Loading...
Minutes-PC 2000/06/05p'~'M`1MCAtAp CITY OF ANAHEIM ~ x ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSiON MINUTES A~VNDED ~6y1 DATE: MONDAY, JUNE 5, 2000 MORNING SESSION: Chairperson Boydstun ca!!ed 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 Pro-Tempore Koos called the Public Hearing to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber and welcomed those in attendance. 9:30 P.M. • Public Hearing Testimony PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge Allegiance was led by Commissioner Arnold. ~• COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Arnold, Boydstun, Bristol, Koos, Napoles, Vanderbilt COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Bostwick STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Assistant City Attorney Greg McCafferty Senior Planner Joseph Wright Associate Planner Brad Hobson Deputy Director of Community Development John Lower Traffic and Transportation Manager Alfred Yalda Principal Transportation Planner Melanie Adams Associate Civil Engineer Randy West Police Sergeant Margarita Solorio Planning Commission Secretary Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary Bob Gorson Redevelopment Agency AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, June 1, 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, May 11, 2000. DOCS\Cl.ERICALWII NUTESWC060500. DOC planninqcommission(cr~.anaheim.net 06-05-00 Page 1 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (. i• ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None RECEIVING AND APPROVING THE MINUTES FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 22, 2000. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the meeting of May 22, 2000, as revised at the meeting. Approved The minutes from May 22, 2000 were approval subject to corrections on page nos. 29, 34 and 57. 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 921,1021, 1139, 1990, 3741 AND II Terminated VARIANCE NOS. 2360 AND 4268 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: --- _ -- - _ -- Euclid Shopping Center, Attn: Gerald T. Untekaefler, 8294 Mira Mesa Boulevard, San Diego, CA 92126, request for termination of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 921, 1021, 1139, 1990, 3741 and Variance Nos. 2360 and 4268. Property is located at 1626 West Katella Avenue - Euclid Shopping Center. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-71 ~~ SR7787VK.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating that the petitioner is requesting termination of permits that are listed on this item, as they are no longer being used by the property owner. ~ 06-05-00 Page 2 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES I• PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 189 (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED) 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04222 OWNER: City of Anaheim (Redevelopment Agency), 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 1003, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Avalon Acquisition Corporation, Attn: Mr. Adam Cole, 495 North Commons Drive, Suite 200, Aurora, Illinois 69504 LOCATION: 400 West Lincoln Avenue and 100 South Harbor Boulevard. Property is 3.0 acres located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Harbor Boulevard. • To construct a live performance theater including banquet facilities with outdoor dining area and fhe saies of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption and construction of a freestanding electronic readerboard (changeable message) sign with waiver of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) maximum height, width, area and location of freestanding readerboard sign. Continued from the Commission meeting of May 22, 2000. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-72 Approved Approved Granted SR1048TW.DOC Brad Hobson, Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, stated the Redevelopment Agency owns the corner of Harbor Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue and they are pleased to present a proposed 5,000-seat concert theatre being proposed by SFX Entertainment. They feel will be a great addition to the downtown and consistent with the adopted master plan for the downtown area. They feel it will bring the after hours activities that they have been looking for for a long time. SFX Entertainment is one of the largest entertainment companies in the United States, if not the World. This is a high quality project. Adam Cole, Director of Real Estate SFX Entertainment, stated they are proposing a concert theater, a 5,000-seat indoor venue, primarily catering to concert and music events but a flexible space also suitable for family attractions, corporate programming and community rentals. The theatre is a full state-of-the art production facility with a flexible lobby space with food service for the patrons and the rentals. They see this as an excellent opportunity for the City of Anaheim. It will cater directly to the local community, bringing some national attraction and civic opportunity. • Joe Valerio, project architect, stated they have formed a good partnership with City staff and have tried to respond to their concerns for the design of the facility. In developing the design they started with a concept that Center Street, the new center of the civic center, was going to be the main access for pedestrians moving about the civic center and also to the new concert theatre. They developed a major entrance for the facility adjacent to the Disney Ice facility, as indicated on the rendering on the exhibit wall. There is a secondary entrance at the corner of Center Street and Harbor Boulevard. They have also developed an arbor of trees in that location, which can also be used for secondary outdoor events. 