Loading...
Minutes-PC 1999/02/01SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA CITI(~OF AI~!AHEIM PLANNING C~NlM1SSION MEETING MONDAY, FE~RUARY 1, 1999 9:00 A.M. • A RETAIL STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WORKSHOP PRESENTATI~DN FOR THE PLANNING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONS BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • PRFLIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.M. • PUB~IC HEARING TESTIMONY CHAIRPERSON PRO-TEMPORE: BOYDSTUN COMMISSIONERS PRESEN i: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, ESPING, KOQS, NAPOLES, WILLIAMS ABSENT: BRISTOL STAFF PRESENT: Selrna Mann Greg Hastings Cheryl Flores Jonathan Borrego Susan Kim Don Yourstone Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Edith L. Harris Margarita Solorio Assistant City Attorney Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Senior Planner Planning Aide Senior Code Enforcement Officer Principaf Transportation Planner Associate Civil Engineer PC Support Supervisor Senior Secretary 02-01-99 Page 1 ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: 'I None ~ REPORTS ANU RECOMMENDA7IUNS A. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVEDI Approved b) CONDITIaNAL USE PERMIT ~lO. 3195 - REQUEST FOR Determined to be DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: Holly R, in suostantial Sandler for LA Cellular, P.O. Box 6028, Cerritos, CA 90702-6028, conformance requests determination of substantial conformance to include a 2-foot high base for a previously-approved telecommunications monopole antenna. Property is located at 333 West Cerritos. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Williams and MOTION CARRIED (Chairman Bristol absent), that the Anaheim Ciry Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the requir~d environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bostwick offered a mo!ion, seconded by Commissioner Williams and MOTION CARRIED {C!~airman Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the existing iwo (2) foot high base is in substantial conformance with the original approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 3195, based on the following: (i) That the proposed modification to include a base for the monopole is minor in nature and will not significantly alter the height or visual im~act of the monopole as originally approved. (ii) That as the base is already existing, no physical modifications will occur perkaininy to this approvai. .DOC Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Explained this cellular monopole antenna has already been constructed. The Public Utilities Commission has determined that the 60-foot high monopole is actually on a 2-foot high base making the overall height 62 feet from grade and this request is for a determination of substantial conformance. 02-01-99 Page 2 B. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVEDj Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4010 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW Approved final AND APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS: CCA Associates, 1535 Monrovia pians Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92663, request for review and approval of final landscaping, lighting, signage, building wall, paint color, fencing and gate plans for a previously-approved self-storage facility. Property is located at 1505 South State College Boulevard. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Esping and MOTION CARRIED (Chairman Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the ~ equired environmental documentation for subject request. Cammissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Esping and MOTION CARRIED (Chairman Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final landscaping, lighting, signage, building wall, paint color, and fencing and gate plans (Plans 1-11) in conjunction with a previously-approved self storage facility on the basis that the final plans demonstrate compliance with the corresponding conditions of approval ar,d that the petitioner agreed to the following at the meeting: (i) That prior to issuance of a sign permit, the property owner shall record a document, in a form and content satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, agreeing that when the Critical Intersection improvements at the intersection of Cerritos Avenue and State College Boulevard are constructed, that the property owner shall, at his sole expense, be responsible for relocating the freestanding monument sign to the setback area located outside the ultimate right-of-way area. The exact location of the sign shall be subject to Code requirements at the time the sign is relocated and subject to the approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. (ii) That the telephone number shown on the east elevation shall not be permitted. The telephone number may be incorporated to the monument sign. (iii) That the building walis shail be painted (maize) to match the color of the storage containers. (iv) That the block walls surrounding the property shall not be painted, to retain the naturai block wall color and finish. (v) That the Cerritos Avenue setback shall be bermed, similar to State College Boulevard. That final plans shall be submitted to the Building Division of the Planning Department indicating said berming. SR69_8DS.DOC Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner: Explained the conditions of approval of the Ciry Council resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 4010 required Planning Commission review of final landscaping, lighting, sign, building wall, storage unit paint colors and fencing and gate plans. Staff has reviewed the plans and has a few comments regarding the building elevations, but does recommend approval of the final plans. 02-01-99 Page 3 Carl Beckman, agent: They have read the staff report and it is acceptabie to them and they are available to answer any questions. Chairwoman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: One of the photos shows the phone number on the building and asked if it could be put on the sig~,. Mr. ;seckman: They wouid be happy to put it on a separate box sign. Mr. McCafferty: Asked that the o~ce unit be painted to be compatible with the storage unit and the phone number shouid be incorporated into the monument sign rather than being on the wall. He referred to the Cerritos setback, and added the final plans to the Building Division and the Planning Department should reflect that it be betmed similar to State College Bivd. Mr. Beckman: He would question whether the width is adequate on Cerritos to allow for the berming, but that they would be willing to work with staff on that issue. 02-01-99 Page 4 C. a) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 322 (PREV.-CERTIFIEDI Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4034 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW Approved final AND APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS: Burnett Development plans Corporation, 200 East Baker Street, Suite 100, Costa Mesa, CA 92780, request for review and approval of final building elevations (including colors and materials) and sign program. Property is located at 1500 South Douglass Road. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Ccmmissioner Williams and ~~IOTION CARRIED (Chairman Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determined ihat the previously-certified EIR 322 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Boshvick offe~ed a motion, seconded by Commissioner Esping and MOTION CARRIED (Chairman Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the finai building elevation plans (for the first phase only); and sign program with the inclusion of materials, colors and lighting for the wall signs (Plans 1-20), on the basis that the final plans demonstrate compliance with the corresponding conditions of approval in conjunction with this use permit based on the folfowing: That final plans shall be submitted indicatirg specific wall signage tenant name, colors, materials, and lighting, as well as any changes to this comprehensive sign program, for the Zoning Division's review and approval following the identification of specific tenants. (ii) That final building elevation p~ans for each phase of the project shall be submitted for Commission review and approval. Plans shall be submitte:; specifically for the buildings and parking structures located on Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8. Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner: Explained the request is for approval of final building elevations (including colors ard materials) and sign program plans in conjunction with a previously-approved 982,000 square foot mixed use commercial center. John Killen, Burnett Polygon Development: He did not think all the exhibits were here wnen they presented the project last time; that they have worked with staff and incorporated some of Commission's concerns, and understood the concerns were the flatness of east and west ele~ations and some concerns regarding the horizontal banding approach. They completed the construction documents and are ready for construction. The project has been through Plan Check and they have received the grading permit and the foundation permits and are able to accurately articulate what is going to be built. Mr. Killen referred to the e;chibits displayed, emphasizing that they have given a lot of thought 4o the ground plane and the landscape plan; that the key feature ef the project is the central court area and pointed out that area on the model displayed in front of the Commission. He pointed out the following on the exhibits displayed and the model; a. water feature, b. a palm court which the buildings faca, c. the canopy feature which is part of the central glass element on the north and south facades of both buildings, d, the materials of construction which are a lime plaster base, e. blue/green glass intended to be a vision panel (non-reflective) so the columns read through from the inside, f. clean aluminum storefront system, 02-01-99 