) permitted types of signs, (b) minimum distance between freestanding signs, (c) minimum landscape setback adjacent to an interior boundary line and (d) minimum number of parking soaces. To determine public convenience or necessity to ailow retail sales oi beer and wine for off-premises consumption in a proposed service station convenience market. Continued from the Commission meeting of December 21, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTION NV. SR6917DS.DOC Chairman Bristol: Stated, for the record, a letter from Travis Engineering was received requesting Item N~. 4 be continued ±o January 20, 19~9, OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to tfie Januar~ 20, 1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to further evaluate several conditions of approval recommended by staff. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissianer Williams absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 01-04-99 Page 24 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 5b. WAIVER O~ CODE REQUIREMENT 2_17_gg 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4075 OWNER: Raymond Runo Trust, Norma Hiliman, Dan Neyenhuis, Lillian Runo,1120 Kenwood Place, Fullerton, CA 92831 AGENT: David Jackson, 100 S. Anaheim Bivd., #125, Anah2im, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1575 West Mable Street - Fairmont Private Schools. Property is 0.89 acre located on the north side of Mable Street, 270 feet east of the centerline of Loara Street. To pemit the conversion of an existing 14,775 square foot industrial building into a private elementary and junior high schoo; addition to the existing Fairmont Private School with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the Commission meetings of November 23, December 7, and December 21, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR1092JK.DOC • • • • • • Chairman Bristol: Stated, for the record, a letter was received this morning from Pacific Westline Inc. ApplicanYs Statement: David Jackson, Executive Director of Fairmont Private Scliools: Sinc~ the last public hearing they have spent time reworking their proposal and have made several changes in response to their neighbors concerns ar•.d some of the misunderstandings from their first propusal. There were a few errors on the part of their architect and a few other things that he thought created the misunderstandings. Fairmont School is not requesting an increase in the number of students for the school. They are requesting a use of another building and some additional property and remaining with the number of students that they now have. Due to the large increase in traffic problems around the area due to the 5 Fwy., 91 Fwy. and construction of local streets. They do not think it would be prudent on their part to expand. There was a misunderstanding on the fences and on an easement that is on the property in question. That was an error. The architect indicated a fence but they do not have any intention of adding any fencing but will upgrade some of the existing fencing. They are not proposing to convert the back area into a playground area. They will be using that for additional parking and will be using it exclusively for employee parking. They now propose to use half of the building, the entire west side of the building for offices and will be consolidating their offices from other locations. It will give them a buffer between the industrial area and their existing students on the west side and pa~t of it on the north that they have not had before. They have not had a problem for 45 years since they have been at the location but they feel this would eliminate some of the concerns of the neighbors and greatly improve the situation. 01-04-99 Page 25 As to the traffic problem that has been brought up consistently, they do not feel it is fair in singling out that Fairmont School as the cause of this traffic. They have two periods of time when they generate a lot of traffic, at 8:00 a.m. and again at 3:00 p.m. and are attempting to address this. The traffic problem has been highly increased because of the traffic congestion caused by the construction around the area. They are currently working with Caltrans, O.C.T.A. and the City of Anaheim to institute several thin~s. They have already made some changes. At this point most of the tra~c to get on to the freeway, especiaily southbound on the 5 Fwy. ali has to enter through Loara Street which is just north of their properly. That is where their greatest problem is caused by that and also the increased traffic on Brookhurs! and Lincoln. They instituted some changes on their own to improve that. The only problem time that they have is from 7:45 a.m. to 8:10 a.m. They are assigning parents an earlier drop off time and giving them the incentive (which started today) of a free breakfast for students from 7:30 a.m. to 7:45 a.m. They are aiso continuing and expanding to pick up students in other areas with their school buses, so parents to not have to come into the area. They now offer free extendr:d day care after 7:45 a.m. to give parents more of an incentive to drop off children earlier. They have assigned several of the staff members be on the sidewalk to assist parents in aropping off their children to expedite the process. They added two more staff that they have assigned to patrol the areas in question that are causing some of their neighbors problems. One of ihe other things that has come up because of the concern in not converting that area into a playgro~nd, which they do not have to have is that it would give them an opportunity to close off some of their other playground ~rea and plant grass, a little less expensive instead of insiailinq turf. That will give them a 60% increase in the number of parking spaces than they now have. It will give them abo~at 55 more parking spaces than they really need for their employees and for all of lheir staff and others and will improve the traffic problem. There were 24 parking spaces, 12 at two different locations that are on leased property. Those are not required nor ones that they need to have but they went into a lease several years ago strictly as a convenience to their teachers and staff so they could park closer. They probably will not continue with that additional parking, although he would like to still negotiate with them for a few parking spaces. At to Fairmont taking over the Runo b~ilding (the building in questionsj it will furth~r improve the situation. It is currently a moving van storage facility that has a fair amount of large 19 wheeler truc4;s that eome to load and unload. ?hey have not been able to control the times ttiat ihey come in and of;en they wilf come in at the very worst time when they have drop off or pickup and block the street. They feel that this chanr~e will greatly improve their situation at Fairmont School. He mentioned a few corrections to the staff report. On page 7, Condition No. 7, regarding the trash storage. They have no intent of adding any additional trash storage. They already have adequate trash storaqe ard a compactor. It is costly and takes, up more space. The other item is on page 8, Condition No. 13; the hours of operation. Their hours have always been 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. as far as their extended day care. There is very little traffic at 7:00 a.m. and there is very little from approximately 4:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m, Opposition: John Maresca, 1933 E. Palm Ave., Orange, CA: He is an industrial broker and employed at Bryan Industrial Properties. He presents a number of tenants and owners in and around the applicanPs property 01-04-99 Pag2 26 at Fairmont School. Some of his clients include S&S Machinery, Sampson Motorcycle Products and neighboring property owner, Carol Jackson. In an effort to summarize the issues and concerns, these neighboring tena~ts and owners have requested a video presentation to be made to help outline their concerns. (He then presented a video presentation of approximately 4% minutes and submitted a copy of the video to Commission for the record. There was a 5 minute break to allow Mr. Maresca time to setup the video.] Still shots on the video were taken over the last 6 weeks. Even now the school can not control or maintain the drop-ofF and pickup of their children. All the video and photos have shown the continued dropping off of children within the ea~:;ment adjacent to the industrial buildings. He does not feel that by allowing the school to expand and get closer to the industrial uses that it will get