06-05-00 Page 3 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . There is also a stage entrance, which is at the third corner of the site where performers will access the ~ building. That area is screened by a low wall with a small parking area in that location for the performers. This site will have three major corners and they tried to develop the design to welcome people to each of those corners and also provide what they consider as finishing the "gateway" into the civic center. The o~ce building adjacent to their site along with their building will form the gateway to the civic center from Harbor Boulevard. Public Testimony: Michelle Lieberman, 512 West Chestnut Street, Anaheim, stated she is concerned with the secondary access area located at the corner of Harbor Boulevard and Center Street, and the trees for secondary outdoor venues. She is not certain what that means, but indicated she lives across the street from that. She would be concerned with whatever the secondary events would be since she has a concern with the noise levels. The view from Harbor Boulevard is what she will be looking at everyday as she drives from her home and thought it could be "dressed up" because it appears industrial. Rebuttal: Allen DeZon, SFX Music, stated the idea of the ancillary space and the trees is to provide added value and to bring people down earlier so that traffic is mitigated better. They anticipate acoustic music, art exhibitions, and other things which will be low impact to the neighborhood which are not meant to go into the night because they are primarily geared to bringing the venue to people before they enter the theater, so by the time the regular performance is up, this is packed up and moved on. • Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated in terms of the elevations the Planning Commission, as ' conditioned, will be reviewing the final elevation and landscape plans for the project. He indicated the Police Department is recommending additional conditions that they would like to read into the record. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Hobson why they were requesting a waiver on the readerboard . Brad Hobson responded the proposed theatre is very targe with 5,000 seats. It is a major attraction in the downtown area and they want the public to be able to see the current attractions as well as the upcoming attractions. They worked with the applicanYs design team to make the signage entertaining in and of itself and to help liven the space at night. Commissioner Bristol asked if it is more of a pedestrian oriented sign. Brad Hobson responded that it would be for pedestrians as well. Chairperson Boydstun asked the Police Department representative to read their proposed conditions. Sgt. Randy West, Anaheim Police Department, Vice Detail, recommended the following conditions on behalf of the Police Department: • The permitted event or activity taking place at the venue shall not create sound levels, which violate any ordinance of the City of Anaheim, per Section 4.16.100.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. • The number of persons attending the event shall not exceed the maximum occupancy load as determined by the Anaheim Fire Department. Signs indicating the occupancy load shall be posted in a conspicuous place on an approved sign near the main exit from the room, per Section 25.114(a) of ~ the Uniformed Fire Code. 06-05-00 Page 4 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . • The business shall not be operated in such a way as fo trigger the requirements for a Sex-Oriented ~ Business Permit under Chapter 18.89 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. • That no minor under the age of 16 years shall be allowed to attend any dance requiring a permit under Chapter 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. • That at all times the dances are being permitted, security measures provided shall be adequate to deter unlawful conduct on the part of employees or patrons, or to promote the safe and orderly assembly of movement of persons in vehicles, or to prevent disturbance of the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises as per Section 4.16.070 of the Anaheim Municipaf Code. Commissioner Koos stated on the one of the proposed conditions he referenced "dance" and wondered whether it would be better to stated "evenY'. Sgt. West responded this specific section applied to a permit, which they would need to obtain for a dance location which is why it is worded that way. Commissioner Arnold asked when he stated "dance" does he means spectator participatory or a dance pertormance. Sgt. West responded it is spectator participatory. Commissioner Koos indicated that basically the City Code is being called out for the applicant. Brad Hobson asked for clarification on the age limit, 16-year-old limit. There will be family-oriented events, which include children's concerts such as Barney, where children may be up dancing and they do ~• not want to preclude that type of activity. Sgt. West thought that type of event would work fine. That section is there to prohibit rave parties, etc. Sgt. West added another condition, that the business shall not be operated in such a way as to be detrimental to public health, safety or weifare, per Section 4.18.110 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Commissioner Bristol was concerned that the staff report indicated that the readerboard was not going to be visible at all from Lincoln or Harbor but rather more interior. Joe Valerio described where it would be located by pointing to the renderings on the exhibit wall and indicated that it was intended to be used more as a projection screen, a digital projector that projects images and functions only at night. Chairperson Boydstun asked Mr. Hobson who would be effected by the relocation since it is a vacant lot. Brad Hobson explained they would be relocating some of the parking for Disney Ice and there are a couple of easements that will be moved. Commissioner Koos thanked the applicant and staff for addressing Commission's concerns that were expressed at the morning session two weeks ago. Commissioner Bristol thought this project was very exciting. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that generally when there are theatres the parking during the course of the day would not be paid parking which becomes paid parking such as the Freedman Theatre was operating that sometimes City Hall parking structure would become a paid parking garage. He indicated i• that was not addressed in the parking study and asked Mr. Hobson to explain how that might work in this situation. 06-05-00 Page 5 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Brad Hobson explained the parking supply addressed in the parking study is all owned and controlled by Redevelopment, which means it is all public parking. Each of the users utilizing parking today with the exception of Disney Ice, are basically day time users, officer patrons, etc. have their own arrangement on how the business pays for the parking. The intent would be to allow the theatre to charge for parking. They will have to deal with the after hours for those parties utilizing the parking, such as Disney Ice, without having to pay for it. There are a couple of inechanisms available to them, which they have not discussed the specific operations issue yet. They can use "hang" tags, validation, etc. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated if the price is excessive then people might decide to park in the neighborhood or in one of the businesses outside of the core area and asked if he knew what the amount would be charged for parking. Brad Hobson stated it is up to the operator and it is a matter of discussion with the Redevelopment Agency, which they have not spoken on specific prices yet. The Redevelopment Agency is already dealing with this issue because all of PacBell's employees, for example, pay a very large sum for parking. The City is policing parking areas outside of parking locations. The residential area that they want to pay particular attention to is at Chestnut Street on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, which they will monitor and if problems occur then they will consider additional signage as well as policing it in event nights. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated on Condition No. 20 it indicated, "That the property owner or petitioner shall be responsible for paying the full cost associated with the use of any Police Department and/or Traffic Management Center staff who may be needed for traffic control purposes." He asked if that language is going to be included in the contracts for the petitioners. Brad Hobson stated they would probably be meeting with Police Department on this in order to make a mutual determination on the staffing. ~• Allen DeZon stated that one thing to realize is on a 5,000-seat theatre where you are never operating on 100% capacity a rule of thumb tends to be 3 to a car which would mean a maximum of 1,500 cars which is not a major impact. He felt people have great comfort level with police officers giving them directions. Chairperson Boydstun asked with the use of the garage will there be a percentage going to Redevelopment Agency to maintain these garages. Brad Hobson responded that maintenance of the garages are part of the Agency negotiations with regard to development of the site and sale of the property and would be dealt with in the agreement with the Redevelopment Agency. Commissioner Arnold stated that there were a couple of items raised at the workshop a couple of weeks ago. One was that he understood trucks that were going to bring various things for the performances were going to come in off of Lincoln and within the property itself be able to backup to the loading area, so there would not be unusual traffic impacts on Lincoln. He wanted to clearly spell that out for the record. The other issue is that he understood the Redevelopment stafF to indicate that in the future they would be taking a look at landscaping and other things such as monument signs, public art and other things that would create a sense of interest to the downtown area at that intersection, which could also mitigate some of the visual impacts to the neighborhood. He simply wanted to ensure that it was in there for the record. Brad Hobson indicated that Commissioner Arnold was correct on both accounts. They will be entering off of Lincoin going south, which is a private driveway. He thought it was three trucks that they can load at one time and it is completely screened from Lincoln. Regarding identification into the downtown, the Agency has an existing sign program coming from the freeways, bringing the flow of traffic downtown . then spreading it out. As the plan develops the Agency will look at an entry demarcation at Harbor and ( Lincoln as an option. 06-05-00 Page 6 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Arnold explained that part of the reason he mentioned it is that it might be of interest to ,• people in neighborhood. I. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated there was a question regarding a condition that was added relating to dances and indicated she had some language that would give some comfort as to what is intended there. Title 4 of the Anaheim Municipal Code sets for the requirements for permits for amusement and entertainment premises, dances in Chapter 4.16 and are specifically defined. The three types that require permits are a public dance hall which is a place open to the public upon the payment of an admittance fee wherein music is provided for patrons to dance which is so open at regular intervals or on regular days of the week. Public dance is a dance open to the public for an admittance fee or charge, which is held on one day only. A dinner-dancing place is a restaurant as defined in Section 18.01.190 where music is provided for patrons to dance without payment of a fee. There is a different type of dance that is defined here that is a private dance for which attendance is limited. This would include the type of charitable events that are exempted from these requirements. She felt if they express in the condition that no minor under the age of 16 years shall be allowed to attend any dance requiring a permit under Chapter 4.16.060.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. It would make it clear that what was intended there as "dance" is not just any sort of dance activity or any theatrical performance, but rather the participatory dance that was referred to in a very specific category. Allen DeZon explained the intended use of the venue, is a main theatre, a 5,000-seated facility meant for seated performances, it is not a dance area. The 20,000 square foot lobby is intended for private functions and other functions that are too small to use the main building. It is not anticipated as a dance hall under the Code definition, although they do envision receptions being held where there would be dancing but that would be a separate type of function. It would not be admission to the public, which is assuming is permissible. Commissioner Bristol confirmed that would be correct. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke with concerns. ACTION: Determined that the previously-certified Addendum to Koll Anaheim Center- EIR No 189 is adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for the project. Approved Waiver of Code Requirement. Approved waivers (a) pertaining to the minimum number of parking spaces and (b) pertaining to the maximum area, height, width, and location of the proposed freestanding readerboard sign based on the findings listed in the staff report dated June 5, 2000. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04222. Added the following conditions: That the permitted event or activity taking place at the venue shall not create sound levels which violate any ordinance of the City of Anaheim. (Section 4.16.100.010 Anaheim Municipal Code) That the number of persons attending the event shall not exceed the maximum occupancy load as determined by the Anaheim Fire Department. Signs indicating the occupant load shall be posted in a conspicuous place on an approved sign near the main exit from the room (Section 25.114(a) Uniform Fire Code) . That the business shall not be operated in such a way as to trigger the requirement ~ for a Sex Oriented Business Permit under Chapter 18.89 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 06-05-00 Page 7 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • That the business shall not be operated in such a way as to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. (Section 4.18.110 Anaheim Municipal Code) That no minor under the age of sixteen (16) years shall be allowed to attend any dance requiring a permit under Chapter 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. That at all times that dances are being permitted, security measures provided shall be adequate to deter unlawful conduct on the part of employees or patrons, or to promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, or to prevent disturbance of the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premise. (Section 4.16.070 Anaheim Municipal Code) VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 32 minutes (1:37-2:09) • • 06-05-00 Page 8 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~~ 3a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 323 Rec. certification to CC 3b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 370 Recommended adoption of Exhibit A to City Council 3c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 99-00-10 Granted 3d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part 3e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4171 Granted, in part 3f. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 3a, 3c, 3d, and 3e Approved OWNER: California Drive-In Theaters, Attn: John Manavian, 120 North Robertson Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048 LOCATION: 1500 North Lemon Street. Property is 26.34 acres located at the southeast corner of Lemon Street and Durst Street. General Plan Amendment No. 370 - An amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate the subject property from the General Industrial designation to the General Commercial designation. Reclassification No. 99-00-10 - To reclassify subject property from the ML (Limited Industrial) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. I• Conditional Use Permit No. 4171 - To construct a 294,632 square foot commercial retail center including a home improvement store, health club, three (3) drive-through fast food restaurants, finro (2) full-service restaurants, a multi-tenant pad building, and a freeway-oriented sign with waiver of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) minimum parking lot landscaping, and (c) required dedication and improvement of right-of-way. Continued from the Commission meetings of December 20, 1999, January 19, January 31, February 14, April 10, and May 8, 2000. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-73 RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-74 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-75 SR2022DS.DOC ApplicanYs Statement: John Manavian, Pacific Theatres Realty Corporation, stated they are the development real estate affiliate with the ownership entity. At the previous meeting it was discovered that they perhaps did not have sufficient enough information on their drawings, so they developed a"PowerPoinY' presentation to help illustrate the project to show some of the design features. There is no waiver for the landscaping requirement. Their landscape plan does have all the trees as required by Code. There remains some debate about how the sign is calculated, which they have an exhibit that illustrates how to condition that. There still appears some debate about the design aspect of the project and hoped their presentation would clarify that. "PowerPoinY' Presentation: John Manavian stated that their presentation consists of adjacent properties and proposed project. They showed overlay on Durst Street showing effect of widening which takes curb line, giving up 19 feet of 06-05-00 Page 9 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . right-of-way with 2 customer entrances and a cul-de-sac at the back for truck access. Sidewalk will go ( the entire way of Durst Street. The east property line is screened with trees and landscaping to buffer themselves from adjacent businesses. The edge along the freeway shows commercial outward appearance. Overall intersection at Lemon and 91 Freeway is meant to be landscaping screening the large parking areas behind. They have created a hierarchy of landscaping with main entry driveway and driveways with specific tree types, and parking areas will have parking lot tree and palm trees to articulate a pedestrian path. Sidewalk areas vary from 20 to 40 feet. They used some of the parking lot that was not used for parking and widened out landscaping. They brought the two restaurant pads together to create a courtyard atmosphere. All restaurant buildings will have berming and landscaping and all buildings will be part of an integrated design theme. Signage involves monument sign, project entry sign and freeway sign. They created sign boxes that allows for air space. The intent of this project is to not be an entertainment center where someone lingers for 6 to 8 hours. It is a community shopping center with a home improvement center. Lowes, as an anchor. [End of presentation.] Public Testimony: John Maresca, Bryan Industrial Properties, provided a letter of communication on behalf of Bryan Industrial Properties and R.S. Hoyt Jr., owner of industrial properties to the north of project. The letter • states that the Draft EIR states there will be a significant impact of cut-through traffic caused by the ~ Gateway Project. The Draft EIR and related traffic study indicates there is a potential traffic threat of 1,000 to 2,000 vehicles per day that may cut through the private roads. They hired Mr. Faust to do a traffic analysis and his report reconfirms the impact and threat to their property. They have worked with Mr. Faust and the City staff to come up with a solution to mitigate the impact. Their solution provides for the installation of automated gates at the south end of the Orangethorpe Way and Missile Way properties. City staff has provided initial approval of this project. As a way to eliminate the tra~c impact they are asking the Commission to endorse this solution and provide their support towards this solution. They want the project to go through but not at the expense of the private property to the north. Two ways to mitigate it is to request the applicant to move the drive access on Durst Street closer to Lemon to create a less likelihood of cut-through fraffic. The second option is to allow property owners to gate their