Page 5 g. upper panels of the buildfng from level two and above to I~vel six are an fnsulated plaster system h. the E.I.F.S. is what was used on the Arena but it will be beige rather than dark green, i. the west elevation exhibit shows, upon Commission's advice, they strengthened the base of the building, j, the base is lime plaster and they darkened the color, k. added vertical columns to the middle panels whi~h ties back to the architectural design which they intend to use for the third phase 10-story building; I. pulled the glass on the upper floor back about 6" which gives a recess and creates a shadow line along the top m. hotel and restaurants at the main entry drive (Arena Centre Drivej n. will try to break up the 4-story building with more of the vertical columns, o. wili carry the theme thro~~,gh on the east and west elevations, p. the west facade with the entry feature in the middle of the plaza going to all glass q. a soft arch on the 10-story bui~ding a~ a back drop r. at the base of the 4wo columns, a limestcne so it is a real stone feature, and the canopy is pulled up to the second story level to make it a larger scale element s. at the ground plane the doors are actually back about 18 to 20 feet. t. working with a monument entry sign, with tenant identifications. Commissioner Napoles: He thought this is a good project for this area and liked the whole concept of the building. Commissioner Williams: He also agreed and added they spent a lot of time to make this fit the area. He thought the color scheme is very good. Greg McCafferty: Stated staff was commenting abuut the upper levels of the building elevations for Phase I. There was still some concern about the color on the upper floors as viewed from the freeway and noted it is a very off-white colar and in the background may fade away compared to other buildings in the area. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked if the glass will be used as the dark color? Mr. Killen: Responded that it is and added that it is a blue/green vision panei, not mirrored glass. He added the rendering is fairly realistic. Commissioner Williams: He felt the darker color glass with the lighter color building will pick up a lot of shadows in the sun. Chairwoman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: She thought with the glass and the columns, breaks up what the Commission was concerned about and there will be a shadowed effect. Commissioner Koos: He does like the concept as presented today and suggested they carry this through with the hote~, etc. 02-01-99 Page 6 D. CONDRIONAL USE PERMIT NOS.1569. 2120. 2155. 2429 2868 and TeRninated 3306 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Canyon Commerce Centsr, Inc., Attn: Mark R. Poochigian, Secretary, 5000 Birch Street, Suite 510, East Tower, Newport Beach, CA 92660, requssts termination of Conditional Use Permit Nos.1569, 2120, 2155, 2421, 2868 and 3306. Properties are located at 5409, 5415, 5425, 5417, 5435 East La Palma Avenue. TERMINATION RE50LUTION N0. PC99-18 This item was not discussed. 02-01-99 Page 7 PUBLlC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. C~QA NEGATNE DECLARATION Approved 2b. REGLASSIFICATION N0. 98-98-09 Granted, unconditionaliy QWNER: Hideyoshi Nakamura, ~ r., 4777 Collinos Way, Oceanside, CA 92056-5132 Re: 2601 W. Lincoln Ave. And 109,111,115,117, 119 N. Magnolia Ave. Louis Goodman, Tr.,1241 Loma Vista Dr., Beverly Hiils, CA 90210-2624 Re: 2607 W. Lincoln Ave. Jong B. And Soon Gum Hong, 407 N. Anaheim Bivd., Anaheim, CA 92805-2952 Re: 2623 W. Lincoln Ave. INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: Property is 1.6-acres consisting of four (4) separate parcels described as follows: Parcel A: This rectangularlti~-shaped parcel has a frontage of 97.5 feet on the north sids of Lincoln Avenue, a maximum depth of 176 feet, and is located 302 feet west of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue (2623 West Lincoln Avenue). Parcel B: This rectangularly-shaped parcel has a frontage of 97.5 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, a maximum depth of 176 feet, and is located 175 feet west of the cen;srline of Magnolia Avenue (2607 West Lincoln Avenue). Parcel C: This sectangularly-shaped parcel is located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Magnolia Avenue, has a frontage of 122 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, and a frontage of 125 feet on the west side of Magnolia Avenue (2601 West Lincoln Avenue). Parcel D: This rectangularly-shaped parcel has a frontage of 163.3 feet on the west side of Magnolia Avenue, a maximum depth of 122 feet, and is located 165 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue (109, 111, 115,117, and ~19 North Magnolia Avenue). City-initiated request for reclassification of subject property from the CG Zone (Commercial General) to the CL Zone (Commerci~l Limited) Zone. RECLASSIFICATION RESOL'UTION N0. PC99-19 _ ~ SR1003SK.DOC 02-01-99 Page 8 • • ~' • • • • Susan Kim, Assistant Planner: Presented the staff report. She further explained there cunently exists a policy of re~lassifying CG and CH zoned properties to the CL Zone on a case by case basis. This policy was implemented by the Planning Commission and the City Council some years ago. The CL Zone is preferred to the CG and the CH zones due to its enhanced landscaping and setback requirements. The subject property was identified in the Community Planning Program's West Anaheim Action Plan. Public Testimony: Mr. Barber, representing ~ir. and Mrs. Hong, owners of property at 2623 W. Lincoln, CA: Stated primary their concern is the impact, if any, on their present business and the impact on possible rent, lease or sale of that business; and they would like to know exactly what the proposed project, Item 9, deals with and asked if that is th•~ intended landscaping project. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner: Staled the CL Zone is the preferred commercial zone in the City due t~~ its additional landscaping requirements should the property ever redevelop in the future; and that there i~ more filexibility with land uses in the CL Zone than in the CG and CH Zones. Over the years as policy in the Planning Department, they have been actually taking properties out of the CG and CH Zones and placing those uses in the CL Zone as an incentive to get people to rezone. To answer the gentleman's question regarding resale and re-use of the property, the CL Zone would actually give more flexibility in terms of ihe number of uses permitted. Also, the thrift store business would not be affected by the change in zone and they could remain there and operate the business as it is currently being operated without any change based on this action today. He explained as staff has identified properties which are zoned CG and CH citywide, they have proactively been rezoning those properties and that is the reason this area was selected, but it should not affect their business. Mr. Barber: They find it rather contrary to believe that CL (Commercial Limited) is more advantageous to the property owners than Commercial General. He added, hopefully, Mr. Borrego is correct in what he says. Chairwoman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Basical~y if somebody wanied to buy this property and everybody wanted to sell, more landscaping would be required. She added as long as this business is there, it is not affected. Mr. Barber: The main concern was the iypes of businesses that he might be able to rent and lease. Chairwoman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: CL zoning does not exclude very much, Mr. Borrego: In comparing the CL. and CG zones, there are more uses permitted in the CL Zone, contrary to the titie, explaining he understands the concern, He added if that property were to ever redevelop, they would be able to get more landscaping adjacent to Lincoln. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke with concerns. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 98-99-09, unconditionally. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairman Dristol absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSStON TIME: 8 minutes (2:00-2:08) 02-01-99 Page 9 3b. CONDITIONIAL USE PERM~T N0. :3819 (READVERTISED) Approved reinstatement OVIINER: Shell Devel~~;nent PEacock Suites, 2100 E. Yake0la (To expire 2-1-01) Ave., Suite 205, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: John P. Erskine, esq.,18101 Von Karmon Ave., #1800, Irvine, CA 92618 LOCATION: 1733 South Anaheim Boulevard - Peacock Suites Vacation Ownershi~Temaorarv Sales Office. Prope~ty is 0.92 acre with a frontage of ? 00 feet on the east side of Zeyn Street, and a frontage of 100 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard, approximately 580 feet n~rth of the centerline of Katella Avenue (1733 South Anaheim Boulevard - Peacock Suites Vacation Ownership Temporary Sales Office). Reinstatement of this permit which currently has a time limitation (originally approved on February 5,1996, to expire February 5,1999) to retain a temporary sales office associated with the Peacock Suites vacation ownership resort for two additional years. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99•20 • • • • • e ApplicanYs Statement: John Erskine, Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, LLP, ac~ent, was present to answer any qt~estions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Williams: Asked how many units have been sald a: for an estimate as to when they expect to complete the sales? Mr. Erskine: Responded about half of the units have been sold and added that sales have been hampered by construction activities on Kaiella. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-app~oved mitigated negative deciaratifln is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3819. Modified Condition No. 12 of Resolution No. PC96-19 to read as follows: 12. That subject use permit shall expire on February 1, 2001 or when all time share units for the Peacock Suites are sold, whichever occurs first. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairman Bristol absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (2:08-2:10) 02-01-99 Page 10 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPRAVED) Approved 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3750 (READVERTISED) Approved reinstatement for 1 year. OWNER: George 0. Abbes, Abel Sanchez, 608 S. Harbor Blvd., Anaheim, CA 928~5 AGENT: Hector Rabolli, Abbel Trade, inc.,18 Cantilena, San Clemente, CA 92673 LOCATION: 804 North Anaheim Boulevard. Property is 0.16 acre located on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard. To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a. time limitation (approved on October 14,1996 until October 14,1997) to retain an automobile sales lot. C~ntinued from Commission meeting of November 9, and December 7, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-21 (To expire 3-1-2000) ~ 'FOLLOW~NG ISA.SUMMARY.`OF THE PL'ANNING COMMISSION.ACTION. '~': ' ~ ApplicanYs Statement: Myra Rabolli, representing her father, Hector Rabolli, owner and president oF Abbel Trade: Explained all the violations have been repaired, the violations were because of the previous tenants who did not take care of the property. The fence and landscaping has been repaired and the customer parking spaces have been striped. Chairwoman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Clarified that they can have no more than 20 cars on the lot and that will be a cundition and Ms. Rabolli responded she understood. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Williams: He drove by the facility and it looks 100% better. Commissioner Bostwick: Referred to the time limit and stated staff wanted Condition No.1 to read that the auto sales facilit;r shall terminate on August 1st of 1999 and questioned whether it should be longer, at least one year. Commissioner Esping: Noted because of problems in the past, staff wanted it be reviewed in six months. Ms. Rabolli: Responded to Commissioner Williams that they plan to lease the facility ;o a new lessee and the new tenants already know the conditions. Commissioner Williams: Indicated he would agree with a one year time limit if it was going to be owner occupied. Commissioner Bostwick: He thought six months is a Iittie harsh and suggested asking that they pay for Code Enforcement inspections every three months. Seima Mann: There is a major difference between reviewing something in three mo~ths and having it continue where the burden is then on the City to terminate a use. She stated if the Commission is 02-01-99 Page 11 interested fn a longer period of time, it would 'L~a appropriate to require Code Enforcement inspections subject only to nexus requirements. Commissioner Bosiwick: He would be more comfo~ fable with that and would like to change Condition No. 1 to read that the auto sales facility shall terminate fn one year, a~ ~~ that xhe property owner will pay for quarterly inspections by Code Enforcement during that year's peri~~d, adding that will give them a chance to make some money on the property before having to file for a whole new application. He suggested a termination date of March 1, 2000. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: She thought the Code Enforcement inspection fee is currently $58.00. Ms. Rabolli presented a copy of their grant deed for the file. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved nec~ative ~eclaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 37b0 (to expire March 1, 2000). Modified the conditions of approved of Resolution No. PC96-105 isi their entirety to read as follows: 1. That this conditional use permit shall terminate on March 1, 2000. 2. That no window signage shail be permitted on the existing sales affice building. 3. That no "For Sale" vehicles hall be placed/parked so as to obstruct the public alley to the east. 4. That three (3) employee/cu~tomer parking spaces shall be striped and reserved for such use at all times. 5. 7hat a plan sheet for solid waste storage and collec!ion and a plan for recycling shall be submitted to the Department of MaintenancP for review and approval. 6. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, Iocafed and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from gra~ti bpportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum 5-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division approval. 7. That the on-site maintenance, repair, or washing of automobiles or trucks shall not be permitted, except for minor window washing or interior cleaning. 8. That no roof-mounted equipment shall be permitted. 9. That there shall be no intercom or public address (P.A.) system permitted. 10. That no freestanding signs shall be permit!ed. 11. That no vending machines shall be permitted. 02-01-99 Page 12 12. That the existing chainlink fence along the southem and eastem property lines shall be removed and replaced with architecturally enhanced pilasters and/or a 3-foot high wrought-iron fence. Final plans shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. 13. That six, 4-foot by 4-foot, half-diamond shaped pianters with minimum 24-inch bux trees shall be installed and maintained along the souihern prope~ty line. Said landscaping and irrigation pians shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. 14. That there shall be no flags, banners, or balloons permitted except in conjunction with a grand opening event, for wh!ch a Special Events Permit shall be obtained from the Planning Department. That no roof-mounted balloons or inflatable devices shall be permitted. 15. That lighting for this facility shall be designed and positioned in a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate or cause glare onto adjacent or nearby streets and/or properties. 16. That the property owrer shall pay the cost of quarterly Code Enforcement inspections for thirteen (13) months from the date of this resolution, or as deemed necessary by the City's Code Enforcement Division to gain and/or maintain compliance with State and local statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations. 17. That Condition Nos. 5, 6,12, and 13, above-mentioned, shall be comp!eted within a period of (60) days from the date of this resolution. 18. That a maximum of twenty (20) vehicles shall be permitted on the property at any one time. 19. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the, Cit'y of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos.1 through 4, and as conditioned herein. 20. That approval of this application constitutes appraval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicabie ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairman Bristol absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (2:90-219) 02-01-99 Pege 13 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continuod to 5b. WAIVER QF CODE REQIJIREMENT ~ 3-1-99 5c. CONDI710NAL USE PERMIT N0. 4088 OWNER: Gilbert Bali Partners LP, 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1050, Irvine, CA 92612 AGENT: Meta Housing Corporation, Attn: Sean Clark, 4100 W. Alameda Ave., #205, Burbank, CA 91505 LOCATION: 935 South Gilbert 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-unit affordabie senior citizen apartment complex with a densiry bonus with waiver of (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum structural height, (c) minimum landscape setback, (d) minimum structural and landscaped setback adjacent 4o a collector street, (e) minimum side yard setback, (~ required elevators (deleted), (g) minimum pedestrian access, (h) location of private storage areas and (i) minimum required affordable units (deleted). Continu~d from the Commission meeting of January 4,1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLU710N NO. SR7400KB.DOCSR • • • o • • OPPQSITION: None ACTiON: Continued subject request to the March 1,1999, Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to submit rzvised plans. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairman Bristol absent) DiSCUSSIQN TIME: This item was not discussed. 02-01-99 Page 14 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approvad 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4093 Granted for 3 years OWNER: Leonard Joe Chaidez & Cyndie M. Chaidez, 507 S. (To expire 2-1-02) Lemon Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: JWK Holdings, Inc. 2602 N. 35th Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85009 LOCATION: 507 South Lemon Strest. Property is 0.56 acre located at the southwest corner of Lemon Street and Santa Ana Street. To permit a coniractors storage yard. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-22 DOC • • • • o • ApplicanYs Statement: Mr. Justo Villar, JRB Engineering (agent): Stated his client (JWK Holdings Inc.) is trying to buy this property for his business as a contractor's storage yard and that he came to the City and asked Planning staff if the property v~as suitable for his business and was told it was. His client then paid $15,000 into escrow and hired him to process the papers for this CUP. He stated he was surprised when he came to the City and was told that they did not want any storage in this area because the General Plan shows it for residential land uses. He stated at that time they had already submitted plans and paid the expenses for soils reports, etc. Apparently there was a discrepancy between two planners in the City and that is the reason they are liere. He added if they had been told in the beginning, they would not be here. Mr. Villar: Referred to the staff report and noted there are discrepancies in the repo~t with regard to surrounding land uses; that to the north there is na residential, but there is a building which is an eye sore and the street portion has no curbs or gutters and it is not really attractive to any developer for residential use; that to the west and east there are industrial uses and to the south there is a vacant lot which is zoned ML and in the back there is a meial storage building. The report does not mention that there is a railroad track in front of this property within 25 feet and he did not think anyone would purchase this property for residential use because of that