better. The expansion site will allow them to increase the available parking. The parking issues are only part of the concern. Traffic flow and use are a major concern and an expansion into this facility will not resolve it. Approval of this CUP will send the school the wrong message - that continued expansion at this site is all right. Whether or not the school increases students at this time, this move is an expansion move. i he school is increasing employees and classrooms at the subject site and per their original CUP submittal the petitioner has even admitted that this was to be a multi-phase project. Que to recent concerns of the neighbors the petitioner has decided to take a more low key approach by making changes to the site. Even the suggested changes in plans that Mr. Jackson plans to implement just reconfirm the existence oF these concerns. The changes to do not fully take into account the needs of the neighboring owners and tenants. Some of the concerns are as follows: 1} The request by the petitioner will break up the integrity of an existing industrial building complex. Currently there are what one may term "natural" boundaries existing between the schoal and the existing industrial uses. The approval of this CUP and expansion into this facility will change that. With approval there will be a school facility directly open and adjacent to existing industrial uses. Staff recommends approval without any formal parking or traffic study. Unfortunately their decision is based on the petitioner's own parking study and the petitioner's reference to an outdated 1993 tra~c study, which makes no sense. The City i raffic Division recently added the words "KEEP CLEAR" at the intersection of Loara and Embassy because of traffic ccngestion and the inability of neighboring trucks and autos to make a left or right hand turn from Embassy. 2) There is a developer at the end of Mable that is looking at futura construction and development of a 5- plus acre site. 3) Loara School using the street area at Loara near Mable as a bus loading and unloading zone. 4) There is continued congestion and no through traffic along Mable during drop-off and pick-up time periods during the operations of the school. Traffic along the left hand turn lane at Broadway and Loara can often have as many as 30-plus vehicles attempting to make a left hand turn at one time. Some of the traffic has been due to the recent I-5 widening and freeway off-ramp work but this in no way should negate the need for the Commission tu require a formal tra~c end parking study from the petitioner. The. ~acts need to be obtained first before m~king a decision. 5) If the site was a freestanding buiiding with no applicable easements the request expansion site might be viewed as being similar to the schools past expansions but this is not the case. The existing easement ties this planned expansion facility with the neighboring industrial buildings. This approved expansian will affect the neighboring properties. A school will share a driveway and be openly adjacent to an industrial facility. Allowing this use next door will affect the future lease ability of the other indusirial buildings who share the same easement. The owners and tenants that he represents urge that Commission deny the conditional use permii for all the reasons mentioned and presented. At the very least before any final vote is taken it is urged that the 01-04-99 Page 27 Commission require an independent parking and traffic study and a new plan and sch2dule for students drop-off and pickup. Gerald Knutson, on behalf of Bryan Industrial Properties, Inc. and the R.S. Hoyt Jr. Family Trust: They have an interest in the prope~ty at 220 S. Loara, which is the easement area, and in 7 buildings on Embassy Street industrial area which is impacted by this proposed project. He stated the 75% parking waiver, 575.1 parking spaces are required by code,150 are provided pursuant to the waiver, with a 425 reduction in parking space and has the questionable distinction of being the biggest waiver without factual basis that he is aware of. There is no documentation which ,provides a basis for the waiver. The parking waiver and 75% reduction (425 space reduction) is based solely on the letter from Mr. Jackson as Executive Director of the Fairmont Private Schools. Mr. Jackson stated his letter is a supplement to the earlier parking study but that study has no applicability to this project. The study is only valid if the proposed expansion shown in the 1993 report had been made bui it did not happen. That study was for a proposed plan that was never carried out and offers no factual or other basis for this application now before Commission. The 1993 study contemplated a growth in students from 550 to 1,015 based on a site plan indicated by 2 exhibits which he had with him. They called for a complete closure of Mable, construction of 2 cul-de- sacs, purchase of a portion of the railroad property to the east and conversion of existing industrial buildings to classrooms. The 1993 study contemplated closing Mable to through traffic, the current plan proposed by the school is to have students dropped off on Mable Street. It is contrary to the 1993 study, and by itself, the use of Mable as a drop-off zone requires a traffic study. There was no s~.ibstantial compliance with the plan in which the study was based. It should also be noted that the Anaheim parking ordinance was thereafter adopted on August 26, 1996. The 1993 study was based on 226 on-site parking spaces, not 150, and no use of the multi-purpose room or gymnasium for assembly. The 1993 study was used for an entirely different project and cannot be used as justification for this project. There is no evidence except for the unsupported opinions of Mr. Jackson that anything the school is going to do will eliminate traffic problems. There is no study as to the extent and source of truck use of the easement area or iPs impact on the surface streets. He read Section 18.06.080 of the Anaheim Code and stated there was no parking study prepared by an independent engineer as required by this section. He also stated that Mr. Jackson's letter dated December 21, 1998 is inaccurate because it states that there will be 46 classrooms after expansion but there will be 40, that there are 75 additional spaces available to existing industrial facility parking iots for special events, but he doesn't state what right Fairmont has to use those spaces. He stated whiie the parking waiver is factually unsupported and granting it would violate the Anaheim Code, there is the more serious problem of mixing children and heavy vehicles. He elaborated on traffic hazards, congestion, water usage analysis/impact. He also referred to a prior case Sunstrom vs. The County of Mendicino, Public Resources Code Section 21080 and the CEQA Guidelines 15070 about the way a Commission can make a determination. He stated the Commission cannot make this determination in the absence of relevant data, there is no traffic impact study, water impact study is expressly deferred, no discussion of noise impacts, or air quality impacts. The original proposal by the school stated lhat in 1%: to 2 years the maximum student count would increase to 795. The revised letter from the school did not state that this increase will not occur nor did Mr. Jackson say that it was not possible in the future. He stated the letter in December states they are not exFanding enroliment at this time, it appears expansion within 2 years is likely and has not been deleted from the plan. It should be a condition that no student in excess of 695 be allowed. He feels Fairmont is "piece-mealing" a multi-stage project and under CEQA it is improper to piece meal projects to avoid dealing with the cumulative imoacts. James Tweedt, represented American Nationai Properties,142 South Alex St., Anaheim, CA: American National Properties is purchaser of a 5-acre parcel near Embassy Street. He stated they were never notified ~bout the meetings eve~ though they are within the required zone and asked to be notified of all future actions. He feels there is a tremendous traffic problem. He stated that at the last meeting Mr. Jackson stated he was going to contact the existing property owners where there was a problem before he made his staff report but no one ever contacted them. They would like to work out a solution to the 01-04-99 Page 28 traffic problems. He feels it stems from the fact that there is not enough parking for the schooi. Before this goes any further the traffic problem should be addressed. They will be building