properties along Durst Street. Joe Faust, Traffic Engineer, 2020 North Tustin, Santa Ana, presented handouts, to Commission, with diagram showing potential cut-through traffic. This project will generate an additional 20,000 cars a day and of that 20,000, approximately 2,500 will approach the site from westbound on Orangethorpe. Orangethorpe Way and Missile Way offer significant short cut alternatives to bypass two traffic signals and making two left turns. Travel time and delay runs were performed on short cut route and intended arterial route. They found that taking the shortcut through the parking lot could cut the travel time in half, between 1%2 to 2 minutes on a 3-minute travel time. It translates into a potential threat to them. Existing traffic is about 500 cars a day, they could triple or quadruple the volume of traffic from the potential cut- through traffic. The two alternatives, one to move the driveway closer to Lemon or allow the gates on the private streets. One other consideration is the truck circulation, but presentation shows it is a one way circulation. There are 400 cars per day on Durst and it is expected traffic there to increase to 3,500. Also, if the industrial ~~ area to the east is opened up in the future it will add another 2,000 vehicles a day. Durst faces 500 daily traffic, with the potential project of 3,000 and possible 1,000 from the neighbor to the east if it opens up. 06-05-00 Page 10 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ;~ Mr. Manavian clarified for the record that they have never been against the adjacent property owners putting in measures that would protect the traffic, they support putting up fencing but will not pay for it. They cannot shift the driveway because it is Iocated exactly where the operations people want it in terms of their contractor loading. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, advised that Waiver (b) has been deleted, so staff would recommend that it be denied. He distributed copies of a memorandum to Commission dated May 11, 2000 from the Redevelopment Agency to the Planning Department recommending approval of the project. THE PUBLIC HEARlNG WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos indicated that he had a question for Redevelopment staff based on the memo dated May 11, 2000. It appears that they are recommending approval of the project and asked Mr. Gorson, Redevelopment Agency, to comment on that in light of the fact that the Planning Department staff is still not comfortable with the urban design, they usually do not see a conflict of City staff s recommendations on projects. Bob Gorson responded that they are really just supporting the overall concept of the commercial center in the project area. It is within the Commercial Industrial Redevelopment Project Area. They believe that by having a significant commercial center it may help to attract some additional private investment to the area. It would be conditional upon the Planning staff being comfortable with the design of the project. Commissioner Koos indicated to Mr. Manavian that he was still unclear about the southwest corner of the property with respect to their right to build there and their status with CalTrans. John Manavian explained they own a portion of the corner of the property. They own half of that property • and CalTrans owns the outside ring. They have a construction easement on their property until CalTrans ~ is completed with the freeway improvements and they are the likely purchasers of that portion. They have made overtures to acquire the balance of the property, otherwise their property is landlocked. They have made every effort to move that along but currently CalTrans does not want to discuss it until the freeway improvements are completed. Commissioner Koos asked if that cuts into Pads E& F area with the public space. John Manavian indicated that they have public spaces in front of the other pad areas as well. That location is where they are thinking of placing the sit down restaurants. They have included it as part of the EIR as well as the master plan because their intention is to control that corner and do not want that area to be an outdoor staging area forever as for construction purposes. That is a major view into their project. Commissioner Koos stated that earlier iterations of this project had something on the top of the northwest corner and asked Mr. Manavian to confirm whether they are holding off on that for now. John Manavian stated that one of their major goals is to get Lowes off the ground and in order to do that they need to have their EIR certified. They are still uncertain what they are going to do at that corner. There was a retail building shown but the staff was not happy with the concept of the retail, not only the layout but the number of stores. Rather than delay the project they decided to leave that but will be coming back with some concepts for it. He emphasized they just want to get the certification for the EIR for right no.w so they can begin construction on Lowes. Commissioner Koos stated that given the new pedestrian walkway that runs between Lowes and the fast ~ food, asked Mr. Manavian if he anticipates a lot of usage between fast food establishments which is so far ( from a hardware store. He did not see that even being a property linkage. 06-05-00 Page 11 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES John Manavian responded that it was aiways a linkage for ADA purposes. They have expanded it and ,• that would be a linkage that would work from a standpoint of someone using the fast food restaurant use as well the other majors that maybe in line with Lowes. They have another very similar project of 48 acres in size, which has a Lowes, K-Mart and Carl's Jr., and have those pedestrian pads throughout the project and people seem to use them. Commissioner Koos stated that human behavior dictates that people do get in their cars for the shortest of distances. He believes that this is a good project but he still has concerns, as staff does, about the orientation of the uses. The south portion of the property is mostly devoted to circulation and parking, he sees no reason why some of the major tenants could not be oriented to that part of the property and also get some freeway exposure. This might mitigate the need for a larger sign. From a design standpoint, if they have sit down restaurants and they have a 24-hour fitness center and potential tenants that may integrate well within a sit down restaurant- type interplay, he sees only a benefit with integrating theses uses; but the applicant has chosen not to go that route. He emphasized that he thought this project could be reworked to