Loading...
Minutes-PC 2000/03/13o~~~~H~~M`,`~- CITY OF QNAHEIM * ~ _ ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~~~NUeD ~~y1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge Allegiance was led by Commissioner Koos. MORNING SESSION: Chairperson Boydstun called the Morning Session to order 11:00 a.m. in the Council Chamber. 11:00 A.M. • Staff update to Commission of various City developments and issues (as requested by Planning Commission) • Preliminary Plan Review PUBLIC HEARING: Chairperson Boydstun called the Public Hearing to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber and welcomed those in attendance. 1:30 P.M. • Public Hearing Testimony • DATE: MONDAY, MARCH 13, 2000 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Arnold, Boydstun, Bostwick, Bristol, Koos, Napoles, Vanderbilt STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Mary McCloskey Brad Hobson Greg Hastings Linda Johnson Greg McCafferty Marie Newland Don Yourstone Tajer Jalai Melanie Adams Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Deputy Planning Director Deputy Director of Community Development Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Senior Planner Assistant Planner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Principal Traffic Engineer Associate Civil Engineer Planning Commission Secretary Senior Secretary AGENDA POSTING: A comp(ete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 3:00 p.m. on March 9, 2000, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, February 17, 2000. . P: DOCS\CLERICALWIIN UTES~AC031300. DOC planninpcommissionCc~anaheim.net 03-13-00 Page 1 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of February 28, 2000. (Motion) Approved (Vote: 7-0) ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the February 28, 2000 Planning Commission minutes. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a) CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061(b)(3) b) CODE AMENDMENT NO. 99-05: City-initiated (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, request to amend the Zoning Code requirements for parking lot lighting in order to enhance the safety and security of parking lots and parking garages/structures servicing commercial, industrial, multiple-family and institutional properties. Continued to 3-27-2000 Continued from Commission meeting of February 14, 2000. • SR1008SK.DOC ACTION: Commissioner Napoles offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby continue this item to the March 27, 2000 meeting in order to provide Planning staff additional time to incorporate the revisions suggested by the Planning Commission. There was no discussion related to this item. r~ ~J 03-13-00 Page 2 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • B. a) CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061(b)(3) Approved b) REQUEST INITIATION OF RECLASSIFICATION Initiated PROCEEDINGS: City-initiated (Planning Department), 2000 reclassification South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests for proceedings initiation of reclassification proceedings from the CH (Commercial, Heavy) and ML (Industrial, Limited) Zones to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. Properties are located at 1541-1695 West Lincofn (Vote: 6-1, Avenue, 255-329 North Manchester Avenue and 200-225 North Commissioner Loara Street. Boydstun voted no) Continued from the Commission meeting of February 14, 2000. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Boydstun voted no), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 15061(b)(3), as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. ~ Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Boydstun voted no), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby initiate the reclassification of the properties located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue between Euclid Street and Loara Street (1600-1650, 1672 and 1680 West Lincoln Avenue), on north side of Lincoln Avenue befinreen Euciid Street and Manchester Avenue (1541-1695 West Lincoln Avenue), including properties on Loara Street north of Lincoln Avenue (200-225 North Loara Street) and properties south and west of Manchester Avenue (255-329 North Manchester Avenue), from the ML (Limited Industrial) and CH (Commercial, Heavy) zones to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone SR1037TW.DOC • Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating this is a continued item for initiation of reclassification proceedings for properties located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue between Euclid and Manchester. At Commission's request staff went back and consulted with Community Development regarding long range plan issues for that area. After discussions with Community Development, staff is recommending that Commission not consider initiating reclassification proceedings at this time. He indicated that Brad Hobson from Community Development was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Koos stated given the morning discussion and the clarification by the Community Development staff that they were only concerned with the Caltrans parcels, he asked whether staff s recommendation to not initiate this still stood. Greg Hastings Zoning Division Manager, responded that their recommendation would be the properties zoned CH (Commercial, Heavy) on Lincoln Avenue be initiated to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone at this time. The other properties they would request that those be held off until Redevelopment further study these. 03-13-00 Page 3 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Koos indicated that Redevelopment stated this morning that they did not have a problem with bringing the ML (Industrial, Limited) Zone properties into conformance with the Generai Plan. He asked if Planning staff had a comment on ML Zone properties. Greg Hastings advised there is one ML Zone property on the north side of Lincoln Avenue. Staff would suggest including that since it is surrounded on both sides by the CH Zone. Commissioner Koos stated, for the record, the staff report should have indicated the CH properties on the south side of Lincoln as well. Chairperson Boydstun asked if the ML property has been notified. Greg McCafferty responded if Commission set these for pubfic hearing then they will be notified at that time. Commissioner Arnold asked staff if they are comfortabie doing this in a"piecemeal" fashion and the others later. Greg Hastings stated that staff would not have a problem with the CH and the ML property because the CL Zone would be more restrictive then the CH Zone and there was a City Council directive several years ago to proceed with the CG and the CH properties rezoning them to the CL Zone. Commissioner Koos asked if he was referring to the ML properties east of the tracks. Brad Hobson, Community Development, stated the Redevelopment Agency owns one parcel east of the railroad tracks on the north side of Lincoln Avenue. All of that area has been identified in the • Redevelopment Plan as commercial. A CL Zone within that area east of the railroad tracks and north of Lincoln would be consistent with the Redevelopment Plan if they went the CL Zone Commissioner Koos stated the only property that they are not discussing today is a property that does not have a zoning classification because of the way the freeway used to be configured, property on the corner of Euclid and Lincoln. Commissioner Arnold's impression from the morning session is that there were properties east of the railroad tracks that were remnant parcels thaf they woufd not be reviewed at this time. Brad Hobson stated there are some remnant parcels east of the railroad tracks. It is his understanding that they are not part of this reclassification. r 1 L_J 03-13-00 Page 4 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r ~ ~J C. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH Determined to be THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN: County of Orange, Attn: Bill in conformance De Luca, Staff Analyst, Community Services Agency - Special with the Anaheim Programs Division, 1300 South Grand Avenue, Building B, Santa General Plan Ana, CA 92705, requests a determination of conformance with the Anaheim General Plan to enter into a rent-free tenant use permif (Vote: 7-0) for office space for the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Program. Property is located at 2450 East Lincoln Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the County's proposal to enter into a Rent-Free Tenant Use Permit for ofFice space at 2450 E. Lincoln Avenue is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. SR7681 MN.DOC ~ Marie Newland, Assistant Planner, stated the County of Orange Community Services Agency/Special Programs Division (CSA/SPD) requests the City determine whether the Rent-Free Tenant use permit for office space at 2450 East Lincoln Avenue for the purpose of co-locating the JTPA (Job Training Partnership Act) Program which provides job search, and labor market information, initial needs assessment, case management, counseling and individual employment planning and training is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. The proposed office use is compatible with the General Plan/General Commercial designation and therefore staff is recommending approval. D. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN: County of Orange, Health Care Agency, Attn: V. John Iagjian, 515 North Sycamore, Suite 618, Santa Ana, CA 92701, requests a determination of conformance with the Anaheim General Plan to enter into a rent- free lease agreement for office space to continue to provide physical and occupational therapy services. Property is located at 2911 West Stonybrook Drive. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the County's proposal to enter into a Rent-Free Lease Agreement for office space at 2991 W. Stonybrook Drive is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. Determined to be in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan (Vote: 7-0) SR7682MN.DOC • Marie Newland, Assistant Planner, stated the County of Orange Health Care Agency requests the City to determine whether the continued use of leased o~ce space at 2911 West Stonybrook Drive, Lord Baden Powel Elementary School, for the purpose of continuing occupational therapy services, is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. 7he services provided by HCA are compatible with the school use and therefore are consistent with the Genera( Plan; staff is recommending approval. 03-13-00 Page 5 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • E. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WI7H Determined to be THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN: County of Orange, Probation in conformance Department, Attn: Linda Barry, Real Property Agent, 909 North with the Anaheim Main Street, Suite I, Santa Ana, CA 92701-3511, requests a General Plan determinafion of conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for lease of office space for the continued operation of a Probation (Vote: 7-0) Department Field Office. Property is located at 1147 North Anaheim Boulevard. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the County's proposal to renew a lease for office space at 1147 North Anaheim Boulevard is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. SR7683MN.DOC • • Marie Newland, Assistant Planner, stated the County of Orange Probation Department requests the City to determine whether the use of leased office space at 9147 North Anaheim Boulevard, for the purpose of continuing to provide a Probation Department Field Service Office where juveniles and adults on probation report to their probation officer is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. The Probation Department Field Service Office has been operating at this facility for the past 25 years and would like to renew their lease for another 15 years. The office use is consistent with the General Plan designation for General Commercial land uses; therefore staff is, therefore, recommending approval. 03-13-00 Page 6 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved in part 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4183 Granted OWNER: All American Petroleum Corp., Attn: Jerry Zomorodian, 301 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Dennis McCollough, 17875 Von Karman Avenue #301, Irvine, CA 92614 LOCATION: 1037 West Ball Road - Arco Service Station. Property is 0.35 acres located at the northwest corner of Ball Road and West Street. To permit the remodel and expansion of an existing legal non-conforming service station and convenience market with waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces (b) minimum interior setback area, (c) required wall screening, and (d) maximum number and size of wall signs. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-22 SR7690NC.DOC u Linda Johnson, Senior Planner, stated this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to remodel and expand an existing legal nonconforming service station and convenience market. The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan permits modifications and expansions to legal nonconforming uses subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit provided that the changes would bring the site into greater conformity with the intent of the Specific Plan. Further, the Specific Plan does not set forth requirements pertaining to specific types of architecture, however, it does require all new or remodeled buildings to comply with the Specific Plan Design Plan. The applicant is proposing to remodel the ARCO service station site and convenience market to create a castle-theme including the complete remodeling of the building faCade and the expansion of the convenience market to add a 500 square foot cooler/storage area. The proposed project includes four proposed waivers of code requirements: . The first waiver is with regard to minimum number of parking spaces - 3 additional spaces required for 500-square foot addition, none proposed. Staff supports this waiver inasmuch as the building expansion area is to be used for storage only and will not increase the size of the sales area or the number of employees or customers, or generafe any additional customer traffic to the site. ~ The second waiver is with regard to minimum interior setback areas. The Code requires a minimum 10-foot wide setback for new structures. Currently there is an existing minimum 5-foot wide setback for the convenience market building. No setback is proposed for the 500-foot expansion area. Staff recommends that a minimum 3-foot wide fully landscaped setback area be provided along the entire length of the north property line for both the building expansion and the block wall and then an additional planter area in the front area between the building and West Street. This setback area would provide enough area for a viable landscape planter for clinging vines and shrubs to screen the building and minimize the aesthetic impact of the proposal, eliminate graffiti opportunities, and to avoid creating a"hard edge" between the service station property and the hotel to the north. 03-13-00 Page 7 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • There is also a requested waiver of a required wall screening - walis are required to be screened with either clinging vines or shrubbery; no screening is proposed adjacent to new block walls. Staff supports this waiver for the side of wall oriented towards interior of site, however stafF does recommend that if any of the block wall is visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties that the clinging vines be added. • The last waiver is with regard to the maximum number and size of wall signs. The applicant has withdrawn his request for a waiver for the size of the wall signs and will now comply with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan requirements in that regard. He is requesting one additional convenience market sign which staff does support inasmuch as the property is a corner property adjacent to Ball Road and West Street. If there were only one wall sign then it would only be visible from one street. Further the proposed monument sign can only be oriented towards the intersection of Ball Road and West Street and would not be visible from southbound West Street tra~c. The reason why the monument sign can only be oriented towards the intersection is due to the underground fuel tanks. The monument sign cannot be moved from the location that it is proposed in. Staff does recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit provided that the conditions of approval are incorporated specifically, Condition No. 3 which sets forth proposed modifications to the building design which staff believes would bring the building more into compliance with the Specific Plan design plans, Therefore, staff does recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit and the waivers are noted and staff does recommend that the Commission find that with the incorporation of the applicable mitigation measures from Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085 and with the added mitigation measure requiring a 3-foot wide fully landscaped setback area along the north property line to mitigate the aesthetic impact of the project by softening the edge and creating a landscape barrier between the • subject property and the adjacent property, that the Commission find that no significant adverse environmental impact would be created by the proposed project. Staff is recommending some modifications to the conditions of approval, Condition Nos. 3, 11, and 17 and staff has provided that to the Commission and to the applicant and specifically it would amend the conditions as folfows: Condition No. 3(e) to read, "A minimum 3-foot wide landscape setback area shall be provided along the entire length of the north property line, including between the proposed building expansion and block wall." The remainder of that condition would stay the same. Condition No. 11 to read; "That prior to final building and zoning inspections, all public telephones located on the property shall either be relocated inside the convenience market or within 10 feet from the front door." Condition No. 17 to read, "That prior to final building and zoning inspections, or prior to the commencement of activities authorized by this resolution, whichever occurs first, subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file in the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 5 as revised pursuant to Condition No. 3." Applicant's Statement: Dennis McCollough, stated he is the agent for the applicant, All-American Petroleum Corp., and is available to answer any questions. Chairperson Boydstun asked how high is the cooler box on the plans. • Dennis McCollough responded it will be 10 feet to the top of the wall. The rest of the wall around the back of the property will be 8 feet high. 03-13-00 Page 8 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bristol stated on the north side the applicant is requesting 2 feet over the 8-foot wall on the 0-lot line. Dennis McCollough confirmed that was correct. The rear wall would be 8 feet around the equipment yard and would step up to 10 feet and the cooler box would then step down to 8 feet at the easterly portion of the property. It would be a decorative block pattern. Commissioner Bostwick asked how wide the planter was on the west side. Dennis McCollough responded it is 18 inches clear between curbs. It is an existing planter. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated he is assuming that there are some flood lights that are mounted on the flat portion of the roof and they would be directed towards the turrets. He is concerned with the adjacent hotel level and asked whether rays of light would shine against the hotel. Dennis McCollough stated after the project is constructed they will move the lights around to get the best affect on the turrets to avoid light shining into the hotel. Linda Johnson advised Condition No. 7 requires that prior to final building and zoning inspections that a site inspection shall be conducted by Planning staff to ensure that the flood lights used to light the turrets shall not cause excessive lighting. If there were any then it would need to be dimmed or altered to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Commissioner Bostwick stated presently there is no planter there and they are accessing the graffiti removal through the other property. If the cooler box were moved 12 or 18 inches, such as the other . planter on the west side, would it work? Dennis McCollough explained the layout of the interior is something that is very tight. The square footage in the cooler is required to store perishable goods that are of a high volume item during the summer. A high turnout requires a large storage area and that was why the applicant wants to expand the cooler. He could not say whether the 12 or 18 inches would adversely affect it. It would require some modification of the interior to compensate for that. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated he thought items such as soft drinks would be high volume and those are not perishable items. Dennis McCollough responded that is true. There is a high volume of soft drinks. Rather than store them in a warm area and have them take time to cool off, the applicant wants store them in a cold box where they can go directly into the display areas. Commissioner Bristol asked if the applicant has communicated with the property owner to north. Dennis McCollough stated the applicant has attempted to communicate with the owner of the hotel without success. Commissioner Bristol asked about the small wall that is 1 to 2 feet high on the north side whether it is on the hotel property. Dennis McCollough responded it is on the applicanYs property. Commissioner Bristol stated if they are having a hard time contacting the hotel owner and if the setback was 3 feet then they would have 3 trees, a planting area in their site, a small wall, three more feet and a • wall, then the cooler box. 03-13-00 Page 9 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Dennis McCollough responded if it were set back 3 feet there would be a short wall about curb height at the property line, 2%2 feet of landscaping. Commissioner Brisfot stated he has visited the site twice in the last 24 hours trying to envision what the staff recommendation is versus what the applicant is requesting. He is trying to evaluate the conflict of the applicanYs landscaping with the setback of 3 feet versus being on a 0-lot line with the wall. Dennis McColiough stated measuring from the lot line there would be a 6-inch width of curb, 2%2 feet of landscaping, and then the coo(er wall. The 2%2 feet plus the 6 inches, which equals 3 feet, would allow the applicant access to the planting area. Chairperson Boydstun asked whether that would give the applicant room for his cooler. Dennis McCollough responded he feels that it would not give him adequate room for his cooler. Dennis McCollough responded to Chairperson Boydstun by confirming that the wire fence is on the lot line. The proposal is to remove the wire fence and replace it with a decorative concrete block wall. Commissioner Bristol stated in reciprocaf agreements with parking they ask the property owners to communicate with each other, he did not know if that was proper in this case. Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director, stated one of the reasons staff had recommended the 3-foot landscaping is to provide for the maintenance on-site because the property owner did indicate to staff that he was unable to get any solution to be able to maintain that plant. There is graffiti occurring in the back of those properties. They felt that the 3 feet would accommodate the vine pockets and an adequate area for them to be able to access it for maintenance. They were not looking for additional trees they were just • looking for vine pockets and shrub against that wall to layer it. Chairperson Boydstun asked if the wire fence is on the line then that landscaping that is behind the fence must belong to the hotel. Mary McCloskey confirmed that was correct. Chairperson Boydstun stated what good is it going to do to put a planter behind it if they do not maintain theirs. Mary McCloskey explained the intent for the planter for this block wall is primarily to prevent graffiti and to provide a softer edge along there. Code Enforcement has talked about getting greater compliance for the other landscaping as well, however, staff's feeling is tF~at it should be provided on the site for that landscaped area and the maintenance for the vines. Commissioner Bristol stated if the fence is removed and also the small fence that would give the landscaping another 8 to 9 inches on the hotel site and cfean that up and plant vines. That would result in the same affect, if they can get cooperation with the hotel owner. Dennis McCollough stated his client is willing to work with adjacent property neighbor in planting and maintaining the hotel property side but he has not been able to contact the owner yet. Mary McCloskey stated for that to work it would have to be an agreement because another property owner could come in the future. Chairperson Boydstun asked if the wall could be set as it is at South Anaheim Boulevard where there is • an 8-inch planter for the vines to climb the fences and set in far enough to put it in so the applicant would have vines on the wall but he would still have the room for the cooler box. 03-13-00 Page 10 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mary McCloskey stated their desire is to get the vines planted on the wall and to provide a softer treatment between the two properties, especially due to the new onramp. Many people travelling past this property will view the northerly property line as they enter the Resort Area. Chairperson Boydstun asked if that would work if they put the wall just slightly off of the line and plant vine pockets. Mary McCloskey stated the reason for specifying 3 feet is due to the discussions with the applicant that indicated maintenance would be a problem. Staff had checked with the City landscape maintenance people and they indicated for it to be able to be maintained, 3 feet would be the minimum unless they were able to access. Chairperson Boydstun suggested if they had vine pockets before they put the wall in they could run water to those pockets. Mary McCloskey stated the questions would still be in maintaining the vines. Staff had recommended that 3 feet would be the minimum area to be able to provide on-site maintenance of those vines. Commissioner Bostwick suggested if the applicant moves the wall in 12 to 18 inches then there would be room enough for sprinklers and vines to be planted. His question was whether the applicant could use the cooler box 12 to 18 inches less. The planter would be the same size as the other planter on the west side of the property. Commissioner Koos asked if the east side of the cooler has to stop there. He wondered whether they could make up for it by bringing the cooler out a few feet to the east. ~ Dennis McCollough stated it would increase the storage area. The cooler box can go beyond that to the east but there is also some outdoor air conditioning equipment sitting immediately outside the wall. They have concerns with the equipment and wanted to leave the equipment as it is proposed. Commissioner Bristol thought 18 inches would be a compromise to be able to access at minimum or contact the hotel owner to obtain a reciprocal agreement. Mary McCloskey stated for the plant pockets they could not go to a zero (0) setback. They would need to have