track and it would be very difficult to get a right-of-way from the railroad company. He stated this property would not be developed for residential use at this time. This property was previously used for storage and they are requesting the same use, and the only difference is the type of operation and this will be a cleaner and lighter use of the property. He explained management comes to the office at 5 a.m. to make sure the schedules are set, etc. and that they will not make any noise because the stucco materials and scaffolding are loaded onto the trucks the afternoon before at 3 or 4 o'clock and parked on the property overnight and then the drivers come to pick up the trucks at 6 a.m. and just drive them to the construction sites. This is a very clean operation and is not detrimental to the neignborhood. He referred to the findings in the staff repart and stated he thought there was a discrepancy between the findings and the recommendation. Harold Potter, attorney, representing the property owners and operators of the tree seroice: Stated it is readily apparent that the Zoning Ordinance conflicts with the General Plan which shows residential purposes, but this area is zoned Commercial, Limited. The second concern is that this is tentatively in a redevelopment area and pointed out under the Evaluation portion of the staff ~eport, that the Commission 02-01-99 Page 15 may wish to consider that the Community Development Department has indicated that the area is currently under cansideration for conversion to residential land uses. However, that consideration has not been before the Planning Commission or City Councii and if this is denied, the Commission is saying although it is zoned for the use, because in the future we may w~sh to designate it residential, we are going to hold this property o4vner to a standard which has not been adopted. He believed that is an inconsistent point of law which may be sufficient grounds for some type of judicial review, Mr. Potter: This is the third attempt of the property owners to have a CUP for the sale of this property, one was for a 24-hour towing service which was denied. The second was for Mesa Roofing Company where they wanted to store their materials and trucks and staff informea tnem not to even apply because it was not consistent. The area is properly zoned Commercial, Limited and the suggested use is within the Zoning Code and the General Plan should reflect the accurate zoning; therefore, it seems inconsistent that the use would be denied. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Responded to Commissioner Bostwick that the property is zoned ML with a General Plan designation for residential; and Commissioner Bostwick pointed out to Mr. Potter that the zoning is not Commercial, Limited as he had indicated. Mr. Potter: The use is still consistent with the designation and that tha surrounding neighborhood is not residential. He added, what may be apparent is that with continual denia! of applicable or proper uses, this may be a situation such as Monterey County, a case up before the United States Supreme Court presently and that consistent denials oF proper uses may be a taking and the Supreme Court will be deciding what the perimeters will be. He emphasized that this project is consistent with the present zoning. The intended use into the future has not legally been approved, come beFore the Commission, nor has it been approved before the City Council. What they may wish do in the future shouid not effect this application. Commissioner Williams: Is the limited manufacturing permitted under the ML Zone7 Cheryl Fiores, Senior Planner: Yes, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. Commissioner Koos: Regarding the gentleman's comment that the general plan should reflect the zoning he thought the general plan was the overriding docume~t of the City and asked for a clarification. Greg Hastings, "Loning Division Manager: In this case the zoning takes precedent over the general plan. The general plan is a policy document which would guide them in determining what the ultimate land use would eventually be on the property. Commissioner Koos: Asked Mr. Hastings to explain why there are different de~~~n~tions? Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: It is possible that the zoning may have been in place before the general plan was in place on this property, That is possible so there is a conflict between the two. Commissioner Esping: Item no. 1 of the recommendations versus item No. E under findings indicate there is definitely a discrepancy. One states there is no problem and the other states that there is a problem. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Man~ger: Paragraph 20 is actually the list of findings which the Commission would have to make if they approve this request. The staff report is not setting this forth as being an existing condition, but is informing the Commission and public that these findings need to be made before the CUP can be granted. Commissioner Wiiliams: The general plan has been adopted to rezone it but it has not been rezoned Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: The general plan is an existing document which indicates long range planning for this area. The zoning is actually in place and the prop~rty is zoned ML which is industrial. Therefore, the industrial zone would take precedent over the general plan designation in terms of development of the property. In that ML Zone tnere is a provision that allows the applicant to request a 02-01-99 Page 16 conditional use permit for this rype of outdoor use, if Commissfon feels it is appropriate in this neighborhood. THE PUk.zLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairwoman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Regarding storing and stocking trucks, she asked what the heic~ht would be ol'the m2terial behind the fence? Mr. Villar: Ttie height of the platform of the truck is normally 4 feet. They can stack 4 to 8 feet but, if approved, he can work with City staff to mitigate this. They are going to load about 4:00 p.m. and stop by about 6:00 p.m. Chairwoman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: If they were loading in the afternoon, would they be able to park along the south fence so that it was not next to the wall wi~ere it is more visible. Mr. Villar: He was informed by the Police Department not to park the trucks close to the wall because people would use them to go over the fence. They are going to park a little away and leave a space so no one can use them. Presently the trucks are about 10 feet high with the current use and under this use the proposed height will be 8 feet. So they are proposing a use that is less and are willing to work with the City to mitigate any concerns regarding the height. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked the applicant if he read the staff report and conditions proposed? Mr. Villar: He did read the staifi report and had a question regarding the hours of operation. He woul~ like to request the hours be ~hanged to 5:00 a.m., since the office staff arrives at 5:00 a.m. and the rest of the workers arrive at 6:00 a.m. The workers meet at this property and then go out to the construction site. Commissioner Kor~s: Asked if he knew how many trips this site would generate? Mr. Viilar: They have four trucks maximum and when they go to the site they are there aIl ;lay. Commissioner Williams: Most stucco companies work on Saturdays. Mr. Villar: As stated in the letter of operatiori they work Monday through Friday only. Chairwoman Pro-Teinpore Boydstun: Wondered whether this could be approved with a time limitation on the CUP `or 5 years? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Staff's is recommendation in Condition No. 7 is for 1 year. It is hard to say the use is permitted by conditional use permit in the ML Zone, however there are uses in the ML Zone that may be more compatible with the surrounding residential land uses. For instance, an industrial use that was inside a building rather the outdoor acti~iiry that is proposed and that is the concern that staff has. Chairwoman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: If there was an industria! use at this site, it would create more that 4 trips a day in and out. Commissioner Williams: There is not going to be the ability to build any size of a building with the parking requirements, etc. If the applicant is purchasing the property, how are we going to cut him off in 5 years because the zoning is not ~oing to change unless someone applies for a reclassification. Chairwoman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: There is the possibility that in 3 to 5 years the City may come in with a request for the rezoning. Commissioner Koos: He would be comfortable with the ~ase as long as some of the environmental concerns are satisfied. To the immediate west and easl there is industrial, to the south there is a vacancy but it is about 100 feet between the southern residential unit and the site. If this is an open air facility, he could image noise impacts. Staff feels so strongly about the CEQA portion of this request that they have recommended denial. 02-01-99 F'age 17 Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: The appiicant indicated that office staff would be there at 5:00 a.m. but it sounds like the workers will get there at 6:00 a.m. There has been testimony that the scaffolding and mixers will be loaded in ihe prior evening but sometimes the methods of an operation changes and it seems very intense to the located so alose to the residential neighborhood to the south. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: There has been a use on the property for the past severai years where Code Enforcement has had problems simply because it is an outdoor use and is used constantly. There is property to the south which is primarily vacant and to the west with the exception of the metzl fabrication where the opportunity could be for development sooner than 5 years, especially since the property is already zoned residential. Therefore, staff would not iike to see that stifled and, if this use is here for 5 years, that they may not be able to attract residential type development into that area. Commissioner Williams: There is the metal fabrication factory that is not leaving, as a buffer. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: He does not know what incentive there would be for them to stay orderly. That is correct, there is a large area to the west that is available for residential development as well as to the south. Gommissioner Koos: Asked Redevelopment to re:~pond to Mr. Potter's comments regarding RedevelopmenYs position on the future use of this t~~r residential and asked Redevelopment to give their recommendation on that issue in paRicular. Laura Muna-Landa: The memorandum submitted by the Redevelopment Agency basically covered two issues. One is that they want to maintain the quality of life for the surrounding residential areas on three sides. Second, as mentioned in their Redevelr,pment Planned Areas there is a process in which they may petition for an alternate land use and turn that over to residential ihrough a general plan ~mendment. Although they do not have a specific project slated for that site, she knows, as presented at the morning workshop, they do hope to make more of that area into residential in the future. Commissioner Williams: According to the map it appears the site is surrounded by residential on only two side, and there is industrial on the other two sides. Laura Muna-Landa: She was referring generally to how it surrourds it in terms of the area. It may not be directly on three sides but when staff drove out to the site, they did observe quite a bit of residential surrounding it. Commissioner Koos: Mr. Villar mentioned that part of their decision-making process was based on the opinion offered at the public counter by a staff member to a representative of the owner of the property. Perhaps next time he might want to get the position of the department prior to listening to a single planner at the counter. Unfortunately, this has happened before where the opinion of a single plarner wes tried to be used as a justification for the entire effort someone has made. It is unfortunate but not prudent to go that route. They should go through the process before making the major investments. Mr. Villar: He does this for a living so when he comes to the City, he makes sure that is going to happen but in this case it was a private person that came and spoke with the City and was taking the information given as factual. Commissioner Williams: The City is not in the position to advise the public. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: The planners do not make decisions at the front counter; the applicant is informed whether or not this is a proper location where a CUP can be applied for which is probably what happened here. They can not second guess wh~t the Planning Commission or City Council a; e going to do. Staff can explain whatever has gone on in the area but the planners are not in the practice of making approvals before the Planning Commission even reviews the requests. Staff will try to help the applicant in any way possibie to get the case forward to the Planning Commission so a decision can be made. 02-01-99 Page 18 Commissioner Esping: Bafore investing he would suggest having some documentation not just the word of mouth. Chairwoman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: What he is trying to stress is that if the zoning is there and they are in this business and buiiding and if the zoning is there then you assume that is what the City will want there. Commissioner Williams: Otherwise change the zone. Commissioner Koos: It sounded like the applicant said that the planner went beyond just indicating that it was a permitted use and that is how he characterized it. Commissioner Bostwick: He thought this is a better use than what is there now and a I~ss intense use and it will be a reduction in the number of trips. There will actually be less impact on the neighbors surrounding it, not only from a noise and trip point of view but also from the smell of ths waste products that have been stacked there from the tree oper~tion. It really will be a better change and less detrimental than the current use. We know we want residential in the area and perhaps it will soon evolve to that so he would consider a time limitation on the CUP. Commissioner Koos: He hoped they do not look at these planning decisions in terms of relative improvement to every site that comes before Commission. This is a similar request to another request that he voted no on at the last public hearing. Mr. Vi~lar: If for any reason they have the scaffolding higher than the wall (which is approximately 5%z feet) then tney can put some type of awning to block the storage. Commissioner Bostwick: No, they want the storage to be kept below the fence. The trucks are going to be 10 feet tall, and that is ,c,oing to stick 4 feet above the fence anyway when they are parked at night, but the storac~e of the scaffolciiny will not exceed the height of the wall. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: As stated in the staff report, there are two waivers on the site that were approved under Conditional Use Permit No, 2992. The first one ?s minimum landscape setback and the second is required screening adjacent to residential zones and those two waivers will both expire when that conditional use permit expires on March 16, 1999. So the applicant will need to return either through the Planning Commission or the Zoning Administrator to again request approval of those two waivers. OPP~SITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4093 for 3 years (to expire February 1, 2002) with the following changes to conditions of approval: Modified Condition Nos. 2, 7, 15, 20, and 21 to read as follows: That no inoperable vehicles, outdoor auto repair, detailing and/or painting shall be permitted on the premises. That this permit shall expire three (3) years from the date of this resolution, on February 1, 2Q02. 15. That no storage shall be above the heighi of the perimeter fence. 20. That the hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Additionally, all loading and unloading of trucks shail accur at ths end of the day when trucks are retumed to tho yard. No loading of vehicles 02-01-99 Page 19 shall occur prior to 7:00 a.m. 21. That vehicles stored on-site shail be limited to a maximum of four (4) work trucks. Added the following condition: That all loading and unloading shaA bo conducted on site. VOTE: ~~1 (Commissioner Koos voted no and Chairman Bristol was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 40 minutes (2:20-3:00) 02-01-99 Page 20 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATIUN Approved 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4095 Granted OWNER: Parcei 1: Kenneth J. Cummins, Trustee, Couch Living Trust, 4041 MacArthur Blvd., #360, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Parcel 2: Carol Arthofer, 78373 Sterling Lane. Palm Desert, CA 92211 AGENT: Form Guild Architects, Attn: Caroline Shaw, 34102 Violet Lantern, Dana Point, CA 92629 LOCATIOId: 2144 South Harbor Boulevard - currentlv Arby's Restaurant. Property is 0.60 acre located on the east side of liarbor Boulevard, 480 feet north of the centerline of Wilken Way. To construct a new fast food restaurant with drive-through lane with waiver of a) minimum drive-through lane requirements and b) permitted encroachment into setback area. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99•23 • • s • • e ApplicanYs Statement: Philiip Gilbert, Form Guild Architects in Dana Point: They accept the conditions as proposed in staff report except for Condition No. 5, "That no window signs shali be permitted at any time" Mr. Armstrong, the owner of this project would like to address this particular item. Dick Armstrong: He is the Taco Bell franchise owner that will be at that location. On Condition No. 5, page 6 of the staff report, the staff has indicated that there would be no signs on the windows and by that in their earlier discussions with staff that would include any kind of advertising, etc. In the retai~ industry this signage on winclows is very common. It is actually allowed by the city code and they are asking that they be treated fairly, the same as anybody else. That they not be put at a disadvantage. If the code was changed and no one could do that, then they would comply with !hat, but all they are asking is that since it is allowed for their competitors up and down the street that they be allowed the same thing. Commissioner Koos: Did the one approved at Harbor and Ball, have the same condition7 Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: It has been the last couGle of years that they have been requesting this condition to cut down on the window signs. It seems to make the appearance of the buildings 4etter without it. She does understand that there may be some other businesses that are allowed to have it by code b~t whenever a conditional use permit does come to them, they do recommend that this condition of approval be applied. Commissioner Bostwick: When the pizza parlor off Lincoln was changed, it was approved with minimum window signage? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Yes, Commission did allow them some minimal window signage. Regarding Harbor and Ball, she was not here at that meeting but she believed that it was approved with the same condition. 02-01-99 Page 21 Commissioner Bostwick: They approved the one on Anaheim Boulevard and Ball Road at the last meeting but he did not remember the condition at 7aco Bell on Ball Road and Harbor Bivd. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Staff will check on those. Public Testimony: Marilyn Allison: She owns one of the buildings that is on Acama Street. Acama runs behind Harbor, so Arby's which is there now is one of the businesses that faces their complex on Acama. Many years ago they were able to get fences put in so people could not drive through on Harbor and come onto Acama. They do not want people to drive through Taco Bell and then come onto Acama or come ontc Acama and go into Taco Bell. Commiss~oner Bostwick: At this morning's session Commission discussed this and asked the applicant to remove the driveways that are there now and provide only a pedestrian gate for ttie maintenance of the landscape on the back of the property. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer: First they would be adding a condition as follows: "Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the legal property owner shall release and relinquish vehicular access rights to Acama Street and Clifford Avenue to the City of Anaheim. The applicant shall make submittal to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division ° This means in the future ne one would be able to come in and get a permit to have a driveway onto those streets. As a code requirement in conjunction with the issuance of the building permit, they would be required to remove any driveway access onto the street that currently exists and they would replace that with curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping. Marilyn Allison: That is great. They have that now and as a homeowner's association, they do talk with Bakers Square, Circle K and Arby's. It also keeps the people that walk on Harbor from cutting through and coming onto their property. So they do appreciate the fact that it is now closed to traffic and they try to keep a good relationship because their tenants use those businesses. Chairwoman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: They do need to add another conditional where the water drainage is, that it would be a wrought iron. It could be the service gate for getting back to that area for the maintenance. Melanie Adams: That would be acceptable. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: In response to Commissioner Koos question about Ball and Harbor, tha; condition was deposed for the Taco Bell but it was for the Jack-In-Box at Anaheim and Ball. Commissioner Bostwick: The difference there was that it was a mini mart and a Jack-In-The-Box together where this is strictly a reslaurant. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: If Commission is considering approval of this request, staff would like to add to Condition No. 9 that the ordering device shall be equipped with volume control so that it can be turned up and down. Commissioner Williams: As a practically, it is, because they wear the cordless headsets and they have volume control built inta them. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: On Condition No. 6 staff was requesting a block wall along the north property line. In the staff report it was stated either a wrought iron or block wall and asked if Commission has a preference? OPAOSITION: 1 person spoke with concerns ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration 02-01-99 Page 22 Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4095 with the following changes to conditions of approval: . Deleted Condition No. 5 Modified Condition Nos. 6 and 9 to read as follows: 6. That the existing six (6} foot high chain link fence along the north property line shall be removed and replaced with a six (6) foot high block wall or wrought iron fence. If the removal of the chain link fence is not within the control of the subject property owner, the required block wall or wrought iron fence shall be constructed next to the chain link fence. 9. That the noise levels generated by the ordering device shall not exceed sixty (60) decibels as measured at the property line adjacent residential properties. The ordering device shall be equipped with vol~me control. Added the following conditions of approval: That prior to the issuance of a building permit the legal property owner shall release and relinquish vehicular access rights to Acama Street and Clifford Avenue to the City of Anaheim. The applicant shall make submittal to the P~blic Works Department, Qevelopment Services Division. That a wrought iron pedestrian gate shall be provided on the southerly portion of the east property line where the water drainage flows. Said gate shall be kept locked at all times, except when being used for maintenance of the landscaping which is required on that portion of the property. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairman Bristol absent) Selma iNann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 16 minutes (3:~2-3:18) 02-01-99 Page 23 Se. GEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) COf1tIf1U~ 8b. CONDITIOPIP.L USE PERMIT N0. 3726 (READVERTISED) 2-17-99 OWNER: Vineyard Ministries Intemational, 5300 E. La Palma Avenue. Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Fairmont Schools Inc., Attn: David Jacksan, ~557 W. Mable Street, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 5310 East La Palma Avenue - Fairmont Private Schools. Property is 23.08 acres Iocated on the south side of La Palma •^.:~:,~ue, 2,370 feet west of the centerline of Imperial Highway. To permit the conversion of an existing warehouse and office into 9 classrooms for the expansion of an existing private school and to amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to the maximum number of students. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION lJO. 'FOI~LOWING IS A SUMMARY OFTH PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: "'`' OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the February 17,1999 Planniny Commission meeting, as requested by the applicant. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairman Bristol absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 02-01-99 Page 24 aa. l;tt.~A NtCiAI IVr UtGLAKAI IUN Approved 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4097 Granted OWNER: Susan Saltzburg, Trustee, M:Ildred Altshuler Irrevocable (To expire 12-31-01) Trust and George Altshuler Irrevocable Trust, 18022 Medley Drive, Encino, CA 91316 AGENT: Charles A. Perez, 420 S. State College Bivd., Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 420 South State College Boulevard - C&M Automotive. Property is 0.40 acre located at the northeast corner of State College Boulevard and Westport. To permit and retain an automotive repair facility. CONDITlONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTIOiV N0. PC99-24 SR7271 • • • •`•,, • • ApplicanYs Statement: Charles Perez: He came before Commiss.m four years ago but in renewing his CUP apparently it was sent to Paul Kott Realty or one of his salesmen at that time and they did not call him or let him know that fiis CUP had expired. Therefore, he is starting all over again. fie has been doing business in the City of Anaheim for 24 years. He was at the corner of South and State College for 20 years and is now at the corner of Westport and State College. He thanked Greg Hastings and Kevin Bass for helping through the process. He acquir~d a corner that was a eyesore and investec~ $50,000 to brinq it up to the condition that ii is now. He feels he has done extensive improvements and now he is being asked to do more. He can do some of the improvements but not all of them because he only has 2 more years left on his lease. He is 67 years old. Staff has stated that they would like lo have an additional 12 trees planted on the State College and Westpo~t. He has three trees now and it is not feasible to plant 12 more trees, in a 40-foot area. He can accommodate three and make it look good on bot~i sides, for a total of six. Twelve seems ver~r crowded. He felt planting three trees on each side would look nicer. He req~ested that he be allowed to put in 6 instead ~f 12. On the east wall, he has tried three times to put ground covering to no avail because it is as very thick "devil's" grass. If he kilis the devil grass, it kills the groundcover. He has vines on the wall growing over the wall, and ihe trees are in very good shape. He recommended putting in "visquen" and topping that off with red bark and that would give a much better appearance than just the dirt aione. Regarding the propane tank that staff is requestinq it be removed, he did not ask for a permit for the propane tank. It was done by Calco Propane and at that time the Planning Department approved it. The Fire Department inspected and approved it, Cal OSHA inspected it and, therefore, he carries a yearly permit with OSHA to operate that !~nk. It is very convenient for people and businesses around the area and they use it in their forklifts, and even the shopping center purch~ses propane from him. 'They could place a small horizontal tank (450 galion instead of the 550 gallon tank) which would be covered by the landscaping. The last time he was before Commission it was discussed to remove the two additional driveways and installing lhe sidewalks, curbs anu gutters. With the $50,000 that he invested to bring the property to where it is now, he does not have that kind of money. There are two years remaining on his lease and he does not plan on dcing anymore woric. 