approximately 200,000 square feet of industrial space, it will bring considerable traffic of its own and they plan to cnnform to all of the parking requirements. They have had some prospective tenants indicate that they cannot use this site because of the congestion period in the moming and afternoon. He wants to meet with Mr. Jacksan and the Traffic Division to find a solution. Expansion of the school without adequate parking is not the solution. Gary Knutson: Stated that what Mr. Tweedt said is a cumulative impact that needs to be considered. He stated he made a mistake iYs 36 not 46 spz:es in Mr. Jac~~on's letter. ApplicanPs Rebuttal: David Jackson: He made it clear that they have no plans of expanding. Chairman Bristol: Advised Mr. Jackson that the neighbors are concerned with the traffic problem and now they are going to address it whether he puts in a 200 square foot or 14,000 square foot building. They are indicating that he is intensifying the school use in an industrial area. David Jackson: They feel it will improve the traffic, parking, all the different issues that others are saying, plus it will give them a greater buffer area between student use. They now want to use only part of the property, which is a much smaller part of their original proposal. He feels they are improving the situation because they have added parking spaces, not taken away, and not adding more business. He stated that they are not making any changes with the use of the easement because they can't, they'd have to fight in court over it. Regarding the 75 parking spaces, he said that is part of his property, part of the 150 combined with everything. Also, the 75% parking waiver is consistent in other cities and schuols that have assembly areas that are not used. He said that all the assemblies they have are limited to a small group of parents in the evening and weekends, usually Friday evenings. The closing of Mable Street and purchase of the railroad property are things that they have looked at and are not part of this application. He said that they wo~~ld not expand into a high school because it is not for the best interest for the school and neighbors so the~~ put a high school in another location. They have no intentions of having a high school there. Regarding the concern about expanding by 100 students, they know they can't do that because of all the rules and laws on their CUP, they can't expand past 695 without going through a whole hearing. They're not going to do that until they can see that they can improve on the traffic. They have about a year and a half before the construction is done to where they could look at that and they probably won't do that because of other plans that they have. Chairman Bristol: Asked if anybody eise wanted to speak. Ronald Friendt: He stated that Mr. Jackson is trying 4o use a parking study for something that is different from what he is doing today. He also stated that Mr. Jackson said he feels tha; they're doing what is best to help with traffic impacts. He said the City of Anaheim Ordinance requires a study by a licensed traffic engineer and Mr. Jackson's feelings about what this is going to do for parking does not substitute for what the City of Anaheim Ordi~ance requires. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Bristol: Asked staff about the traffic study. Alfred Yalda: Stated Traffic Engineering requires a traffic study when any project generates more than 100 trips dur!ng the p.m. peak hour. This project does not. The addition requires 39 parking spaces and the applicant is providing 57; he is providing 21 more parking spaces. The total required parking for the site is 124 and in this case they have 150. The passing of the "flashing red light" has caused a drast?c increase in congestion around all the schools in the City of Anaheim. Every time a school bus stops and turns on iYs flashing lights, everyone in either 01-04-99 Page 29 c+irection must stop and the Police Department enforces that law. Two other elementary schools in the area are also affected by this law and have also experienced added congestion. Also, the construction on the 5 Fwy., Santa Ana Street closure and 91 Fwy. have drastically increased the traffic on Broadway and Loara. They try to move the traf ~c when this happens but it is a temporary situation. Every schoal ha . congestion and there is nothing you can do to alleviate that because the parents pick up the children and leave. Th~ problem will always be there, he can't find any solution. There is congestion and when you add a flashing red light it adds to it. Commissioner Boydstun; Statec' that she was at the schoo~ over the weekend and noticed that they had the access from Broadway to Mable Street to the east of the playground. David Jackson: Advised that it was their main parking lot and they don't allow traffic to go through there onto Mable Street. The gates are closed on Mable during any pickup time. When the school bus situation changed they made changes to help the situation, all the busses enter onto their own property and pick- upldrop-off students so they will not impact the traffic at that time. Commissioner Boydstun: Suggested if those going west on Broadway made a right turn and dropped off the children in that lot, !hen went out to Mable and made a right to get back an Broadway, that would alleviate some of the congestion away from Loara and Mable. David Jackson: Advised that they looked into it but feel it would be more dangerous for them to turn on and off from Broadway. A major change that they are doing now is to change the times that parents are dropping off children in the morning. They are spreading it over a longer period of time. It is just a 15 - 20 minute time span when the traffic is bad. They are offering incentives. If that does not solve the congestion problem enough, then they are going to institute mandatory pick-up and drop-off times for families. Chairman Bristol: Asked why it is dangerous on Broadway. David Jackson: Stated that is where the busses pick up. If they did that, they would have to relor,ate the busses plus they would be driving through the parking lot. Due to the new law, when you are loading and unloading children on busses, even on private property, they cannot drive and have to wait. So in the afternoon they load the busses then they leave, then they release the rest of the students. They find that it is normally yuite successful but with the freeway on-ramp closures and diverted traffic, they were not made aware of it in time to institute other changes. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated that it has greatly increased the tra~c on Loara because people found they can use Broadway, turn on Loara then get on the freeway, none of that traffic ~~as there before. She asked Mr. Yalda if there was parking on bath sides of Mable Street. Alfred Yalda: Parking is allowed on some portions and not on others. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if it would help if there was no parking on one side of the street. Alfred Yalda: Generally they work with all the property owners and in this case they would be happy to work with the school and property owners to discuss the parking and try to improve the situation. David Jackson: Advised that they have restricted parking on all of their property during the hours af drop- off and pick-up time and it has improved the traffic flow. Chairman Bristol: He asked Mr. Jackson if he met with all the people that have spoken today as he indicated previously that he would? David Jackson: He apologized to M~•. Tweedt for not getting together and said that they worked together before for joint use of his property. He said that they would have liked to purchase his prope~ty ar,d put a football/baseball f eld on there but they can't afford it. 01-04-99 Page 30 Chairman Bristol: He is concerned that Mr. Jackson has not contacted neighbors and discussed the traffic situation with them. David Jackson: He stated that he knows that he needs to do that and his main opposition is from Bryan Industries, Mr. Hoyt. He said that Nfr. Hoyt told him that no matter what they do, he is going to fight them. He infurmed his legal council that he wanted to meet with Mr. Hoyt, but his legal council advised him to do it after the meeting. Chairman Bristol: Stated that Mr. Hoyt is going to add 200,000 square feet to an industrial area where it fits, Mr. Jackson should speak to him as a neighbor and see how iYs going to fit. David Jackson: He wasn't aware of anyone that is unable to come onto Embassy and into the pmperty. He said that