some space to plant the vine pockets. Commissioner Arnold wondered what if they entered into a landscape easement. It could not be resolved today but there could be alternate conditions, which would give them perpetual property rights to maintain it. Dennis McCollough responded it would be the most desirable solution. Mary McCloskey stated that would be acceptable to staff. They would still be recommending 3 feet or alternatively if the applicant was to secure a perpetual landscape easement along the property owner to the north. Jerry Zomorodian, 301 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, stated he has attempted to contact the hotel owner numerous times and sent a letter with a representative, Paul Kott, stating his willingness to work with them, but he has not received a response. The adjacent property already has a 3-foot setback with mature landscaping, including tree and groundwater. He has already lost many square feet due to the widening of the street. He can leave the service station as is but he wants to make improvements to beautify it. • Commissioner Koos asked if the cooler on the building wall on the west side could be built out at all. 03-13-00 Page 11 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Jerry Zomorodian stated the cooler is going to be very narrow to get the merchandise in. They will be losing the doors on the right hand side and also the entrance of the cooler, which is basically going to be used as their main storage location. The City has taken almost 2,000 square feet of that location which makes it very difficult to conduct business there and that is the reason to propose a design to make this location more attractive and bring more business to this site. Chairperson Boydstun stated she felt a split block decorative wall is going to look much better back there. When the hotel landscaping is behind that she did not feel it is going to look better. Commissioner Koos wondered why something could not be done such as sacrificing some of his storage room in order to bring the cooler door down to get the square footage that Mr. Zomorodian desires. Jerry Zomorodian responded he has looked at that possibility and the property line continues on the left side and becomes smaller. There is also an office to consider. In the Resort Area it is not allowed to add any square footage besides the cooler that they are adding. If it is approved on the left side then he can place a cooler and lose his storage, which he does not have, a problem with, but he feels it is going to be very complicated. Mary McCloskey stated what is happening in the interior is that the prior storage area is now being converted to a new office and dry storage area. The counter is also being relocated; however, for the parking waiver they are not increasing their retail area but they are reconfiguring the business inside. The storage area is going to be converted to a new office and a reconfigured dry storage plus the cold storage. Jerry Zomorodian did not feel that was correct because they currently have partial office in that storage. • The storage is going to be moved to the other side to the south corner and the rest is going to be storage and there is a door between the storage and office. Regarding the issue of graffiti, they remove it with 24 hours. Commissioner Koos asked Mr. Zomorodian whether he felt that options suggested were not viable and could he not redesign it in order to gain the cooler space that he is seeking. Dennis McCollough stated the question is whether the interior wall where the cool boxes are can be modified to allow the zero (0) lot line wall to be moved in 18 inches. Commissioner Koos clarified 18 inches or 3 feet, either way. Dennis McCollough stated as staff pointed out the object of the remodeling is not to increase the sales areas but only the storage area. They can modify the wall where the cooler boxes are. It is physically possible and structural(y feasible to do that. However, in doing that they will have to reduce the sales area. Just as they do not want to increase the sales area, they do not want to reduce it either. They would have to pull those cool boxes in at an angle parallel to the property line and would lose some sales area back in that corner, which is the issue at-hand. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked when the owner is required to install the Resort style sign. Linda Johnson stated the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan requires the legal nonconforming pole sign to be removed by December 31, 2002. Dennis McCollough stated if the issue on the zero (0) property line is strictly graffiti prevention by allowing vines to grow on that wall then he suggested they can provide wall mounted planters supplied by an irrigation drip system on-site to allow vines to grow on the wall and still keep it at the zero (0) property • line, if that is the only issue. 03-13-00 Page 12 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mary McCloskey stated staff is not familiar with that so it would be difficult for them to comment whether that would be satisfactory. She could not recall seeing anything of that nature before. Jerry Zomorodian still feels this project should not be hindered nor the property owner blamed for the graffiti. Mary McCloskey stated staff is recommending vines because they are one of the only effective ways to take control of it and they also provide a softened edge. Commissioner Arnold stated it appears that the applicant is willing to work with the neighboring landowners to obtain a perpetual easement to allow them to maintain plants, do planters, use anti-graffiti paint or be diligent about going out to repaint it. Commission would be wise to let applicant choose one of the options. Mr. Zomorodian felt that once he speaks with the property owner of the hotel and explains his landscaping plans, he is certain they will be in agreement, but he does not want to put any contingency in the approval regarding the negotiation in the event he is unable to contact the owner. He suggested staff check the conditional use permit of the adjacent hotel property and make them improve their property. Chairperson Boydstun stated Commissioner Arnold is suggesting that it could be one of the three alternatives then it could be made a condition of approval. Mary McCloskey stated the Code requires 10-foot landscape setback and staff recommended that they give a relief of 7 feet on that to provide a 3-foot landscape area along there in order to provide a green edge. There will still be graffiti even with graffiti proof paint that will require constant maintenance. Vine pockets will be easier to maintain and will look more aesthetically pleasing. Staff recommends landscape ~ treatment for a dual purpose. Chairperson Boydstun stated that is why Commissioner Arnold suggested planter boxes, to provide greenery on the wall. Mary McCloskey understood Commissioner Arnold as stating he wanted to give applicant three options. Chairperson Boydstun stated it could be lowered to have planter boxes or an agreement with the hotel to get the vines one way or another. During the Action: Linda Johnson advised that the Mitigation Monitoring Plan needs to be modified to reflect the two landscaping alternatives regarding the wall. Mary McCloskey clarified the issue of the planters by stating that they would be setback far enough so that they would not overhang in the setback line onto the other property. From a practical sense, they need to see how the planters would work, what it would look like and to ensure that the boxes do not hang over the property line if the wall is put onto 0-foot. Commissioner Bostwick stated they will hang over but it will be in the planter area of the hotel. Chairperson Boydstun suggested the architect submit drawings as a Reports and Recommendations item. Mary McCloskey stated it would require an agreement to go onto someone else's property to use it in any way, unless the planter can be planted on the other side of the wall. • 03-13-00 Page 13 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Zomorodian asked why they are taking so long to discuss a 10 x 10-foot area. He has already spent $3,600 to come to Commission and has already spent $50,000 to change a sign that he did not need to change. Commissioner Koos stated it is development standards. Commissioner Arnold stated he has seen it done in other cities, but there needs to be some cooperation to work together to make it feasible and attractive. Commissioner Koos asked the City Attorney if the waiver has to be specific in the findings regarding the justification in granting the waiver. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney advised there are some fairly specific findings in the staff report which are somewhat different with regard to the 3-foot that is being recommended. There needs to be language that it is an equivalent alternative to what is being suggested in the staff report. Selma Mann asked if there needs to be an amendment to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Mary McCloskey responded the Mitigation Monitoring Plan needs to be modified because it requires the 3-foot setback. Linda Johnson read the measure into the record as presently written. Commissioner Bostwick asked if Waiver "C" is not approved, does there have to be 3-foot setback, Mary McCloskey stated they are looking at the vine pockets and it would be a similar solution to what was ~ imposed on the north property line. Staff did not recommend a 3-foot planter along that wall because it isn't as visible. Commissioner Arnold suggested an alternative to Condition No. 3(e) that the property owner negotiate a perpetual landscape easement with neighboring property owner to the north to allow for fast growing vines to be maintained on the wall. Following the Action: Jerry Zomorodian thanked Linda Johnson for her hard work on this project and apologized for such a lengthy discussion. Commissioner Bostwick indicated they are looking forward in seeing this project completed as it will be located at an entryway into the Resort Area for visitors to see as they arrive into the area. Commissioner Koos concurred with Commissioner Bostwick, and defended staff by stating that it is largely due to the staff (referring to Mary McCloskey, Linda Johnson and Niki Cutler) that the Resort Area looks as beautiful as it does. He explained that they are simply trying to raise the standards. They and may question certain aspects of a proposed project but, in the end, everyone is a winner if applicants, such as Mr. Zomorodian, propose good projects for the City. Jerry Zomorodian indicated he would like staff and Commission to trust him when he proposes a project and promised to take care of that location. Commissioner Arnold indicated they appreciate the alternatives that he suggested as a way to achieve the same result in a different way. • 03-13-00 Page 14 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNtNG COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • • ~ ~- • ~ ~ • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration with the following amendment to Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 030: Amended the last mitigation measure to read as follows: "That the property owner/developer shall plant fast-growing clinging vines in planter boxes on the wall, either on top of the wall or on the interior side of the wall to provide for the vines to cascade down to cover the wall to prevent graffiti opportunities with an adequate irrigation system to maintain the vines, or alternatively, that the property owner/developer shall submit proof of a perpetual landscape agreement with the property to the north to allow for the planting, irrigation and maintenance of fast- growing clinging vines and shrubs adjacent to the convenience market building. The vines in the planter boxes or the vines and shrubs on the property to the north shall be installed prior to final building and zoning inspections and shall be irrigated and maintained in a good condition." Approved Waiver of Code Requirement based on the findings stated in the staff report dated March 13, 2000, as follows: Approved waiver (a) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces on the basis that the Traffic and Transportation Manager concurs with the waiver because, as • indicated in the petitioner's parking analysis dated January 25, 2000, the proposed expansion area will be used for storage only and will not increase the retail sales, display and/or service area or increase the number of employees on the premises. That under the conditions imposed, will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for the use than the number of spaces necessary to accommodate the facility's operation nor increase the demand or competition for parking spaces upon the public street in the immediate vicinity or upon adjacent private properties inasmuch as the proposed expansion area will be used for storage only and will not increase the sales, display and/or service area or increase the number of employees upon the premises; and that, That under the conditions imposed, will not increase traffic congestion within the off- street parking areas or impede vehicular ingress/egress to or from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity in that the facility is currently in operation and the improvements will not increase the customer service or retail areas, nor the number of employees. Approving waiver (b), pertaining to minimum interior setback area (to waive the requirement for a 10-foot setback from the north property line for the convenience market expansion area). Approving waiver (c), required wall screening (to waive the requirement to screen the new block walls with clinging vines or shrubbery), under the conditions imposed, are hereby approved, on the basis that special circumstances have been identified which are