02-01-99 Page 25 He was asked to move the public telephone. Pacific Bell installed the telephone befora he took the buildi~g and the area where it is located has been fenced off with four steel poles. If he moves it any closer to his building, it ~vould create a hazard because he has a lot of customers who come in and out of the area. Small children go in and out of the area. !t is at the edge of the sidewalk and planter, and it is at a good location. There is a parking area for the businessman to use the phone as well as the apartment units behind him and they also use it frequently. He polices his area everyday and keeps it clean. Regarding the trash storage container, this small auto repair business does not generate vey much trash. He suggested to the Planning Department that he instead have the barrel with wheels which the Cib,~ of Anaheim offers plus the plastic recyciable bottle container which he could store inside. Item No. 24 indicates that the permit shal! terminate on February 1, 2000, and that is a year from now and his lease does not expire until 2001 and he would like to see the permit extended to 2001. Regarding his was;e. The EPA checks him every other month and he has no citations from EPA. He has a company that comes out to recycle his coolant. THE PUBLIC HEARiNG WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Williams: Asked Mr. Perez if he had indicated that his lease terminates in December 2001? Mr. Perez: Yes. The staff report indicates that he has been in operation since October 1994 but he actually moved in there December 1994 and signs a lease eve~y three years with the option to renew it. He wanted to sell the business to generate some money for his retirement. Responding to Commissioner Bostwick Mr. Perez, the lease expires December 2001. Commissioner Bostwick: The problem with the payphone is ihat when Mr. Perez is not around, then other people use the payphones that are o~:side which attracts drug dealers and other people with problems. They use it and crea!e a situation in the neighborhood that we do not want so we ask evervone to get their phones inside their business so they are not outside where they are an "attractive nuisance". Mr. Perez: That wili be no problem he will call Pacific Bell to have it removed. Commissioner Bostwick: If he puts in a 500 gallon tank that is harizontal in that corner ra!her than the vertical 1,000 gallon tank, then could he put some more trees aro~nd it and create more landscaping? Mr. F'erez: He could plant additional trees and he could put some bushes in that would fill in more and cover the tank, but it will not be too visible from the street. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: It would be an improvement over what is there now. It is important to be sure to plant as mature landscaping as possible so it would be screened as soon as possible. Mr. Perez: To put 11 or 12 more trees would be very tight and would not look very well. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stie was out there is morning and she saw several vehici~~ parked mainly to the rear of the building. There appeared to be approximately 12 vehicles that appeared to be waiting for repair. Mr. Perez: He has had some vehic~es for a week and he has a work order written for every vehicie he has and he has tried to change the parking and instead of parking in the center. He is trying to park on both sides and to keep the whole front clear, but that occasionally it gets tight and he parks some out front. Customers will pull right into the center instead of going to the parking areas. He explained sometimes tow trucks come in there in the middle of the night and they park right out in the middle. Carnmissiones Koas: Asked about outdoor storage. 02-01-9~J Page 26 Ms. Flores: There was a rack of tires outside. She stated there are conditions of approval recommended that wouid state they could not have the outdoor tire display rack, or the oil d~ ums and everything would need to be stored within the b~ilding. Mr. Perez: When the EPA came, he had to put the steel drums in the rear far comer and he stores oil in the steel drums and then it is picked up by World Facific. He generates maybe 100 gallons of oil a month; that he has coolant since he does radiator work, but that all goes into the plastic banels and he has a company that comes out and recycles the coolant and fresh coolant is stored inside. He has lids on the steel drums where the waste oil is stored and the EPA has been there and he has had no violations with the EPA. Ms. F~ores : Asked if EPA will allow him to store those oil drums inside the building. Mr. Perez: He has never asked them and added he really doesn't have room for storzge inside the building. He takes a lot of waste oil from customers. The drums are sitting on concrete above ground and noted there was contamination here before and the owner doesn't want anything underground. Commissi~ner Bostwick: The problem is that the City doesn't want anything stored ouiside or visible from the street. The conditions will require that everything be stored inside and further that even though this petitioner may keep everything neat and orderly, if he was not there and another operator came in, they may want to store all kinds of things outside. Mr. Perez: This is only a two bay station, but that he will make room for everything inside Following the vote: Cheryl Flores: Condition No. 26 requires that prior to commencement of activities that certain conditions of approval must be complied with and since the activities have commenced, suggested the time be amended to compliance within 90 days. Ms. Mann: Pointed out that the petitioner has left the meeting and changes cannot be made to the resolution. Chairwoman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Suggested that a motion be offered fo notify the petitioner that the conditions need to be complied with within 90 days. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4097 with the following changes to conditions of approval: Modified Condition Nos. 4, 7 and 24 to read as follows: That a minimum of six (6) 24-inch box trees shall be planted in the landscape planter areas along and immediately adjacent to State College Boulevard and WestpoR Drive. That the exfsting propane tank shall be removed and may be replaced with a horizontal five hundred (500) gallon or less propane tank. 24. That tnis permit shall terminate on December 31, 2001. 02-01-99 Page 27 VOTE: 6-0 (Chairman Bristol absent) Seima Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 22 minutes (3:19-3:41) MOTION: Commissioner Napoles offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Chairman Bristol absent), that the Maheim City Planning Commission does hereby request that staff notify the applicant that Condition Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11,13,15,16,17, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24, listed in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 1,1999 shall be complied with within ninety days from the date of the resolution. 02-01-99 Page 28 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4013 (READVERTI~ED) ~ 3-1-99 OWNER: CWCT, LLC A California Limited Liability Company, 1451 Quail Street, Suite 210, Newport Beach, CA 92660 AGENT: The Clifford Companies, Attn: Loren W. Brucker, 1451 Quail Street #210, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 8181-8201 East Kaiser Boulevard. Property is 6.2 acres located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road. To permit roof-mounted equipment for a previously-approved planned commercial officeliight industrial complex with seven buildings. CflNDI~'IONAL U5E PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. SR1089VK.DOC • •~~ ~ 1r ~• ~. • • • (Commissioner Koos abstained on the basis that he has properfy wifhin 1000 feei of su6ject property.] Loren Brucker, agent, Clifford Companies, 1451 Quail Street, Newport Beach, CA: Stated under the initial CUP when they fi~st began the process, they were under the possible belief that the roof screens for the building may not be necassary and they proceeded knowing they would research the need for the roof screens and that research involved site visits, photos, lines of sight, etc. They discovered that roof screens were necessary on approximately 1l2 of the building and they submitted a i;UP to provide the roof screens. The project is currently under construction and is approximately 50% completed and they have one building under contract and approximately three buildings which they have proposals on and they would like to finalize this transaction so thsy can bring those new businesses into the City. Mr. Brucker: They have reviewed the staff report and believe that they have progressed well beyond what is in the staff report. The staff report indicates that they had proposed a metal screen to be painted to match ;he color of the building and that is correct, but in working with staff, they submitted revised documents that show they are putting a material called E.F.I.S. on the screens which is the same material as their entryways which they think are enhancing and they are arched entries to the buildings and those archways are made of this material and the screens will have that same E.F.I.S. material. He added the staff report indicates there was minimal effort put into the screens and he thought certain members of staff would agree that their efforts were not really minimal and they did put some thought into it. Concerning the location of those screens and whether they should be closer to the walls, they tried to make them disappear. He stated they felt the bast option was to put them into the center of the building and that reduces ihe lins of sight for more persons who happen to be in the area. The units are a minimum of 18" below the top of those screens and lhey intend to paint the roof, the roof screens and the equipment all the same color in an effort to make it disappear. He stated they have certain reveals and features on the building which are quite attractive. He added he did not think they have a lot of discrepancies with staff and thought they can probably resolve the issues. He stated staff has recommended that this item be continued and in order to expedite it in their interest, they would propose the Commission approve to permit the screens and that they would work with staff to address these aesthetic issues such as whether they should have reveals or not have reveals, what color they should be to maintain the best integrity of what we are all trying to accomplish. There was no opposition. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 02-01-99 Page 29 Chairwomar, Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Asked if staff would be comfortable with adding a ccndition tha: this is subject to staff approval. Cheryl Flores, Senior Pianner: Responded that depends on whether Commission is comfortable with the idea of having equipment that is screened with a box around it with the E.F.I.S. coating on it; however, it has not been done in the Scenic Corridor and there is no roof-rnounted equipment visible at all in this area and staff wants te be very sure that the view from the two-story office buildings that are clese by will not be impacted by this roof-mounted equipment. Chairwoman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Asked if they could put a roof over the equipment. Mr. Brucker: Responded they could put a top on the screens; however, he would have to check with the Mechanical Engineer about the impact that would have on the operation of the units. He stated if they paint the units to be the same color, he thought that would solve the problem, but if putting a roof on the screen is the solution, they would be willing to do that and would work with staff. He added he thought staff was reasonable and they can work with them to make sure the aesthetics are what they are trying to accomplish. Chairwoman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: This is in the Scenic Corridor and this is something we absolutely do not allow, and that there will be a lot of people looking down on this building. Mr. Brucker : They provided some photographs and the lines of sight which represent the view for residents in particular. Chairvvoman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: The offices nearby are high and we are as concerned about them as the residents. Mr. Brucker stated this was approved as Office, Light Industrial, so i! is not 100% office and 16% is approved for light industrial and that impacts the kinds of rent they can generate. He stated they felt all along it would acceptable to do this and they were willing to work with staff to try and make it acceptable and were totally under the impression that this was the route to take. Greg Hastings, ~oning Division Manager, referred to Paragraphs 13 and 14 in the staff report that are code requirements pertaining to the screeniny materials to be used and that fact that this should not be recognizable as a screening device. For the most part, the screening that has been done in this area where we do have something mounted on a roof has actually gone into an architectural feature of the building or has been sunken down into a well so that it can't be seen and may not even be considered roof-mounted equipment since a lot of times it is actually below the roof level. He stated Paragraph 15 which also reiterates the Code, indicates that typically the conditional use permit should only be applied for when the equipment is required to be on the roof either by the Building code or just by the nature of the particular use of the building such as a fast food restaurant where the actual equipment needs to be right above the stove area. He added the intent is not to have roof mounted equipment unless it is absolutely necessary and if it is necessary that it be somewhat camouflaged with a feature of the building in such a way so that you would not know that it is roof mourted equiprc~ent screening. Cheryl Flores: There are seven individual buildings involved and she thought it wouid be best to bring the plans back to the Commission for approval, rather than leaving it up to staff. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked if there is any way to bring it up to the front rather than the canter of the building and incorporating it into the entrance facade so that it is raised up as kind of a frontage and then have the E.F.I.S. materials around it so it doesn't look so much like it is just sitting in the middle of the roof. Mr. Brucker : They considered that, but the problem is that the facade is on one side only and the closer you move it to the edge of the building, the more visible it becomes. Also, the roof is higher in that area so that it drains properly so it starts to raise it more than it lowers it. He stated they can address it with staff and try to find a different location. 02-01-99 Page 30 Mr. Brucker: Responded to Commissioner Bostwick that if the Commission says "no" they would have a serious problem; that when they moved forward with this project, the site plan went through Planning approval, and they got building permits and they are 50% under construction and they had no idea that they couid be 4oid that they would have to mount roof-mounted equipment on the ground. He added he did not knov~ wrhere at be placed on the ground because parking and landscaping are at minimum. The staff report says that they were a~vised that they should make every effort to get ground mounted equipment. He stated he does not personally recall that coming up and he has been at every meeting since the beginning and he particularly did not see it as having been an issue. He did not know how it got through Planning and building permits and lhe staff he was working with knew he was looking at roof screens and how it was going to be done. He stated this is not strictly an office use and 16% is industrial and the rents are not equivalant to office space and the rent would have gone down and if he had believed that they had to use ground-mounted equipment, that he was not sure that the project would have been economically feasible. He thought the project is advantageous to the City and the use is appropriate for the area. He stated he would work with staff to generate the best roof screening possible and this would be an improvemeni over certain areas which can be seen from the same residences. He added he was told that there are other b;iildings that have roof screens on them that are not that attractive and that he was told that is why they needed to work with staff so they are not the only ones in the area with roof screens. Cheryl Flores: Condition No. 13 on the original resolution dated April 13, 1998, does state that any roof- mounted equipment shall be subject to the Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.84.062.032 pertaining to the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, including obtaining a conditional use permit, if necessary, and that such information shall be shown on the plans submitted for building permits. Mr. Brucker: It ~vas shown there and we were trying to make ttiat decision whether they move forward or not and they did submit some interior improvements to some of the buildings which showed the roof screens and that he was told by a staff member that he had to rescind those drawings and take those roof screens off the plans until he came befare the Planning Commission. He responded tu Commissioner Bostwick that he did not show roof-mounted equipment on the original drawings. Greg Hastings: He did not personally reviarv these plans but was involved in some of the original meetings on this project; that he does not remember this gentleman and staff did give the applicant examples of some of the nearby buildings which they may wish to look at where the roof-mounted equipment was not an issue; but that generally r~hen we get building plans, we do not always see in the beginning phases where that equipment will be located. There 2re times staff assumes it is going on the ground and that is why it is not shown on the building. Mr. Brucker : Staff saw the site plan and knew there was no place for it on the ground. He stated he has a project 50% completed under construction. Commissioner Wiliiams: Asked if they had an HVAC plan when the submitted the original plans which would have been approved at the same time. Mr. Brucker: Respor.ded he could not do it until he got this amendment approved. Greg Hastings added st2ff could not have approved that and, therefore, the equipment either goes on the ground cr it is designed into the buildinc~ in such a way that it is compatible with Code. He added he thought there may be ways to incorporate this into something on the building; however, it will be up to the applicant to really show that there may be ways to have it loolc like part of the building. He stated staff would be more than happy to assist in reviewing those. Commissioner Bostwick: Stated maybe it needs to be into a well and the facia incorporated, and the developer needs to give the Commission some type of compromise as far as height, materials and where it is located on the roof because he was not in favor of just sticking pods in the middie of the roofs and it is definitely in the Code that roof-mounted equipment is not permitted. Greg Hastings: Stated since ttiis is a conditional use permit, it would be appropriate to continue this matter so he can submit revised plans, or it would be approvai without specific plans. 02-01-99 Page 31 Commissioner Bostwick: He fs not comfo~table witt~ approving roof-mounted equipment without seeing the actual plans and design and how thi~ is gofng to fit. He offered a motion for 4 week continuance, to March 1,1999, seconded by Commissioner Williams, and Motion Carried. Cheryi Flores: Staff would have to have plans by Friday, February 12, so the staff report could be written Mr. Brucker: The thing that is kind of fnastrating; that he has worked in a lot of cities and was surprised that all of a sudden one day he got a staffi report and fhat there was a meeting and no one ever called him or talked to him about this particular fssue ~nd he thought they were fine; that he mada a submittal on December 16 and then got a phone message saying there was a meeting and this item was going to be continued and when he called, was told thers were some issues. He asked why he couldn't have come in and met with staff about these issues and maybe thay ,:ould have been worked out. He added he is willing to come in and work with staff immediately, but feit they have lost some time. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject rsquest to the March 1,1999 Planning Commission meeting in order the petitioner to work with staff to provide suitable screening of the roof- mounted eo,uipment. Revised plans shall be suhmitted to s-aff by Friday, F~bruary 12,1999. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Koos declared a conflict of interest and Chairman Bristol absent) DISCUSSIUN TIME: 20 minutes (3:44-4:04) 02-01-99 Page 32 MEETING ADJOURN AT 4:05 P.M. TO WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17,1999 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REV{EW. Submitted by: ~ ~vy.ai Ossie Edmundson Senior Secreta~~ , ~Q~ ~' ~~'~-'~-~-~ Edith Harris Planning Commission Suppnrt Supervisor 02-01-99 Page 33