he has had discussion with Mr. Tweedt about doing that but expects opposition from tenants on Embassy if they do. The school is trying to address it with the use of busses and timing to get them to where they don't create the traffic. The majority of the heavy traffic is created by everyone trying to get onto the freeway and going down Loara. He said they have a 15 to 20 minute span of time where there is congestion, if they can break it down into other areas and alleviate that they intend to do it, ar they will start losing students because parents don't want to fight the traffic. Chairman Bristol: Asked Mr. Jackson if he would be willing to stagger his hours at the school, to get people off the street and direct them in one direction so they don't impact Mable. David Jackson: Said yes. First they wanted to work with parents so it doesn't disrupt the school day, if it didn't work they would stagger the school day. The biggest problem is that 1/3 of students came in on bus which makes it hard to stagger the hours. They feel that what they are doing now will work and may take a few more days. Chairman Bristol: Advised that hopefully it will be better ~vhen the 5 Fwy, is completed. But in the meantime Mr. Jackson should sit down with his nEiglibors. David Jackson: He said that he will sit with them. He said that he has spoken to all the tenants around and overall have had pretty good relationships with everyone and he wants it to continue that way. Commissioner Koos: Said he had a problem with the use itself. He said he couldn't think of anything less compatible than having children in an industrial zone. He sees this as a chipping away of this long established industrial zone. It has been on the books in the General Plan as a manufacturing and industrial zone for decades. He said that it is clear that the school's goal is eventually to grow. The long range planning for the City says that it is an industrial park. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: There were a number of legal issues raised by the opposition. One was about the traffic study not having been submitted in conjunction with the traffic waiver. The comment made was correct, City code requires a traffic study for a parking wai~~er to be considered and a parking waiver was advertised for this particular project. The staff report indicates a parking waiver was submitted but what was submitted was a letter and not samething prepared by the original tra~c engineer updating a letter that was prepared by someone else. She is not certain that it meets the intent of what the code requires. The only nxception is where the code requirement is 10% or less or if the waiver involves 30 or fewer spaces. Neither are applicable in this instance. Other comments about CEQA and the applicability of a negative declaration: the negative declaration recammendation by staff is based on information available to them and Planning Commission has the hearing to receive evidence from the public. It may be that evidence received from the public indicates that a negative declaration is not appropriate. Regarding the deferral of a future traffic study, while the Sundstrom Case requires that studies be done in conjunction with the project, case law has also permitted an exception to that where there is a study thaPs in a limited arsa and mitigation is required. This is the case with regard to the water issues and it is up to the Planning Commission to make a determination based upon the evidence ss to whether the project as 01-04-99 Page 31 designed mitigates the impacts that have been identified both in the staff report and in evidence presented to ihe Commission. Cheryl Flores: Stated that Mr. Tweedt was not notified because his property, the abandoned railroad right-of-way has no AP number. He was advised to let staff know the AP number in writing so that future notifications can be sent to him. Chairman Bristol: He stated that they are looking at an environmentai issue and traffic issue and according to the City attorney they are in need of a traffic study for a parking waiver. Commissioner Bostwick: Stated that if they are not increasing the amount of students and there is no further activity, not enlarging the school by way of the student body but by way of the physical structure, it doesn't cause more trips per day. Selma Mann: Stated that this project could have been approached as a separate CUP as an adjunct to an existing school. If what they are looking at is parking for this particular use, this particular use would not have required a parking waiver. They are not looking at it as a separate project, they are looking at it as an expansion of an existing project and as an expansion, they are looking at the totality. Another concern is if they were just taking little pieces, they would have a legitimate concern that they were "piece mealing" the project so as not view the impacts of the whole. She can see that this is an improvement of an existing situation but it doesn't obviate the reason for a study that is required by code for an advertised parking waiver. Commissioner Bostwick: Advised that he was torn and would like to see them have the facilities because it will improve the schooi and there couid be a requirement that there be no additional students as one of the conditions, but Commission can't do that according to what has been presented today. They can't approve it today in iPs present condition. Chairman Bristol: Siated iYs the traffic circulation more than the parking that is the problem. The circulation is the major problem and no one has addressed ii. He feels they need the study. David Jackson: He stated that because of the opposition he sees now, it is doubtful that the school will ever expand. They have improved the parking by 60% and have been operating for years without complaints. He feels they are being attacked for things that are not their fault. He feels that what they are doing is improving the situation on Mable Street. They can't improve the traffic on Loara because that is not their doing. The problem is that for a few minutes some of the traffic from the school is driving onto the neighbors property. He said that they are trying to eliminate that. Chairman Bristol: At the last public hearing Mr. Jackson had indicated that he would contact the neighbors but he didn't. There nEeds to be a traffic studv to get the CUP for the expansion. Uavid Jackson: The one major complaint has been from the one owner that said there was no point in talking to him about it because he was going to fight him na matter what happens. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked Mr. Jackson if he would like a continuance to complete a parking study snd contact some of the neighbors. Alfred Yalda: Stated that the Traffic Engineer does not require a traffic or parking study. He asked if they were requesting the applicant to do a traffic and parking study? Commissioner Boydstun: Stated a traffic study. Chairman Bristol: The specific parcels that they have a right to park in need to be identified Alfred Yalda: Perhaps they should have them do a combination traffic/parking study. 01-04-99 Page 32 Commissioner Bostwick: Offered a motion for a continuance to Feb~uary 17,1999, seconded by Commissioner Esping and motion was carried. Selma Mann: Requested fhat the applicant also address in writing some of the environmental issues that were raised. Chairman Bristol: Agreed. OPPOSITION: 4 people spoke in opposition to subject mquest. A video tape was submitted. ACTION: Continued subject request to the February 17,1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to submit a traffic/parking study and for the applicant to meet with his neighbors to discuss their concerns. VOTE: 6-C {Commissioner Williams absent) DISCUSSION TIfJIE: 1 hour and 18 minutes (3:04-4:22) 01-04-99 Page 33 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4086 Granted for 2 years OWNER: Armando C. & Mirta L. Hernandez,18751 Patrician, (To exp~re 1-4-20~1) Villa Park, CA 92861 AGENT: Hope House, Inc., Attn: Marc Corradini, 707 N. Anaheim Bivd., Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 710-714 North Anaheim Boulevard - Hope House. Property is 0.34 acre located on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard,134 feet north of the centerline of Wilhelmina. To permit the expansion of an existing alcohol and drug rehabilitation center to an adjacent property. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ~CESULUTION N0. PC99-3 091J • • • • • • (Commissioner 8oydstun declared a con8icf of interest.J ApplicanYs Statement: Marc Corradini: 707 North Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA: They are requesting a conditional use permit to expand their residential program at 710 North Anaheim Boulevard. He addressed the nature and history of the services provided at Hope House and explained the 3 phase program and how it works. He reviewed the 17 conditions that the staff recommended and was in agreement with rhe recommendations. THE PUB! IC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Bristol: Asked about the parking from the auto repair shop property directly south of 710 North Anaheim Boulevard. He said he was there in the morning and there were several of cars that were in the back the residence and asked if they had a reciprocal agreement. Marc Corradini: Stated he had no authority until he secures the lease fro;n the owner, but when they do they are going to use a portion of that for a fenced in backyard with picnic t~bles for the clients so they can read etc. There will be 10 parking spaces with the rest. Commissioner Napoles: Stated he was at the property at 10:00 a.m. and found cars parked on ihe side. He stated that he went to talk to the person next tu 710 and he told him that he did not have any problems with the home. He asked Mr. Corradini if he should have 3 bathrooms instead of 2 because they have 16 beds? Marc Corradini: Advised per the State of California, the formula is 3 clients per to!let/sink and shower. The Health Care is going to fund 10 beds and that is all they intend to do at this time. The State monitor told him to apply for 16 because if they get other funding it will save them from doing this a second time. The State who licenses and certifies them is totally satisfied witn the configuration of thE bedrooms and bathrooms. They are c~oing to redo the bathrooms. Currently they have toilets and sinks and a space in each room. They are going to 5uild showers in both with one of them being A.D.A. in order to comply with wheelchair accessibility. 01-04-99 Page 34 Commissioner Napoles: Asked if they were going to do a complete rehabilitation7 Marc Corradini: Stated yes the bathrooms will be redone. Commissioner Napoles: Asked if they are going to keep the glass windows as they are? Marc Corradini: Stated they will comply with whatever Commission requires of them. The State will reauire drapes, carpets, specific dimensions within the bathroom for A.D.A. They need to know the proper number of beds and linens etc. If the City has some other considerations as far as the types of windows then they will accommodate the City. Chairman Bristol: Stated that one of the staff members advised tnat the Commission may want to restrict the use for a couple of years so that they may review this and see how they are going to work with the repair shop regarding parking. Marc Cnrradini: Advised that he would like to move forvvard. Chairman 6ristol; Advised he could but it would only be a 2 year permit. Marc Corradini: He said it was fine. He knows the source of the cars and, as a neighbor next to that lot, would like to see it cleaned up. He is not against it and will make certain that iYs done. There are things going on in the lot that he does not want next door to him. Commissioner Bostwick: Advised that he had a concern about only 2 bathrooms for 16 beds. Even though the state said iPs permissible, he asked what Anaheim's Buiiding Code is for the number of bathrooms per bedrooms? Cheryl Flores: Stated that according to Building Division, they are fine based on the Anaheim Code, however it varies based on the classification of occupancy. It would take some further review to be positive on the requirement. Chairman Bristol: Stated that this site has been there for a long time and according to staff report there have been no problems. Cheryl Flores: Advised that according to the Police Uepartment statistics, there were 14 calls for service during the past year, January 98 to January 99. She offered list of types of calls. Chairman Bristol: Asked if it was in their packet. Cheryl Flores: She stated !hey received the information during the lunch hour. Marc Corradini: Advised calls for service are normally for a client for 5150 and on occasion need to ask for support of the Police Department. Cheryl Flores: Stated report indicated 3 tra~c collisions, one assault and battery, one ma~icious mischief, two suspicious circumstances, one suicide attempt, one assist other department, one mental case, one shots heard either from this property or on this property, and one keeping the peace. Of the 14 one was gang related. Marc Corradini: Stated that he knew of all those instances and they are not Hope House people they are things that have happene~ in the area. He said they run a clean type program and do not have people that are in or out, they are following the rules or they are out of the program. If he sees a drunk come by who has nothing to do with their program and lays down on the lawn he calls tlie police because he doesn't want it to reFlect on their program. He said the calis are generally from them being a good 01-04-99 Page 35 neighbor. There have been two ~r three 5150 calls requiring assistance with clie~ts who were very depressed. Chairman Bristol: P.sked what 5150 meant? Marc Corradini: Means the person is talking as if they want to hurt themselves and a; that point Hope House has a legal obligation to have them in a locked facility and the only quick and appropriate way is with the Police assistance. Cheryl Flores: Recommending Condition No. 4 ~an be deleted. It does not seem feasible to put a fence along the south property line due to the access nepded into the garage area for th~ property to the south. Condition No. 9 can also be deleted, it is not necessary to have a truck turnaround area on-site. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked if it was in the alleyway? Cheryl Fiores: Yes. To clarify Condition No.11, ~,;ans submitted for building permits should indi~aia removal of the 3 parking spaces adjacent tc the south property line. If the parking spaces are there, it would obstruct access onto the auto repair site to the south. Chairman Bristol: Asked Mr. Corradini if he understood that because the auto repair shop cannot get to their site unless tliey go through those 3 spa~es? Marc Ccrradini: Stated he wants to de what is right, ~ut there are cars with people sleeping in them and he does not want that next to his arogram. He wanted to put a ~ence that would restrict a certain area and he w~~ told that they would get together with him and talk about how far down would be appropriate to allow them to access the front bay of their building and not landlock them, but will go along with the City recommendation. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4086 for 2 years with the following changes to conditions: Deleted Condition Nos. 4 and 9. Modified Condition Nos.11 an;112 to read as follows: 11. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his review and approval shov;ing conformance with the current version of Engir,;Qring Standard Plan Nos. 438, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. Plans submitted for building permits shall indicate the removal o~ the three parking spaces adjacent to the south property line. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and rr~aintained in conformance with said plans. 12. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses and that the parking stalls shall be marked "for tenant use only". Added the followin5 condition: 01-04-99 Fage 36 That subject use permit fs hereby approved for a period of 2 years, to expire on January 4, 2001. VOTE: a-0 (Commissioner Boydstun declared a con.'lict of interest and Commissioner Williams was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 18 minutes (4:23-4:41) 01-04-99 Page 37 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Contin 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQlUIREMENT 2_~_gy 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4088 OWNER: Gilbert Ball Partners LP, 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1050, Irvine, CA 92612 AGENT: Meta Housing Corporation, Attn: Sean Clark, 4100 W. Alameda Ave., #z05, Burbank, CA 91505 LOCATION: 935 South Giibert Street. Property is 0.8 acre located on the west side of Gilbert Street, 203 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road. To construct a 37-u; affordable senior citizen apartment complex with a density bonus with waiver of (a) minimc;rn building site area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum structural height, (c~ :ninimum landscape setback, (d) minimum structural and lan~scaped setback adjacent to a collector street, (e) minimum side yard setbacic, (~ required eievators, (g) minimum pedestrian access, (h) location of private storage areas and (i) minimum required affordable units. CQNDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. to • • • s • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subJect request to the February 1, 1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to submit revised plans. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Williams absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. a1-04-99 Page 38 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 8b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 360 Denied 8c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 98•99•08 Denied 8d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part 8e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4084 Granted, in part 8f. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 8a. 8c. 8d and 8e No action OWNER: Gene A. Condra & Lillian A. Condra, c/o Darrell Condra of the Lillian Condra Trust,1179 Sunning Dale Road, Lake Oswego, OR 97034 AGENT: Ariel L. Valli,19700 Fairchild, Suite 230, Irvine, CA 92612 LACATION: 1631 South Euclid Street - Southern California Edison Easement. Property is 6.1 acres located on the ~' west side of Euclid Street, 220 feet south of the centerline of Cris Avenue. General Plan Amendment No. 360 - to redesignate this property from the I_ow Density Residertial land use designation to the General Commercial land use dasignation. Reclassification No. 98-99-08 - to reclassify this property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited} Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 4084 - to permit an outdoor recreational vehicle and boat self-storage facility with an on-site manager's office/living unit with waiver of (a) maximum fence height, (b) minimum landscaping for fences/blockwalls and (c) minimum setback adjacent to residential zones. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. P~99-4 RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC99-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTlON N0. PC99-6 SR7372KP.DOC • • e s • s (ITEM NOS. 1-8 ANp 8 WERE HEARD TOGETHER.] (Commissioner Esping declared a conflict of interest.] Chairman Bristol; Stated for the record that they received a letter from Jeff Farano. Chairman Bristol: Announced that Item No. 1-B and Item No. 8 are going to be heard together. ApplicanPs Statement: Paul Kott, Realtor,1225 West Lincoln Avenue, Anahoim, CA: He assists property owners by advising what is the best use for their property. !-le gave a description of how he helps people evaluate properry for use. He gave general location of property and stated that if it were not for tne Souihern California Edison easement, this property would probably have been developed Icng ago. The size, 6.2 acres and narrow 01-04-99 Page 39 irregular rectangular shape prevents it from being a viable development site for over 95% of uses currently aliowed within the CL Zone. The staff report implies that there is a concentration of self storage, it doesn't create jobs or generate sales tax. He stated this is an unfair depiction of the proposal. They are requesting approval for storage of recreational vehicies, boats, motorcycies and personal watercraft alone. He researched all other RV facilities in Orange County, and there are only 4. It will create jobs for onsite staff, also, he asked considering the characteristics of the property, what other kind of business could staff recommend that would generate tax revenue. The owner has contacted neighbors within a 300 foot radius to get feedback. Approximately 20 resident attended a meeting and all feedback was positive. He read a letter from one of the resident supporting the project. He also spoke to WAND representatives, Esther Wallace and Judith Gollette and they support the project. Jeff Farano, 2300 East Katella Suite 235 Anaheim, CA: He is representing the applicant. "e discussed the zoning and the concerns the staff may have to reclassify this to Commercial Limited. If this project was not built under the proposed plan, what would happen in future? The staff report indicates that if this 6 acres were built out commercially, it would generate more traffic, no;se and other probiems. Because of the irregular shape of the project the only thing available commercially is on the front of Euclid. They have previously proposed deed restrictions on property that has been difficult to deal with in which the City could be named as a beneficiary to a deed restriction stating the property shall only be built limited to a particular use. He suggested a code amendment that allows the type of use under a conditional use permit under RS-A- 43,000 so they would not have to change the zoning. If staff wants to impose conditions, or change the proposed language they do not have a problem with that. He just asks that if they go with a code amendment he wants to continue and paraliel the CUP with this process, send them on to City Council for their approval but he would also like to consider this project into the CUP so they don't have to wait for that to go through and start over. If they approve the language that is proposed, the code amendment going on to City Council as well as this CUP could be approved on the condition that the City Council adopt that code amendment. He addressed the following proposed conditions: • Condition 2 tha~ CUP would terminate in 2002-he said developers will not develop a properfy with only a 3 year CUP, then tie the CUP to say that if the power lines are no longer built there then the CUP expires. • Condition 3 page 11 - t~ require them to put a cul-du-sac at the end of a public road. There are only 6 properties on the cul-du-sac and this properiy is not affecting that traffic. • No. 5- they want low level lighting below the fence unless there is a breach of security after hours and would like some 10 foot poles to have lighting. • Item 10 - regarding mature landscaping that must be preserved. They are going to leave the existing home and landscaping around the home but want to clear the lot that they are going to build on. They want to remove that condition so that they don't have a problem. • Item 13 regarding propane tanks or dumping stations - They will have a dumping station at the beginning as you come in off the property only Far people who store RV's there. It will not have public access. They would like to see the condition modified to say tl~ere wili be no public propane tanks or no public dumping stations permitted on the property to allow them to do the holding tank emptying for the people that are renting spaces. • No. 23 - They would like to see a maximum height of 12 feet but applicant is willing to make it lower if staff desires. + No. 25 - Would like modification to include personal motor craft and motorcycles. • No. 29 - No storage of inoperable vehicles, ~NOUId like to modify to say no salvage vehicles on-site. Some other conditions that are ~ot on the report that they are willing to consider to address staffs concern is parking along the northern wall will be limited to vehicl~s that are lower than the height of the wall. Another proposed restriction would be not to permit any business to be operated out of the storage area. Mil<e Brittingham: 1615 South Pounders Lane, Anaheim, CA. He does not oppose the project. He asked iF the dump stati~n was a septic tank or holding tank, or go down to a main sewer line? He is worried 01-04-99 Page 40 about spilis in a holding tank. He likes idea of lights being on a sensor so that after closing hours they go on a dimmer. I-le advised that he would not like to see this classified as a commercial project because if it falis through he does not want something else moving in there. Chairman Bristol: He asked Mr. Brittingham if he thought the nursery is more noisy than a storage place would be? Mike Brittingham: He feels with the wall being there, it will cut down on the railroad noise. Regarding the concern from staff about the diesel powered tractor there on site, he said that he feels it would be better off to have a vehicle there with someone knowing how to operate it to pull trai!ers etc. He doesn't feel there will be diesel noise, no more than the normal hours. Jesse Duarte, 1726 Vl~est Chris, Anaheim, CA Speaks on behalf of himself and in-laws who live at 1608 South Varna. Some past problems with nursery are traffic, and burgiaries because