applicabte to the size, shape and location of the property and existing building configuration that do not apply to other identically-zoned properties in the vicinity in . that the property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land that has been impacted by the public right-of-way improvements along both Ball Road and West Street, which 03-13-00 Page 15 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSIOPf MINUTES ~ improvements have resulted in an overall reduction in the gross square footage of the property; that a portion of the existing building has a minimum 5-foot setback from the north property line; that the building expansion area and block wall are proposed to encompass area which is currently enclosed by a chain link fence with redwood slats; that due to the reduction in the gross square footage of the property as a result of public right-of-way improvements and the existing layout and design of the convenience market, canopy and drive aisles, there is no ability to expand the building on the south elevation or the east elevation; that the portions of the block wall which are oriented towards the interior of the property will not be visible from any adjacent property or public rights-of-way; that no trash enclosure wa11s wilf face a street; and, that strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone classification because this property is one of the smallest in the vicinity and was, therefore, the most impacted by public right-of-way improvements. Approving waiver (d) maximum number of wall signs, under the conditions imposed, is hereby approved, in part, on the basis that special circumstances have been identified which are applicable to the size, shape and location of the property that do not apply to other identically-zoned properties in the vicinity and strict application of the Code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone in that the property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land that has frontage on two streets (Ball Road and West Street) and that the one permitted wall sign would not be visible from both streets; that the proposed monument sign, which can only be oriented towards the intersection of Ball Road and West Street due to the existing underground gasoline tanks, will not provide business identification visible from southbound West Street; that typically all buildings in the Anaheim Resort • Specific Plan Zone are allowed by Code to have at least one wall sign which could be oriented towards the adjacent street frontage; and, that the portion of this waiver pertaining to maximum size of wall signs is hereby denied because it was deleted by the petitioner. GRANTED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4183 BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT DATED MARCH 13, 2000 AND SUBJECT TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING CHANGES TO THE CONDITiONS OF APPROVAL: Modified Condition Nos. 3, 11 and 17 to read as follows: 3. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, revised plans sha11 be submitted to the Planning Department showing the following: a) That the primary color used for dominant wall surfaces shall be light- colored, and accent colors shall be limited to two (2) colors complementary to required colors of Arco/am/pm signage. Further, the use of accent colors shall be limited to areas around windows and on archways. b) That joint or score lines and finish treatment shall be added to the structure to give the stucco the appearance of stone, or another material with a texture/treatment resembling a stone look shall be used. c) The proposed spires atop the four (4) turrets shall be removed. • 03-13-00 Page 16 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ d) The three (3) existing pump island canopy support columns addressed in paragraph (14) of the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 13, 2000 shall be eliminated or integrated into the design of the building. e) That fast-growing clinging vines shall be planted in planter boxes on fhe wall, either on the top of the wall or on the interior side of the wall, to provide for vines cascading down to cover the wall to prevent graffiti opportunities and then an adequate irrigation system shall be installed to maintain fhe vines, or alfernafively, that the property/owner deve/oper shall submit proof of a perpetual landscape easement agreement with the property to the north to allow for the p/anting, irrigation and maintenance of fast-growing clinging vines and shrubs adjacent fo the convenience market building. The vines in the planter boxes or the vines and shrubs on the properfy fo the north shall be installed prior to final building and zoning inspections and shall be irrigated and maintained in a good condition. fl 7haf p/anfer boxes similar to those described in Condition No. 3(e) above, herein, or vine pockets shall be p/aced in the wall on the west side of the property. The planter boxes or the vine pockets, including an irrigation system, shal/ be installed and landscaped prior to final building and zoning inspections and shall be maintained in a good condition. . g) That detailed and precise sign plans shall show a maximum of five (5) wall signs consisting of three (3) "Arco"P'Spark" logo signs (one (1 sign on each side of the canopy) and (two) 2"am/pm " signs (one (1 sign on the south building elevation and 1 sign on the east building elevation). The size of said signs shall comply with Code requirements. 11. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, all public telephones located on the property shall be relocated either inside the convenience market or within 90 feet from the front door. 17. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, or prior to the commencement of activities authorized by this resolution, whichever occurs first, subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file in the Planning Department marked Exhibits Nos. 1 through 5 as revised pursuant to Condition No. 3 above-mentioned. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 7 minutes (1:47-2:54) ~ 03-13-00 Page 17 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4170 (READVERTISED) OWNER: Canyon United Methodist Church, Attn: David Wynn, President, Board of Trustees, 101 Chaparral Court, Anaheim, CA 92808 AGENT: Greg Hammill, 414 S. Fernhill Lane, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 101 Chaparrai Court. Property is 1.3 acre located at the southwest corner of Kaiser Boulevard and Chaparral Court (Light of the Canyon United Methodist Church). To permit a two-story, 35 to 40 foot high church facility with accessory training center classrooms and roof mounted equipment with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the Commission meetings of December 20, 1999, February 14, and February 28, 2000. ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-23 Approved Granted SR7680KP.DOC ApplicanYs Statement: Terry Jacobson, 3111 Second Avenue, Suite 3, Corona Del Mar, stated he is the architect for project. Recommendations at last meeting were to conduct a tra~c study by a licensed Traffic Engineer, discouraged from using Target parking lot and encouraged to look at other properties for reciprocal parking agreements and questioned about number of students. They reduced the use of the school by reducing programs. Square footage for classroom use has been reduced by 4,000 square feet resulting in reduction of 125 students. The total building has been reduced by 2,577 square feet making it 19,238 (prior CUP approval was for 21,000 square foot building). Height has also been reduced therefore no variance is required. They have eliminated the need to utilize parking in the Festival Center at Target and have prepared the parking study. Staff reports requires 314 spaces however, it is taking school and church use and combining the two requirements. Church will be operating on weekends and evenings but the school will be operating mid-week so the two numbers should not be added together. Hui Lai, the applicant's traffic engineer referred Commission to page 3 of staff report. Based on City of Anaheim Fire DepartmenYs use of 15 square feet per person with a 3,385 square feet building, it is 336 people rather than 440 people. Staff indicates 107 spaces, calculating the number of spaces required based on 29 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area for the assembly area plus 440 people maximum occupancy. Code Section .0266 specifies the number of spaces calculated based on the number of persons for maximum occupancy. Staff report combines maximum number of persons plus assembly area. ~ The traffic study reveals that on Sunday, based on City's parking code requirement, the number of spaces needed is 101 and on weekdays 105 spaces. The primary purpose of study is to assess the demands for the conditions. His study reveals Sunday spaces needed for the church portion of the project is 101 spaces and the church is providing 76 spaces so there is a 25 space deficit but there is a reciprocal agreement with the medical center next door which has 99 spaces total. Weekdays will have 130 students per session estimating 75 needed spaces and church site is providing that much, therefore, there is sufficient parking for weekday traffic without using the medical center. 03-13-00 Page 18 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Koos asked him to clarify how he figured the spaces if there were 130 students, his experience is that every one uses their own transportation and can not rely on car pooling for adult education. Hui Lai responded he has not assumed any figures, the numbers are based on observation and he observed that many students were being dropped off and carpooled. They counted the number of students and number of vehicles being parked there. Currently there are approximately 81 students in the heaviest session, with 130 as the projected maximum. Chairperson Boydstun asked if some classes were ESL classes, which may have more of a tendency to have them go together or be dropped off. Hui Lai responded they are ESL classes and he has observed that some drive alone, some car pool and some are dropped off. Commissioner Arnold stated that fewer than 60% of students are driving. Hui Lai stated 130 is the projected maximum that enrollment can accommodate. Commissioner Arnold asked how many spaces would be needed if there were 130 students. Hui Lai indicated based on 81 students today, there are only 47 spaces being utilized, so that is used as a ratio to project the future. It does not mean that the population will reach 130, it is an estimation from actual use today. Commissioner Bostwick asked of the 47 spaces, how many are staff and office. ~ Hui Lai responded 47 spaces included staff. Deficit will be only on Sunday but the medical center can accommodate that. Even on weekdays the medical center only uses abouf 57 spaces leaving over 40 unused spaces. Commissioner Koos asked staff if the medical center already had a variance. Tahar Jalai, Principal Traffic Engineer, stated that provided they have an adequate reciprocal parking agreement, the church would have adequate parking as long as they do not have service at the multi- purpose room and sanctuary at the same time. The maximum number of students should be reduced to 110 to be abie to accommodate 15 to 90 % vacancy in the parking lot. Even though the medical center has unoccupied parking stalls during the week now, if tenants change, the stalls could all become occupied. The medical office does not have parking per Code to begin with. Commissioner Arnold asked if they considered any changes in the use patterns such as bible school in the summer in addition to ESL classes. Greg Hammill, 414 South Fernhill Lane, Anaheim, responded there is vacation bible school and studies that are in the letter of operation. Vacation bible school occurs during Rancho Santiago College vacation time so there is no conflict in use there. Bible school has 25 to 30 youngsters, which get dropped off. Commissioner Arnold stated he is concerned about the potential uses in the future. Greg Hammill responded that apart from the letter of operation there is also a use letter that lists all of the uses of the facilities during the entire year. They are very careful about monitoring their current uses at this new site. They have not had a need to cross over the property although there are a couple of people who by habit park on Sunday mornings over in the medical center parking lot, but there has never been a • time where they have run out of parking spaces and based on those observations by Mr. Lai he has made his projections that are in the parking study. 