nursery is used as a walkway to get into neighborhood. He feels this new project will get rid of those problems. Also, tra~c coming in at both sides of Chris off of Euclid are Iarger older trucks that go into the nursery and have concern with the children's safety. Also, trash that falis out of trucks as they go by. There is a major problem on Varna where trucks leave big tracks on the streets. [He submitted photos.] As of today there is a pile of trash almost 10 feet high. In 1996 there was a petition circulated through the neighborhood. They received a letter back from the City that the complaints would be forwarded to Code Enforcement but to this day no one has checked this out or notified to the neighbors. There are alsa dumpsters that can be seen over the fence. He supports the project. They did speak with the neighbors in the area and let them know what happened and told them that they were supportive. Mr. Farano has had an open line of communication with everyone in the neighborhood. He is a boat owner and is definitely going to look into using the facility. He feels the project will definitely beautify the area. ApplicanPs Rebuttal: Jeff Farano: As far as working on vehicles, there will not be any working on vehicles on the property Ariel Valley, 19700 Fairchild, Iriine, CA: Stated he is the architect for the project. If the preference is to connect the septic tank from the house to a sewer system then it can be done. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer : If the applicant desires to go toward with the sewer dump station then lhe Public Works Department would request that this matter be continued for them to provide more details on the dump station because they have serious concerns such as how many vehicles would be able to dump at one time? What would the operation be? They have serious concerns of sewer capacity in central Anaheim. Commissioner Bostwick: He did not feel this use would impact the sewer capacity significantly Melanie Adams: Suggested Commission place a restriction of one station and that there would not be multiple stations throughout the development. Jeff Farano: They are willing to do that. Regarding Varna Street, currently there is a driveway at the end of the cul-de-sac to go through a parcel onto ihe easement which they access. That will no longer be there and will be closed o(f. Thereafter, the only access will be at the front of the building off of Euclid. The home will remain in existence, it will be remodeled. They have no plans to do anyth'sng with the other parcel which is being bought as part of parcel three. Chairrtian Bristol: Asked about voting on item no.1-B. Mr. Farano requests that Commission go forward with it. 01-04-99 Page 41 Selma Ivlann, Assistant City Attorney: It could be considered concurrently. The recommendatiore was for denial but what was previously being processed was a General P1an Amendment and a Reclassification that was processed concurrently with the CUP. The CUP was conditioned upon the General Plan Amendment and the Reclassification being finalized. Certainly the process could be used. Staff s concern is that the analysis on Item No. 8 was done with referer~ce to the CL standards and not to the RS- A-43,000 standards. They would require a continuance in order to evaluate the project assuming that the Planning Commission approves the proposed ordinance that would authorize these uses subje~t to a CUP. They would still need to meet whatever the zoning requirements are for RS-A-43,000 as opposed to CL but it need not be a continuance until the ordinance is finalized. Commissioner Bostwick: Could Commission pass a motion approving the code amendment and then continue the CUP for two weeks? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Staff would prefer a minimum of four weeks, if they need to consider the appeal period in conjunction with the adoption of the code amendment which she deferred to Ms. Mann. They would like to know if Southern California Edison has approved the site plan that has been presented. There is no clarity on that yet. They want to evaluate the site plan according to the RS-A-43,000 standards and also compare it to the potential code amendment. 7hey would like to clar?fy that the fences particularly on the north property line whether the new block wall will be provided only where there is chain link now or whether new block walls will be built abutting ihe existing block walis? The issues regarding signage, she was not certain how much signage, if any, the applicant wanted, They would be limited in the RS-A-43,000 Zone. Regarding landscaping along the railroad track, they would like to see more landscaping in that area. They wrote their other issues in the staff report regarding the compatibility versus commercial and residential uses. Jeff Farano, Applicant: On the S.C.E, easement issue, they spoke with S.C.E. about this and have not received any objections to their proposal. They do not believe that there are going to be any problems. On the block wall, they are going to build en entire new block wall around the whole facilitv, Commissioner Bostwick: He thoughi building a new block wall would be a good idea. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Staff had issues regarding the development of the detached condos on Muiler Street, Where some of the RS-72~0 Zone properties are they did not want their existing block wall removed and t:, take precautions whenever there are two abutting block walls ihat the top be capped to prevent space. Jeff Farano, Applicant: It appears to be a building code problem that they can address with the Building Division at the time that we do this. The signage permitted, in the RS-A 43,000 is acceptable to his client and will not need additional signage. There are vines being requested as landscaping along the railroad track. It is 1,200 feet of space along the railroad tracks and they are not certain how necessary it is really going to be to plant vines along the whole railroad track. They are not proposing to do that at this time. Commissioner Bostveick: He visited the site this morning and spoke with the person who currently leases it for the nursery. He indicated tn him that there is gang activity along the south fence along the railroad tracks. Perhaps vines may help discourage that activity. Jeff Farano: He was not certain that the vines were going to discourage the gang activity. As a security measure there will be motion sensor lights around the property. Regarding a continuance of this item, the application has been pending for now almost a year and another four weeks would delay the project further cause a financial hardship on the applicant. The application for the code amendment is not anything new, and it has been pending for awhile. 01-04-99 Page 42 They have suggested language under Item No. 6 to the staff report and if it is acceptable to Commission to recommend that as the amendment to the application, and if the CUP is approved today, subject the compliance with these conditions on that item then there is no reason to continue this item. But if Commission does not agree with the language on ltem No. 6 and decides to make some changes in the drafting, then it will have to be reviewed all over again. He thought Commission can at least approve the CUP subject to the City Councii adopting that co~e amendment. The applicant is willing to take a risk on that and hopefully it will go through but if the City Council changes it then that is something they have to deal with. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: The site plan that staff received has waivers in the RS-A-43,000 Zone that have not been advertised. Staff would need four weeks to ge~ it advertised, to get revised plans. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked what waivers would need io be advertised? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: The side yard setback, rear yard setbacks and front too. There may be more. Jeffrey Freeden, 35331 Camino Capistrano, Dana Point, CA: He has been working with the staff and is amazed by the eleventh hour changes and accommodations and he cannot afford to wait another four weeks. They are on their 6th month of escrow extension. Chairman Bristol: Commission can move on item No. 1-B but staff is informing Commission that if they try to move on this reclassification that they could be approving a conditional use permit with waivers that have not been advertised. This is the first time that Commission has received this information. Jeff Farano: He did not know exactly what the development standards are on the RS-A-43,000 Zone. If they are different than this site then there would be problems to dea! with. The request for the code amendment was back in November 1998. It was a handwritten request that was submitted and it was in conjunction with this project. He was not intending to ask for a code amendment by itself. It was in conjunction with the project. If the development standards are different from ihe Commercial Limited Zone then they are going to have to deal with it. If they are less restrictive or the same between both zones then what Commission approves today would not be a problem. They would like to get this resolved within the legal perimeters so they can get the project moving forward. Greg Hastings, Zoning Uivision Manager: It appears that the only waivers effect are probably the side yard setbacks, the front yard setback and the rear yard. In the Commercial Limited Zo~e they do not have a rear yard, it is just adjacent to another zone. If the appiicant is willing to comply with the requirements of those setbacks then there is the possibility they may be able to go farward. It is his understanding that they do want to have this from property line to property line. Therefor~ tha! in itself would require waivers to be advertised. The only waiver that has been advertised is the setback adjacent to the residential zone. In a Commercial Limited Zone it is different from a Residential Zone in terms of the waivers that are required. This was advertised for Commercial Zoning. The front setback for an RS-A Zone would be 25 feet and in a commercial zone it is only 10 feet. The side yards are 10 feet in an RS-A Zone and in this particular case in a commercial they had actually about the same. The rear setback is 25 feet in a residential zone and in this case it would have actually been less. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked why would there be a setbacR? Greg Hastings: It is like a single family lot. If they had a single family zone that backed into another single family zone then a house could not be built up against the lot. It is odd because the residential zone does not pertain specifically to this type of use. They have to use the same type of setback. Jeff Farano: They can go front to 25 feet. On the side they are asking for a zero setbeck because the fence butts right up to it and they are going to have the car backed up to that. That is the landscape waiver tFat they have asked for. 01-04-99 Page 43 Commissioner Bostwick: There is a waiver for the north side against the residential. Mr. Farano is indicating the south side is the commercial ~ide bscause of the railroad tracks. Greg Hastings: It is actually residential. If the applicant is agreeing to comply with the front and the rear setbacks the side yard setbacks which were advertised as the setbac{cs adjacent to residential zones. Commissioner Bostwick: So it waives the north an~ south and would then only be for the front and back setbacks as 25 feet. Jeff Farano: The 25 foot setbacks would work. Greg Hastings: He could not guarantee that there may not be another waiver but that is the only one that they could think of at this time. For the records, there is only a 20 square foot sign that is allowed in residential zone. Following the vote: Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Staff asked that a plan be submitted showing where the facilities would be so the information could be put in the file. Selma Mann, Assistant Ciry Attorney: She is certain that the applicant understands that the processing of this application has been done here during the meeting as an accommodation to the applicant and is not a representation that these are the only waivers that are going to be required under the RS-A-43,000 Zone or under the ordinances that its adopted that there may be additional waivers. It is being done this way as an accommodation and may not be complete. SUPPORT: 2 peopls spoke in favor of subject petition. Correspondence in favor of subject prcposal w2s received. OPPOSITION: None AC'!'ION: Approved Negative Declaration Denied General Plan Amendment No. 360. Denied Reclassification No. 98-99-08. Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows: approved waiver (a) maximum fence height, denied waiver (b) minimum landscaping for fences/biockwalls and approved waiver (c} minimum setback adjacent to residential zones, applying only to the north south property lines which are considered sideyards. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 4084 with the foliowing changes to conditions of approval: Modified Condition Nos.1, 2, 3, 13, 22, 25 and 29 to read as follows: 1. That this conditional use permit is yranted subject to the adoption of Code Amendment No. 99-01, now pending. 2. That this conditionaf use permit shall tPrminate if the Edison easement is terminated. 01-04-99 Page 44 3. That a cul-de-sac shall be constructed at the terminus of Jerinne Street should the westeriy 0.72 acre of the northerly lot ever be developed as a sfngle-family dweliin~ unit. Street improvement plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division for review and approval by the City Engineer. ~ 13. That no public sales of propane gas or the public use of the dumping station . shall be permitted at this property. That only one sanitary dump station shall be permitted. A plan showing the location of said facilities shall be submitted to the Zonin~ Division of the Planning Depa~tment for review and approval. 22. That the on-site maintenance or repair of stored recreational vehicles, boats, personal water craft, motor~ycles, and trailers shall not be permitted. 25. That storage shall be limited to recreational vehicles, boats, personal water craft, motorcycles, and trailers as stipulated to by the petitioner. That boat storage is limited to at-grade storage with no stacking of boats permitted. 29. That nr storage of inoperable vehicles shall be permitted except for thos2 on trailers and that no unlicensed vehicies shall be stored. Addeq the following conditions of approval: 36. That the height of vehicles parked along the north wall shall be less than the height of the adjacent wall/fence. 37. That no commerciai tractor trailers or 18-wheel vehicles shail be permitted. 38. 1'hat setbacks adjacent to the west and east property lines shall comply with Code requirements. 39. That no business other than the siorage facility, shall operate from this site. Took no action on the City Council review request. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Esping declared a conflict of interest and Commissioner Williams absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 35 minutes (4:42-6:17) 01-04-99 Page 45 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 9b. CONDITiONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3873 (READVERTISED) Approved reinstatement OWNER: CCS FERS Stadium Business (3), Inc., Attn: B~uce (To expire 1-5-2002) McDonaid,1939 S. State College Bivd., Anaheim, CA 928Q6 AGENT: Trammel Cro~ Company, Attn: Bruce McDonald,1939 S. State College Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1939 South State Colleae Boulevard - Hop Citv Blues and Brew Restaurant. Property is 16.97 acres located at the southwest corner of Gene Autry Way and State College Boulevard. To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently has a time limitation (approved on January 5,1998 ~!~til January 5,1999) to retain public entertainment in conjunction with a previously-approved restaurant with sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-7 SF':1 • • • • • • ApplicanPs Statement: Bruce McDonald, 1929 S. State College Blvd., Anaheim, CA: He is the managing partner of the Catch Restaurant and is present in the support of a time extension for their conditional use permit for public entertainment. He requested a three-year extension. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3873. Amended Resolution No. PC98-3 by modifying Condition No.13 to read as follows: "13. That the accessory public entertainment portion of this restaurant shall expire on January 5, 2002 ° VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Esping and Williams absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (6:18-6:20) 01-04-99 Page 46 ADJUURNED AT 6:20 P.M. i TO WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20,1999 AT 10:00 A.M. ~I FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Suomitted by: 0 ~,r.~v.n~ Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary ~ L~fi~m.B~I(nCR/ ~~~ Simonne Fannin Senior Office Specialist 01-04-99 Paga 47