03-13-00 Page 19 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol stated as he drove to the site on Sunday. He went to the early service to observe the parking lot befinreen 10:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. He observed a sign on the building that appeared to be encouraging enrollment to the Rancho Santiago Community College classes and felt it looked like a school with an accessory church use. His concern would be in terms of parking. Greg Hammill stated that there is a permanent sign for the church and a banner for the school. The church is not an accessory to the school but just the opposite is the case. The school has asked to put up the banner but the banner has not created a parking problem. They do not have a parking problem nor do they anticipate in having a parking problem at the site. Commissioner Bristol asked what if they did not have ESL students but other students that drove their vehicles to the site. Greg Hammill explained they want to be a mission and ministry to their community and to do that their focus was to help assimilate immigrants into the community. They feel the best way to do that was to offer ESL and Citizenship classes. These students are usually dropped off by their family members that is why the ratio of students vs. cars is so different compared to a commercial college. Commissioner Arnold stated his concern is that there are demographic patterns that change over time. Asked if that possibility has been sufficiently considered in this case. Asked Mr. Hammill to comment on staff s alternative conditions in the event this proposal was approved. One of those conditions is to limit the maximum number of students on site to 60 people. ~ Greg Hammill indicated he would like to see the number increased at least equal to the number of parking spaces that they have on-site. Commissioner Arnold stated at some point any mission or organization has to make some choices. The site can not serve everyone. Greg Hammill stated he did not feel that 60 is the right number but he could come down from 130. Perhaps 100 might be a good number. This is a church project that has already been approved in the past under another CUP number. They are simply trying to build it and in an attempt to do that they revised their plans. It was a 21,000 square foot building but it is now a 19,000 square foot building and 5 feet shorter than originally planned. They are using the same reciprocal parking agreement that they had been asked to obtain when they last approved it. He felt that makes it easier for Commission to look upon this project in a favorable way. Commissioner Koos asked if the original approval was strictly a weekend operation. Greg Hammill responded no, the original use was an office/church, offices during the weekday and the church in the evenings and weekends. Even under that approval the dominant parking situation was related to the church and not to the office user. They do not feel they have a conflict with their mission and ministry. They would like to continue serving the community by having Rancho Santiago Community College classes but their approval as a church is their predominant reason why they are present. Commissioner Bostwick asked the City Traffic Engineering staff what the parking requirement would be if this were a commercial building of 19, 200 square feet. Taher Jalai, Principal Traffic Engineer, responded it would be 80 parking spaces. • 03-13-00 Page 20 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Bosfinrick stated this appears to be a temporary use. It is in a commercial area. They are Chairperson Boydstun suggested that it read not more than 84 at any one time. Greg Hammill recommended on Condition No. 25, prior to the issuance of a building permit that they remove their modular buildings. Suggested that it be changed to "prior to occupancy". Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated one of the issues is that the conditional use permit was approved for those modular trailers to be on the site has actually expired and their ability to reinstate that is only until April 9, 2000. If they wanted to keep the trailer on the site then they would need to aggressively try to work that into their approvals. Commissioner Arnold asked whether that meant that they need to seek a reinstatement until occupancy. • Greg McCafferty explained the filing deadline for any April meeting has since passed. Therefore, staff would need to work with them to see if they could even accommodate the newspaper advertisement of that. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked the City Traffic Engineering staff if the church itself runs the schools then is there a need for a parking study. • building a commercial office building in reality rather than a typical church. In other areas in the City churches have come in and rented commercial buildings to use as churches and this is that type of situation. He suggested 100 or 125 people as a maximum number of students at any one time, which would not impact their neighbors. Commissioner Arnold stated the tra~c study states a high of 0.82 spaces per student. Assuming that there are 69 spaces.left after the seven spaces for staff, that would mean a total of 84 students. He suggested 84 students based on the calculation used in the Code. He also suggests they could limit it to 84 people at any one time or a maximum of 120 total. Commissioner Koos felt the first suggestion was more specific to the issue of parking efficiency. The other alternative leaves it too ambiguous. Taher Jalai responded that since there is a reciprocal agreement then the church does have the option of using the medical office building parking lot on Sundays. Therefore, the office buildings should be closed on Sundays. In that sense the church by itself should have adequate parking. Greg McCafferty advised regarding the conditional use permit for the trailers that as long as they submitted a request for a reinstatement by April 9th then that should be all right. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, pointed out that Condition No. 5 actually states what is in the Code that actually makes this a condition of approval on this project, that the granting of the parking waivers is contingent upon operation of the use and conformance with the assumptions and/or conclusions that were in the parking study that formed the basis for the approval. If those were to change or if it turns out those assumptions were not correct then the parking waiver would be returned to the Commission for review. There is something more specific to parking waivers other than just modification or termination of the CUP or waiver but something that is expressly directed at parking waivers that indicates that if those assumptions are not born out in the actual operation, based on those assumptions, then it would need to return to Commission and could be rejected at a future time. 03-13-00 Page 21 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MfNUTES ~ • • ~ • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement as follows: Approved the waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on the basis that the maximum of number of students will be conditioned in the conditional use permit to 84 persons at any one time and that the granting of the parking waiver is contingent upon operation of the use in conformance with the assumptions and/or conclusions relating to the operation and intensity of use as contained in the parking demand study that formed the basis for approval of said waiver. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4170 with the following changes to the conditions of approval: 3. That the maximum number of students on-site at any time shall be limited to eighty-four (84) persons. 25. That prior to occupancy, the finro (2) temporary trailers approved in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3528 shall be removed from the premises or a request for reinstatement shall be submitted to the Zoning Division on or before April 9, 2000. • VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 56 minutes (2:55-3:51) ~ 03-13-00 Page 22 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 99-00-16 4c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 4d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4178 Approved Granted, unconditionally Approved, in part Granted, in part OWNER: David and Sandra Huarte, Trustees of the, Joseph ---Huarte Trust UDT, 5036 Tierra Del Oro, Carlsbad, CA 92008-4350 AGENT: Joseph Boules, 20575 Easthill Drive, Yorba Linda, CA 92887 LOCATION: 891 South State College Boulevard. Property is 1.54 acre located at the northwest corner of Vermont Avenue and State College Boulevard (St. Verena Orthodox Coptic Church). Reclassification No. 99-00-16 - To reclassify subject property from CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone, RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone and RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone to RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Agricultural) Zone. ~ Conditional Use Permit No. 4178 - To construct a church facility (including a multiple purpose assembly hall and Sunday school classrooms) in three phases, including a temporary trailer for church use before and during construction with waiver of (a) required setback for institutional uses adjacent to residential zones, (b) minimum number of parking spaces, (c) maximum structural height, (d) required front yard setback, (e) required rear yard setback and (fl minimum dimensions of parking spaces. Continued from the Commission meeting of February 28, 2000. RECLASSIFICATION NO. PC2000-24 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-25 r 1 LJ SR7698KP.DOC Applicant's Statement: George Behman, architect of the project, 1150 East Orangethorpe Avenue, 92807, stated he had a brief discussion with staff following the last Commission meeting and he was given some direction to some of the setbacks and definitions of the parking spaces which he did. He also had direction from staff and Commission to lower the 75-foot height plus 3%2 feet for the cross-bell towers, which he also did that. He was under the impression that there would be no further changes because he did not receive any telephone calls or correspondence from staff. He was very surprised to today to hear that staff is requesting a continuance. The only issue he can think that may still be of concern is that staff would be insistent to see 15 foot and 25 foot setbacks. In reviewing the setback requirements they are going to landscape and setback more that 30% of the property, which he feels is too much. Some of the Commissioners at the last meeting felt due to the irregularly shaped property and because they have average setbacks that this could be acceptable. That is why are present today and hope Commission will approve their proposal. 03-13-00 Page 23 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Public Testimony: Richard Garcia, 1721 East Vermont Avenue, Anaheim, stated he has a few concerns. His major concern is the excavation of the property. Previously the site was an old Texaco service station. If excavation is going be done then he would like it to be conditioned to ensure the site obtains a"clean bill of health" (State certification) for the contamination, if there is any. He is not certain whether the parking will be adequate for the church. He lives across the street from the (Boysen Park) park and he is not certain whether the church is-going to be able to handle all the parking because the park is already full on weekends, which is another issue. Chairperson Boydstun stated they are not using the parking from the park. Richard Garcia explained that he is concerned that the church is going to use it as overflow parking. His last concern is the temporary trailer. He is concerned how long that trailer would be there during their construction and suggested Commission condition a time frame on the trailer. Commissioner Arnold asked Mr. Garcia if he had met with the applicant and discussed his concerns. Richard Garcia responded he did not. He has seen the plans with Planning staff and they were still going through the analysis at the time. Commissioner Arnold asked if he received a flyer, regarding the meetings, from the applicant. Richard Garcia responded he was not available at the time. ~ David J. Huarte, 5036 Tierra Del Oro, Carlsbad, CA, stated he is the trustee for Joseph Huarte, owner of the property. In the 1990 there was an old Texaco service station at the site and there were concerns that it was not operating so he hired a contractor that went through ail regulatory authorities to remove the station in its entirety. They had to go through the County of Orange, Health Care Agency, Public Health Services Department. He referenced a letter dated April 30, 1990, which he read in part, "It is the position of this office that additional soil remediation of this site will not be required." At that time they found this site clean and not contaminated. His father acquired this property in the early 50's. His father sold otF a few pieces of the property towards the west. What was left of the property acquired a number of zoning classifications. They have had great difficulty in having the property developed in the past 10 years with a use that would be compatible with the overall area. His father, who is nearly 96 years old, expressed to him he hoped that this site could be developed as a church. They feel blessed that Father Joseph approached them to develop the property. He expressed that his family is very supportive of this and hoped that the Commission could look upon this in a favorable manner. He noticed that some of the setbacks consume a substantial amount of property and they hope that Commission could provide a waiver for those areas. Chairperson Boydstun asked Mr. Huarte how much property they lost at the front when the State College Boulevard was widened. David Huarte responded he was not certain but it was approximately 15 feet. Cindy S. Steele, 1816 East Tyrol Place, Anaheim, CA 92805, stated she has some concerns regarding the building of the proposed church. Her concerns would be the increased traffic in that area and the parking issue, 101 parking spaces for 717 occupancy in their multi-purpose facility. She felt that they • would use the park as overFlow parking. tt is also an increased risk for traffic collisions and endangers pedestrians. 03-13-00 Page 24 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMlSSION MINUTES • Commissioner Arnold asked if she had met with the applicant to discuss her concerns. Cindy Steele responded she did not. Chairperson Boydstun asked if she received a notice from the application. Cindy Steele responded she did not. Ray Reymundo, 1816 East Tyrol Place, stated he gave testimony at the previous Commission meeting. He went to his neighbors and obtained signatures for a petition opposing the proposal because of the parking concern and submitted the petition into the record. He approached as many neighbors as he could and everyone he approached signed the petition. He informed his neighbors if they were not able to attend the public hearing to call the Planning Department to let them know how they feel about this proposal. He asked if there were any phone calls in opposition and if so how many. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated he was not aware of any calls but he would call to find out. Commissioner Arnold asked Mr. Reymundo if he has spoken with the applicant. Ray Reymundo explained the day they came he was on the phone and he asked that he wait but when he got off the phone the person had left. He did not receive the flyer nor did his neighbor next door to him or the neighbor across the street from him. Nashaat Benyamein, a member of the church, stated approximately 8 months ago when they were looking for a site their main concern was the neighborhood and whether fhe site would be suitable. He • went to the neighborhood on Sunday to see there are the activity at the park. There were three neighbors that assured him that it is a good neighborhood and no problems at the park. He indicated to those neighbors that they were proposing a church at that site and they did not have a problem with that. On Tuesday, February 29, 2000, at 4:30 p.m. he went to the neighborhood passing out flyers to inform them of the meeting dates. He went to Vermont Avenue, Wayside Street, and Tyrol Place. He knocked on his door (Mr. Reymundo's home) and Mr. Reymundo shouted fo him "get out of here", he was on a long distance call. He left the flyer on the door. He obtained a list of names of people who did not want their names mentioned publicly. The only people with concerns were 1430 Tyrol, his main concern was that children would jump the fence while playing and prefers the land vacant. Another concern was 1829 Taylor, her main concern was the person living in the land whether they would be evicted. The resident at 879 Wayside indicated he did not care. There is a resident across the street from subject property, on State College Boulevard; who was concerned that if a church was built there then it is going to block the view that he currently has. He passed out over 80 flyers. A neighbor in support of the project indicated that she could attend today's public hearing if he would pick her up, but he was not able to do that. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, advised if Mr. Benyamein once he submits the document it is a public record and anyone who requests that is entitled to look at it. Mr. Benyamein then decided not to submit the list of names. Father Joseph Boules, stated he spoke with City staff on Wednesday morning and was informed that Mr. Reymundo called and let Ms. Kathy Pfost know his concerns and she informed him of the applicanYs meeting. Therefore, even if he may have not received the flyer he was informed verbally about the meeting times and he communicated to her that he was not interested in attending. • 03-13-00 Page 25 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Greg McCafferty stated he contacted staff and there is no indication that anyone had cailed in today opposed to the project. However, Kathy Pfost, the project planner, is not in today and she may have something on her voicemail but there is no way to tell that today. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Selma Mann advised regarding the signature of those people not present, as a matter of due process the applicant is entitled to have the people present if any of that information is going to be forming the basis for Commission's decision. Letters from people who can not be at the hearing are part of the record and become part of the things that they consider but they can not be the basis for Commission's decision because the applicant will not have an opportunity to rebut and discuss that that. Commissioner Arnold stated an observation of neighbor's concerns which are greatly appreciated but it seems that where there is an opportunity to meet with the applicant and express their concerns and possibly achieve some type of resolution before this meeting that those opportunities should be taken advantage of just as a general matter of how decisions are reached. The neighbors concerns seem to have largely revolved over parking. There is a tra~c study which the City Traffic and Transportation Manager is satisfied with indicating that the proposed 100 parking spaces are adequate for this church use. Anytime there is a substantial use coming in they will always need to be concerned about parking. He wondered if the waiver was denied would they still be able to redesign a building that would comply with the setback or would it be impossible to achieve this use on this site without that setback and they would look elsewhere. George Behman responded that they originally designed a church much larger in the beginning and subsequently began reducing the size, so they can not propose their church any smaller. ~ Fr. Joseph Boules also commented that when they subtract the altar and Baptist area the left over portion for the parishioners is only 3900 square feet. If they would to take the church back 10 more feet to meet the front setback then they are going to make the church too small and it would not be feasible for them because in the long run it woufd be something that is inadequate. Commissioner Koos asked if there are any specific requirements for the multi-purpose room size. Fr. Joseph Boules responded that would not be a problem, however, the problem is the Sunday school rooms on the top. Reviewing the 3`d set of plans (A3), the number of Sunday school rooms do not add up 13 classes. They are already having a problem with the number of rooms that they can provide and the room size to make that building any smaller will make it inefficient. They need a Sunday school room for each grade plus the Kindergarten. That would require 9 3 classes all together. If you count the number of rooms on the plans it does not add up to 13. There is no office for the priest, it would be nice but it is not a requirement since they have condensed everything to the minimum. Chairperson Boydstun asked staff if the applicant built a building zoned commercial on this property what would their setback be. Greg McCafferty responded off of State College it would be 10 feet landscaped. Chairperson Boydstun stated the narrowest place is 15 feet at the front of the church a portion that protrudes out and then it goes back further and on the other building over half of it is over 15 feet. She felt that would look much better than a commercial building built within 10 feet of the sidewalk. They have deleted the parking space size and deleted their required rear yard setback. • Fr. Joseph Boules added that the street widening took approximately 15 feet plus the 15 feet that they have which actually makes them 30 feet back from the original line. 03-13-00 Page 26 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Bristol stated there was public testimony from Ms. Steele of her concern about traffic, parking and the trailers. The applicant indicated that their trailer should be gone by June 2002. Fr. Joseph Boules confirmed it would be 2002 if not sooner. That will be when the multi-purpose hall will be completed. Commissioner Bosfinrick asked where the church is meeting now. Fr. Joseph Boules responded they are currently meeting at the First Southern Baptist Church on Broadway and East Street. Commissioner Bristol asked how many church members they have. Fr. Joseph Boules responded they have an average of 120 families. Average attendance is approximately 150 to 200 people. Commissioner Bostwick asked what is preventing them from staying at the First Southern Baptist Church until their fellowship hall is completed. Fr. Joseph Boules responded they are looking forward to saving the rent money that they pay every month and put that towards the construction cost. Commissioner Bostwick indicated that they would have a su~cient expense with the trailer. Fr. Joseph Boules explained they already have access to a trailer available for their use. The trailer is already in storage waiting for them to pick it up. ~ Commissioner Koos stated the institutional setback is irregardiess of what type of zone it is. The purpose of having an institutional setback is because the nature of the use and asked staff to explain why that would be greater for an institutional use versus any other use permitted by right at a zone. Greg McCafferty responded because typically a church would be a more intensive use than a single- family residence. The object of having that go across all the zones is because for the most part a church can go in practically any zone with a conditional use permit. So that was intended to buffer more sensitive land uses such as single-family from the church use. Commissioner Arnold stated the institutional use setback at issue here has to do with the 2%2 feet in the parking. Greg McCafferty explained that is in the north and west property lines. Commissioner Arnold indicated that they are not talking about the institutional setback with respect to the front of the building. Greg McCafferty responded that typically a church is a more intensive use than single family, it buffers more sensitive land uses like single family homes from the church itself. With regard to Mr. Benham's comment about not knowing what the recommendation was to be, staff's conversation with the applicant was their interpretation of what the Commission had desired, not that they were going to change their recommendation. Commissioner Koos concurs with staff that it is a great use and the architecture is beautiful but is not convinced that waivers can't be eliminated. If they can not be eliminated, it is a self-imposed hardship. He thinks waivers can be eliminated, this property may be too small for the facility. He can not support it ~ today because he does not think they have gone the full limit of redesigning it to eliminate the waivers. 03-13-00 Page 27 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Arnold stated he has a different view. In order for a church with religious requirements to be built there that they would need relatively minor waivers of setbacks. The following are reasons why he felt a variance would be permissible in this case: • The size and irregularly-shape of the property preclude the size and fayout of the church buildings necessary to accomplish this use if the applicant were to comply with the required setbacks. • It also seems that the setbacks requirements apply only because of the properties reclassification which benefits the public due to a single use of less intensity that might be permitted under the existing zone. • It seems that with the size, shape and orientation of the property, the projecYs design has non- uniform encroachments on the setbacks that do not pose significant adverse impacts. • The strict application of the setback requirements would preclude this particular land use because smaller building will not accomplish the applicanYs religious-related building requirements, and therefore deny the landowner the benefits enjoyed by similarly zoned properties with lot sizes and shapes that could accommodate church buifding of similar sizes and shapes. • The decreased amount of property available to the landowner for setbacks is due to the City's taking of land for street widening. Commissioner Koos asked if he is asserting that any property that has ever had a street widening is a partial justification, they bought the property after the fact. i Commissioner Arnold responded it is not by itself a justification, this property ended up being diminished that in order to put a church there, which seems like a good use, there need to be the flexibility to have a size that accommodates the requirements. Otherwise it goes back to the potential for commercial use or gas station. Commissioner Koos stated Commission could reclassify the property and deny the project. This property should have been rezoned, it has been vacant for 10 years and is not a viable commercial property. It may be by Code, but realistically no one wants to see commercial development on this property. Chairperson Boydstun indicated part of this could have been developed commercial since, it is zoned for it. Commissioner Arnold stated the impacts are minor, the particular nature of the property and the proposed use justifies the waiver. Commissioner Koos stated he is not against the project, but just not convinced that it has been best worked out to eliminate the waivers, he sfill believes they can eiiminate the waivers. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked for clarification on the notion of the parking spaces and having to go through this process. In other words, if the applicant puts in the required setbacks with 86 spaces that it would somehow bypass this CUP process. Greg McCafferty explained the architect referred that if he did put in 15 feet on the west property line, it essentially pushes parking stalls and isles further into the site and reduced parking, that is assuming that the buildings are in a fixed location. In other words, that the multi-purpose room is not reduced. u 03-13-00 Page 28 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Bristol stated if it were a commercial use, there would be a lot more traffic, he is no longer concerned about the parking and was concerned about the trailers but has been assured that they will be gone by June 2002. Commissioner Bostwick stated, for the record, he was not present at the previous public hearing but read the minutes regarding this item. Fr. Boules thanked Commission and City staff for their assistance and cooperation. Following the Action: Ray Reymundo indicated he did not understand the outcome of the parking issue and asked for a clarification. Chairperson Boydstun explained the parking issue was that their car bumpers could hang over the planter and the Traffic and Transportation Manager concluded that the applicant meet the required parking spaces. Ray Reymundo stated when the neighbors signed the petition he mentioned all the concerns and not just the parking issue that is why he asked them to call Kathy Pfost, but she was not here today. Chairperson Boydstun stated there were no calls unless they left a message on her telephone extension today but they have had two weeks to leave messages. Ray Reymundo stated he gave his neighbors the paperwork yesterday and said he would return after he obtained all of the signatures with the information, so they could have called Monday to voice their ~ opinion. Chairperson Boydstun stated no one attended either. Ray Reymundo stated he can not speak for them but he was told that if they called that would be as good as attending. Chairperson Boydstun stated that if they had called the front desk then they would have taken the information. Ray Reymundo stated he gave them Kathy Pfost's telephone number. He asked if he could appeal this and how he would do that. Chairperson Boydstun explained if he wants to appeal it to the City Council, he would need to do that within the 22-day appeal period. Selma Mann advised Planning Commission's action will not be final until 22 days. If he goes to the City Clerk's Office the City Clerk will give him all the information necessary. OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke with concerns. A petition was submitted with approximately 44 signatures in opposition to the request. ACTION: APPROVED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • GRANTED RECLASSIFICATION NO. 99-00-16, UNCONDITIONALLY. 03-13-00 Page 29 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ VOTE ON RECLASS: 7-~ APPROVED, IN PART, THE WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AS FOLLOWS: Approved waiver (a) pertaining to required setback for institutional uses adjacent to residential zones (Vote: 6-1, Commissioner Koos voted no) on the basis that the size and irregular shape of the property would preclude the size and layout of the church buildings necessary to accomplish this use if the applicant were to comply with the required setbacks; Approved waiver (b) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces (Vote 6-1, Commissioner Vanderbilt voted no) based on the parking study findings and the recommendation of approval by the City Traffic & Transportation Manager, and on the submitted plans for this project, Exhibit No.1, Revision No. 1 and Exhibit Nos. 2 through 5; Approved waiver (c) pertaining to maximum structural height (Vote: 7-0) on the basis that this requirement is meant to pertain to a single-family home and not a church use and that other churches adjacent to residentially zoned property have been approved with height waivers; Approved waiver (d) pertaining to required front yard setback (Vote: 6-1, Commissioner Koos voted no) on the basis that the setback requirements apply only because of the property's reclassification which benefifs the pubiic due to a single use of less intensity than permitted under the existing zone; that with the size, shape and orientation of the property, the projecYs design has non-uniform minor • encroachments on the setbacks that do not pose significant adverse impacts; that strict application of the setback requirements would preclude this land use because smaller buildings will not accomplish the applicant's religious-related building requirements and therefore deny the land owner the benefits enjoyed by similarly zoned properties with lot sizes and shapes that could accommodate church buildings of similar sizes and shapes, and that the decreased amount of property available to the landowner for setbacks is due to the City's taking of land for street widening purposes. Denied waivers (e) pertaining to required rear yard setback and (f) pertaining to minimum dimensions of parking spaces on the basis that they were deleted following submittal of revised plans. GRANTED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4178 WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Modified Condition No. 3 to read as follows: 3. That by June 1, 2002 or upon completion and occupancy of the multiple purpose assembly hall, whichever occurs first, the two (2) temporary trailers shall be removed from the property. VOTE ON CUP: 6-1 (Commissioner Koos voted no) DISCUSSION TIME~ 46 minutes (3:52-4:38) • 03-13-00 Page 30 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. NORTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 94-1, AMENDMENT NO. 01 (READVERTISED) Approved Recommended adoption to the City Council OWNER: Medtronic, Inc., 3850 Victoria Street North, Shoreview, MN 55126 AGENT: , Hogle-Ireland, Inc., Attn: Kelly Carlyle, 4200 Latham Street, Suite B, Riverside, CA 92501 LOCATION: 4633 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 1.82 acre located at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Hancock Street. Request an amendment to the Northeast Area Specific Plan (Anaheim Canyon Business Center) to reclassify the subject property from the SP94-1, Development Area No. 5- Commercial Area to the SP94-1, Development Area No. 2- Expanded Industrial Area. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-26 SR7674VK. DOC ApplicanYs Statement: Kelly Carlyle with Hogle-Ireland, Inc., 4200 Katham Street, Riverside, CA, stated the main reason for the Specific Plan Amendment is to change the development area boundaries for this property from Development Area 5(Commercial Area) to Development Area 2(Expanded Industrial) in order to facilitate . future construction of a new industrial building on a larger property that traverses the two development areas at the no~th property line. They concur with staffs recommendations. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Recommended to the City Council adoption of Specific Plan 94-1, Amendment No. 1, including amendments to related exhibits contained in the Specific Plan to change the subject property from Specific Plan No. 94-1, Development Area 5-Commercial Area to Specific Plan No. 94-1, Development Area 2-Industrial Area based on the following: (i) That the proposed amendment results in development of a desirable character and contributes to a balance of land uses. (ii) The proposed amendment to the Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the Anaheim General Plan and would encourage high quality development compatible with the surrounding area. (iii) That the size and shape of the parcel allows for the adequate development of the site for industrial uses without negatively impacting adjacent land uses. ~ (iv) That the proposed amendment to the Specific Plan respects the aesthetic resources consistent with zoning and development standards. 03-13-00 Page 31 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ (v) That the proposed amendment would encourage the assemblage of property to provide for a comprehensively planned project. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, indicated this item will be set for public hearing before the City Council. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (4:42-4:45) ~ ~ 03-13-00 Page 32 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARA710N (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4099 (READVERTISED) OWNER: Dong Hee Kang, 559 South Olive Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Jae J. Chung, 10042 Lampson Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92840 LOCATION: 559 South Olive Street and 313 East Water Street. Property consists of finro parcels of land. Parcel 1 is 0.23 acre located at the northwest corner of Water Street and Olive Street. Parcel 2 is 0.12 acre located on the north side of Water Street, 140 feet west of the centerline of Olive Street Request to revise site plans and amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to time limitations and construction timeframes for a previously- approved liquor store/convenience market and coin-operated laundry facilify (now proposed as a retail store). Continued from the Commission meeting of February 14, 2000. ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Request to revise the site plans and amend the conditions of approval was withdrawn SR1036TW.DOC There was no discussion regarding this item. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Napoles offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request to withdraw the request to revise the site plans and amend or delete the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 4099. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (1:35-1:36) • 03-13-00 Page 33 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3939 (READVERTISED) Approved amendment to the conditions of OWNER: Changiz and Rebecca Zomorodian, 25105 Mustang Drive, approval Laguna Hilis, CA 92653 LOCATION: 301 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is 0.93 acre located at the southwest corner of Broadway and Anaheim Boulevard (Arco Service Station). Request to amend conditions of approval pertaining to exhibits on file to allow for a full service car wash facility in conjunction with a previously- approved service station including a convenience market with the sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption, a drive-through car wash and two fast food restaurants. ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-27 SR7695KB.DOC Applicant's Statement: Dennis McCollough, GPRA Architects, stated he is the agent for All-American Petroleum regarding the proposed revision to the car wash facility at 301 South Anaheim Soulevard. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol stated there was discussion at the morning session regarding the kiosk and detail area. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated there was a clarification on the staff report, regarding the kiosk. When they state unpermitted in the staff report what is meant is not that it does not have a building permit, because one is not required, but it was not shown on the previously approved plans by the Commission. After reviewing the plans and speaking with the applicant, staff supports having the kiosk in that location mainly because it can not be seen from the public right-of-way, which would be further increased by the fact that when the vacuum station is installed that it would be further obscured by the public right-of-way. With the detail area, staff feels that the site was not designed to have an independent detail area and to a certain degree that would conflict will the flow of patrons to the car wash and they are still not supportive of the detail portion of the request. If Commission decides to approve that portion of the request that they determine that the outdoor nature of the detail areas be integral to the car wash. Commissioner Bristol noted that the detail area is on in the southwest corner behind the kiosk. Dennis McCollough stated his client would like the detail area to be included in this approval request. The adequate number of parking spaces is still provided, in addition to the detailing area even though that originally was part of required parking. The applicant has added enough parking spaces so that the parking requirement for Code is met. Chairperson Boydstun asked staff if the detail area was approved would it need to be covered. ~ Greg McCafferty responded if the Commission makes the determination it is an integral part of the car wash use and not an independent outdoor use separate from the car wash then it does not matter. If the applicant does have a canopy then staff would recommend that it be more of a permanent canopy. 03-13-00 Page 34 MARGH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES , Commissioner Vanderbilt indicated when the cars come out of the car wash along Broadway and are parked for detailing he wondered whether that would be considered parking. Jerry Zomorodian responded they do not occupy any additional parking spaces. The cars come out from the car wash and are dried; that is not considered as a parking location. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that if the cars are dried off then it appears they should be done in the spaces where the detailing is proposed to be. As it exists now the drying takes place in public view along Broadway and wondered whether staff had an issue with that. Greg McCafferty stated the dry-off area off of Broadway was on the previously-approved plans so that is not changing. In fact, throughout the City many of the dry-off areas are next to the right-of-way and Code Enforcement does not require them to be screened. During the action: Jerry Zomorodian stated regarding the signage, staff recommended a sign on the wall but in addition to that he would also like to have a menu since the other car washes in Anaheim are able to display a menu. Chairperson Boydstun noted there is no waiver for this request. Where he has his car wash sign could he add "full service" to it? Jerry Zomorodian stated on the plans it shows that menu is going to be on the arches. He wants to inform the customers what type of options they have and cost information. ~ Chairperson Boydstun asked if a waiver would need to be advertised for that. Greg McCafferty stated he did not feel it would. They considered both the car wash directional sign on the vacuum arch as well as the sign they are recommending, the menu sign on the wall that is directiona which can not be seen from the public right-of-way. Staff recommends the overhead sign will direct customers and once they are there at the vacuum arch they are going to see on the wall in front of the menu. Staff feels they can support it if it is in that configuration because it is not viewed from the street. Jerry Zomorodian wondered as a customer how Commission what they would like to see first. He is concerned that once the customers drive in then it would be too late for them to get out. That is why he would prefer the menu to be at the vacuum arch rather than the wall. I, Greg McCafferty stated there is a pfan that shows the vacuum arch showing a"sign can" below the arch. If Commission approves the app~icant's request for having the sign closer to the vacuum arch then it would be more appropriate to have it on the side of the arch, flanking on either side of the it where the menu can be seen as opposed to up on the vacuum arch. Jerry Zomorodian stated he did not feel it was appropriate to have the sign on the corner like that because they want to match the colors that they are using for the existing building. He feels customers are used to seeing the menu on the top of the arch when they drive up. Commissioner Bristol stated the archway is nice but he is concerned with the signage. Jerry Zomorodian stated he would like to be able to inform his customers what the car wash offers and is open to any suggestions. Commissioner Bostwick stated he would suggest the sign be placed in the wall. Customers are coming • for a car wash and then once they are in line they will decide what option they want. 03-13-00 Page 35 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Jerry Zomorodian stated simply having an arrow on the vacuum arch is not enough information for the customer. Greg McCafferty indicated that staff does not have a problem with something on the arch that states "car wash" with a menu on the wall. Jerry Zomorodian said he did not have a problem with that as long as it states, "full service car wash". • • ~ ~- ~ ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved the amendment to conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 3939. Modified Resolution No. 97R-137: Amend Condition No. 38 to read as follows: "38. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No. 1, and Exhibit Nos. 2 through 6, and as conditioned herein." ~ Added the following condition of approval: "43. That car wash signage shall be limited to a single directional "full-service car wash" sign located on the vacuum arch and a"menu" sign located on the wall adjacent to the west property line. 44. That a final plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department showing a permanent structure for the detail area for review and approval by staff." VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 16 minutes (4:46-5:02) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. • 03-13-00 Page 36 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 8b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 8c. CONDiTIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4179 OWNER: Mark S. La Morte and Eileen J. La Morte, 17351 Walnut, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 AGENT: Dennis Wheeler, 5290 Via Cervantes, Yorba Linda, CA 92887 Approved Denied Granted, in part, for 12 years (To expire 3-13-2012) LOCATION: 3830 East Miraloma Avenue. Property is 0.41 acre located on the south side of Miraioma Avenue, 379 feet east of the centerline of Jefferson Street. To permit contractor's storage yard with waiver of (a) minimum structural setback and (b) required landscaping for outdoor uses. LJ • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-28 SR7691 KP.DOC Applicant's Statement: Dennis Wheeler, 5290 Via Cervantes, Yorba Linda, stated he is the agent and is available to answer any questions. Chairperson Boydstun asked why Waiver "B" could not be 24-inch box size trees. Dennis Wheeler responded their landscape architecture felt that 7 24-inch box size trees in a 55 feet by 10-food wide area is not enough growth pattern for the trees which will result in every other tree not being able to survive. lt is too large of a tree for that small of an area. They recommend a 12-foot growth pattern for that type tree. That is his reasoning for recommending a 15-gallon tree. He suggested starting out with a small type of tree. Chairperson Boydstun asked what the size of the area is. Dennis Wheeler responded the lot is 83 feet wide and they have a 25-foot driveway. That makes it approximately 58 feet by a 10-foot area, which is not enough room for that many trees. Commissioner Bristol asked if the applicant actually needed 7 trees. Dennis Wheeler stated they were told they need 7 trees regardless of whether they had a 10-foot or 25- foot driveway and at 25 feet that would reduce the property down to 55 feet, which results in too many trees for that area. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, explained what the Code Section refers to the site screening for the wall in the outdoor use, not along the frontage. He indicated he would check the Code. Dennis Wheeler stated his understanding was that they were going to require 7 trees in front in the 10- foot setback and then a driveway adjacent to their front screen wall that already has vines, and they were going to be required to have another 7 trees. Chairperson Boydstun stated it appears to be a total of 7 trees. Commissioner Bristol agreed. 03-13-00 Page 37 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Dennis Wheeler stated viewing it from the street there are 7 trees, a driveway area, 7 more trees, an 8- foot high screen wall with vines on it and a 16-foot building behind that. He does not understand what they are screening since they would have already screened it three times and appears to have more than enough trees. His interpretation of the Code is that in the front setback area trees were required to be 24 foot on center regardless. If they take out 25 feet for the driveway then that means they need 4 trees to be within Code, which means they would plant 4 trees on the 55-foot area. Somewhere along the line there was a requirement for 3 additional trees. Greg McCafferty stated the Code Section with regard to the fence that screens the outdoor use is separate from the front setback is correct, but for the outdoor use itself the Code reads, "That trees of a size not less than 24-inch box shall be planted along and adjacent to said fence within the required street setback area and in a ratio of not less that 1 tree per each 12 linear feet of length of such fence and space according to the spread of the species used but in no case more than 12 feet apart. That layered landscaping shall be utilized in the required street setback area." Dennis Wheeler stated he understands that to mean that in that same 55-foot area that they would need another 4 trees and not another 7 trees, for a total of 8 and not 14 trees. They are going to have curbs that border the planter areas and a driveway area and planting 14 trees there would uproot the everything with that many trees plus they will not survive, according to their landscape architecture. Greg McCafferty stated if the applicant has 55 feet of wall then it comes out to 4%2 trees. The staff report is actually incorrect and should state either 4 or 5 trees. They should be spaced no more than 12 feet apart, in terms of the spaces in front of the fience and not the front setback in front of Miraloma. He further explained there are two requirements. One is the street tree requirement. The other requirement is with regard to anytime there is an outdoor use there are specific planting requirements in ~ front of the screen wall to screen the outdoor use and within that area the applicant is required to have 1 tree per 12 linear feet of the frontage of the wall for screening which would require 4'/z trees. Therefore, if they require 5 trees at 24-inch box and if the applicant is in agreement then they do not need the waiver. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Denied Waiver of Code Requirement on the basis that the waivers were deleted. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 4179 with the following change to the conditions of approval: Modified Condition No. 13 to read as follows: 13. That a landscaped planter shall be placed in front of the eight foot high block wal{ screening the outdoor uses. This planter shall be planted and irrigated with a minimum of five (5) 24-inch box trees, ground cover, and clinging vines planted minimum 5 feet on center. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (5:03-5:10) 03-13-00 Page 38 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i ' 9a. 9b. OWNER: James F. and Marie L. Lavezzoli, 3523 16'h Street, San Francisco, CA 94114 AGENT: William O. Talley, 30442 Via Cantaloria, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 LOCATION: 1215 North Fee Ana Street. Property is 1.41 acre located on the west side of Fee Ana Street, 199 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue (Texan Truck Body). To permit a truck conversion facility. ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to 3-27-2000 SR7692KB. DOC Commissioner Bosfinrick offered a motion for a continuance to March 27, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and motion carried. • ~ ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSlTION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 27, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order to readvertise this item to allow for truck parking at this site in addition to the truck conversion business. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 03-13-00 Page 39 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 10b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 372 Recommended to City Council approval of INITIATED BY: City-initiated (Planning Department), 200 South GPA and adoption of Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92895 Exhibit "A" LOCATION: 910 South Euclid Street. Property is 0.79 acre located on the east side of Euclid Street, 548 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road. City-initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate this area from the Medium Density Residential designation to the General Commercial designation. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-29 SR 1040TW. DOC Applicant's Statement: Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating regarding the Exhibits mentioned at the morning work session by Commissioner Arnold, the Exhibits were incorrect with regard to some of the existing land use designations. The surrounding {and use designation to the south of this property is property is designated General Commercial under the General Plan. Therefore, the Exhibits will be amended accordingly. . OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Recommended to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 372, Exhibit A, (as amended by staff to show the correct General Plan land use designation south of the proposed amendment) redesignating this property from the Medium Density Residential land use designation to the General Commercial designation based on the following: That this property is a portion of a commercial shopping center servicing the local community. This General Plan Amendment is intended to make consistent the existing land use and zoning of this property with the General Plan. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, indicated this item will be set for a public hearing before the City CounciL DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (5:11-5:12) • 03-13-00 Page 40 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 373 11c. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 374 INITiATED BY: City-initiated (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: Portion A- 527 South Knott Street. Property is 0.5 acre located at the northwest corner of Knott Street and Orange Avenue. Portion B- 500-508 South Knott Street. Property is 0.5 acre located north of the northeast corner of Knott Street and Orange Avenue. City-initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate certain properties from the Medium Density Residential designation to the General Commercial designation. GPA 373 RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-30 i GPA 374 RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-31 Approved Recommended to City Council approval of GPA 373 and GPA 374 and adoption of Exhibit "A" for each amendment SR2004DS.DOC ApplicanYs Statement: Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating that this item is for General Plan Amendment Nos. 373 and 374. They are both City-initiated amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate subject properties from the Medium Density Residential designation to the General Commercial designation. The designation would make consist the General Plan and zoning for both of those properties. Staff recommends adoption of Exhibit "A" for both General Plan Amendments. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSlT10N: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Recommended that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment Nos. 373 and 374 by adopting Exhibit "A" (for each amendment) based on the following: (i) That the proposed General Plan Amendments would bring the zoning into conformity with the General Plan and zoning consistent for these properties and encourage the retention and possible redevelopment of more appropriate neighborhood shopping centers which serve the local community. (ii) That the existing land uses are commercial and appropriately located at or near an arterial highway intersection. VOTE: 7-0 • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, indicated this item will be set for a public hearing before the City Council. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (5:12-5:14) 03-13-00 Page 41 MARCH 13, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:15 P.M. TO MONDAY, MARCH 27, 2000 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: ~•.~s~.~.~.~z_~ ~ .5-~,..-J Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary ~ ~~~ • ~~ Simonne Fannin Senior Office Specialist Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~ ~ ~~- ~ ~ ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None 03-13-00 Page 42