address these concerns but also maintaining the integrity of the uses that they are proposing. John Manavian responded that some people refer to it as a"glorified strip center" but he calls it a "community shopping center". It is a project that has need of surface parking. These tenants would never go in a mall or downtown area because their front doors need to be oriented towards parking. When a building is turned that way it creates an intersection of parking fields that would not work out because it creates cross parking fields for the tenant not in line. You would end up having cross parking fields for the tenant in line. The more tradition situation is to have the tenants lined. The other reason they designed it this way is that they put Lowes on the far north corner. With their architecture and prototype entry element there is a shot at getting a view of their building when the back of the building is exposed to the freeway. They have tried to keep it perpendicular. He understands what Commissioner (. Koos is saying, but it is the lesser of the two evils in terms of looking at architecture to the fronts and sides of the building and landscaping within the parking lot. Their new pedestrian area is closer to the freeway. They utilized more landscaping and plaza area in that triangular area which is also closer to the freeway. They want to have a good curb appeal from Lemon as well as from the 91 Fwy. Commissioner Arnold stated when he initially saw this project it was not exactly what he would have hoped woufd go at that site but he understands the economics and that there are a variety of centers that fit more with his vision for this parcels in nearby locations where there are particular tenants that are looking for something different. He is looking at this project as proposed. There are a number of changes to the plans that are great improvements such as the pedestrian walkways. Sometimes the pedestrian traffic is under estimated. He complimented the applicant on the meandering walkway which is interesting and some of the landscaping and architectural features. The primary concern that he has was that the applicant has a large plaza area with outdoor seating on the edge of the 91 Fwy. That creates nice curb appeal from the 91 Fwy. but he is not convinced that it is the most conducive to the lands use that they trying to achieve there. He thought it might make more sense to move that where they have the drive-throughs or move the drive-through down there. That is conceptual and he realizes there is some practical questions about how you get the drive-through flow and whether that is the orientation that you would like from the 91 Fwy. It seems that the fast food and the sit down restaurant uses might be switched around. John Manavian responded that the main thought is that they are not relying on that as the main pfaza. They feel that there is a major p{aza in front of any of the major tenants because their walkways expand from 20 to 40 feet. They see it as a series of focal points, and not just one. (. 06-05-00 Page 12 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Arnold explained what he was not referring to the main plaza for the entire project but particularly for the eating portion, particular the outdoor. Customers who want to eat outside are on the edge of the freeway, which might tend to defeat the whole design and land use envision. Whereas fast food tends to be more on the edge of the freeway. His concern is that they may end up with something that does not work from a land use perspective. John Manavian indicated that from a topographical standpoint that freeway, as you go back towards the freeway, their site is about 15 feet below the street level. Therefore, the off-ramp is looking down in this area which gives them many opportunities from a slope standpoint for landscaping and trellis elements to create a haven there that is buffered from the noise. Commissioner Arnold noticed that it was not in their plans. John Manavian acknowledged that it is not shown in the plans but the topographical studies show that their buildings are below the street level at that point. It is a sloped condition, which will be handled with a series of stepped retaining walls or slope conditions depending on how far back they have it. They felt they are nestled in that corner and can do things to protect it from both a noise and visual standpoint. Commissioner Arnold asked if they would be comfortable with conditions that require some type of buffering with landscaping, etc. John Manavian responded that he would prefer to do that without a wall because they do not want to see walls there. They prefer to terrace or with slope it. Commissioner Arnold indicated the condition would give them some option in terms of how to accomplish that. Commissioner Bristol stated he felt that Bryan Industrial Properties proposal is very fair, at their expense, (• because it impacts their property. People would be tempted to use it as a cut-through. He drove Durst Street to Lemon and went north, and felt from a stack standpoint at that intersection there are probably no more than 7 cars that could turn right from the right-hand turn lane onto Orangethorpe, which was used as a mitigation in the EIR. When he met with representatives from Bryan Industrial Properties they were concerned if there is any way to ensure that the applicant and the City would not have any problem with them installing those gates. John Lower, Traffic Engineering Division, stated he is not certain there is a way to ensure that because the authority for consideration of placement of gates on private property falls to the City Engineer or his designee. As his designee, he recently met first with Bryan Industries contractor discussing the gates being on the north side of the first set of buildings on Durst Street. He then had a subsequent meeting with Bryan Industries where they indicated their strong preference to have it right at the property line with Durst Street. Their initial concern was that there would be no stacking area for vehicfes turning and waiti~g for the gates to open up. However, further discussion at that meeting revealed that this half width widening of Durst Street will provide approximately 36 feet of pavement which is enough for one lane in each direction separated by a two-way left turn lane. The stacking could conceivable occur within that two-way left turn lane. They need to see more detail on the actual gate operations before they could give any type of guarantee that this can happen as proposed. He did indicate to them that they are open to further consideration of that scenario. Commissioner Bristol asked staff if that could be conditioned. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated that she did not know if that was a condition for the applicant. It is a mitigation measure but it would not really be within the control of the applicant. The only thing that could be on there would be that the City Traffic Engineer work with that property. She did not . know how much actual mitigation could really be expressed. It is not really a"nexus" issue per say, it is ( more of adding a condition that actually mitigates an impact. It seems that if it satisfies the parties all that 06-05-00 Page 13 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES is required is that for the Traffic Engineer, in good faith, meet with the other property owner without ~, requiring the applicant to be involved in the process. Commissioner Arnold stated that it seems that it is a possible change in conditions in the area that would be relevant to their CEQA analysis, to the mitigation of the impacts and the dispute over what those impacts are, etc. He tends to share Commissioner Bristol's concern about the potential impacts which are significant. The conditions in the area should the gates be installed, would change and that would mitigate the impacts and solve the problem. In terms of their CEQA analysis, they could take notice of the fact that it may occur. Selma Mann stated that for purposes of CEQA that could happen but CEQA does require that the mitigation measure actually affect something to address the impact that has been identified. CEQA does not give any independent authority to impose conditions beyond those that the public entity already has. She felt that Commissioner Bristol was correct in having concerns about nexus but did not think that those "nexus" concerns are applicable in this case. She would have more concern in terms of expressing a condition that they could anticipate would address the potential impact that is being identified. Since there is not anything that they can require the applicant to do, the City is willing to meet, in good faith, but there is no guarantee that a solution can be found or that a location for those gates can be found. It perhaps is more in the power of the person who sees the issue. John Manavian stated that he does not think that the EIR has identified this as being an impact, but certainly that gate can occur either on the south boundary of Bryan Industrial Properties or on the north boundary. The key is when someone goes in this parking lot there is no way for them to get out. Commissioner Bristol stated, but it does impact them. All they are asking is for some discussion because it is affecting them. . John Manavian stated that his only argument is that they currently have a lot of power to do a lot of things ( on their property. Their parking lot is completely exposed and runs into Durst Street. He has no control over that. That is not their edge or way of handling that. Their edge is going to be treated with curb and gutter and is going to have two curb points. He can argue the same point that someone is going to finally find the route through their property and the applicanYs property to get to a Lemon signal. It is because there is a free access through the Bryan Industrial property that is not restricted in any way. He is correct; people are going to tend to cheat in that way, but Bryan Industrial has control of how they can keep people out. They are supportive of Bryan Industries controlling access through their property. Chairperson Boydstun asked why the sign needs to have 5 or 8 feet of stone on the bottom. The sign has to come down because it is too massive. They have a good view from the freeway, plus Lowes will be there. John Manavian stated that he did not question what she was saying. The height is not as critical going west as it is going east because of the overpass. Chairperson Boydstun explained that people that go to Lowes are going to know where they want to get off. They are trying to get away from the large signs on the freeway and she felt that they need to lower the sign. John Manavian stated that they have worked with the existing Code and understands the direction that both Commission and the City Council are headed. They reduced the height to 60 feet and felt that one would get a glimpse of the sign that way above the bridge and are looking for more direction in terms of what to build there. These are the types of signs that these major tenants would like to have for identity purposes. . Commissioner Koos asked if they could stay within the Code. ' John Manavian responded that the current Code is 70 feet. 06-05-00 Page 14 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ,• Commissioner Koos stated in terms of the width as well. John Manavian indicated they felt they have stayed within the Code. It is the way staff still continues to calculate it. 7he architectural elements go completely and all you would have is a sign with a pole design. They prefer Commission condition that the poles do not have any signs on them, which is how their signs are designed. The sign cabinets are the only place that signage occurs and that is where they did the area calculation but found out from staff this morning that In their calculation the two side supports were included that woutd have the plaster finish. Commissioner Bristol thought that was brought up at the last meeting. John Manavian confirmed it was brought up last time. They had individual letters on a wall and staff counted the wall between the signage as part of the calculation, which ended up being 400 or 500 square feet. Now the way the Code reads is the area where signage can go is what is calculated, that is why they purposely made them as signage cabinets. There is no question that someone can only put a sign within that cabinet, but again staff has calculated the supports as being potential signage. Chairperson Boydstun stated that she would count it all as part of the sign. John Manavian asked if the size was dropped to 30 feet, would staff still calculate the sides as being signage area even though it is not included as sign. Commissioner Koos explained that it goes to the mass of the structure. John Manavian stated that the Code refers to where signs would go is how they interpret the Code and that is why they eliminated the channel letters and went to more of this type of sign can. (! Commissioner Koos questioned Mr. Manavian's interpretation of the intent of the sign Code. John Manavian stated he does not know anymore what the intent is of the sign Code. They have read it several times and it is the way staff is interpreting it. There are many signs in the area, which do not seem to be interpreted that way. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated what concerns him about this proposal as presented today is that it may not be a clear representation of what is actually going to be there. The renderings on the "PowerPoinY' presentation show the fast food restaurants as well as the ~arger tenants in muted colors, and smaller windows. However, fast food operations tend to use very bright colors, a lot of glass, and try to represent their corporate image uniformly amongst their locations. But the applicant tends to show just the opposite. He is concerned what will actually be built versus the rendering proposed. Using pedestrian walk ways and landscaping to try to show these as uniform with the rest of the project may not be what will actually be achieved due to the types of tenants they will have. He had the same concern about the colors with the sign and felt the public would probably go to the fast food establishments, but not necessarily visit this location and thought perhaps they could address this issue as well as the traffic issues in order to make it more appealing for the public to come to this location to make unified trips, to the retail as well as the restaurants. He is not yet comfortable with the proposal. There is also not a clear idea of what is intended for the lot on the northwest corner. He is not certain whether the proposal today goes far enough. John Manavian stated he was confused by that question because he has heard different comments. What they are showing to Commission are design elements that they are going to adhere to. They can show Commission several projects where they have done exactly that and their sites tend to be desirable . sites. Many tenants understand, especially in Southern California that their outright prototype does not ( make it anymore. You see more and more projects where tenants use the palette of materials, which is what they are asking them to do. They will be required to return for final approval. 06-05-00 Page 15 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (. On the corner pad they have no idea at this time because they do not have tenants for it yet. They can not begin to lease any of these projects because people ask them to return when they have an approved project and that is why they need to get the EIR certified and move on so they can become more actively involved in the leasing of the development. They have been attempting to make this a retail project and have been marketing it and the tenants that they have been attracting through their marketing efforts have been the home improvement center, fitness club and some of the fast food restaurants, and gas stations. They are not trying to attract major mall-type tenants such as Nordstrom's. They are more in between; they are not a market neighborhood center site, or a mall site. Commissioner Koos asked Mr. McCafferty to verify whether Commission hypothetically, given the current proposal, they could approve the general plan reclassification as well as the zoning and deny the project. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, verified that was correct. Commissioner Koos stated he felt this should be a commercially zoned property, given the location to the freeway. He sees it as an incomplete site plan. The CalTrans area is still in question; the northwest corner is still in question. This project basically has major tenants setback off of major arterial and fast food fronting Lemon, but they do not know any of the tenants except for Lowes. He asked the applicant if they would like Commission to act today given the staff's recommendation to continue this item. John Manavian responded his dilemma is that they do not know what else to do on this project because they have worked with Lowes, who is their major tenant, they occupy less than half of their property and are the "anchor" for the site. They know the type of development that they are proposing. They could certainly rezone the project Commercial and request an urban style project that has water features and only tenants and retailers and entertainment uses but that is not the project that they are proposing and ~, that would certainly limit them as to what they can do with the property. Not only would they be denying them but also downzoning them as well. Commissioner Koos stated but they want to be downzoned. John Manavian responded for the purposes of this project before Commission, for which they have an executed lease with a major home improvement center, is why they are moving forward because they have a tenant with a lease in hand. He did not know what would be gained by continuing this item because some Commissioner's have major changes that they want made to the site plan that would jeopardize their ability to lease it the way they are looking at it as a community shopping center. Commissioner Koos asked if Mr. Manavian is stating that Lowes would not want to be at the site if they re-oriented the project if they left Lowes where it is and integrated some of the major tenants with the restaurants. John Manavian responded what would happen is that they would be facing the back of tenants so when the customer comes in they can see the tenants from Lemon. Every tenant south of Lowes (Pads B, C and D) pull it apart and run it parallel to the freeway and face their main entrances north, which is what Commissioner Koos was eluding to, in order to get a stronger connection to that restaurant corner. But what happens in entering the project from Lemon, these tenants are all on the right side and have great visibility from the freeway but coming off of Lemon they woufd not be seen because they are basically blocked off on the corner. They are trying to optimize the orientation to Lemon, which is the main entrance to the project. They have put all the loading areas on the east side of the project and buffer them from public view and still have the landscaping. . Commissioner Koos stated there is disagreement of what this site should look like. He sees this as one ' of the few major parcels in Anaheim that fronts a freeway and Anaheim does not have activities as some of the other cities off of freeway corridors. Perhaps he is envisioning something that he is not proposing. 06-05-00 Page 16 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ,• John Manavian stated when they started the EIR process there were specific requirements in order to do an appropriate parking analysis and this is the development they presented originally and the home improvement center was the major portion because it generates a certain level of traffic. They have fine tuned it since the original EIR was submitted and have now looked at the site plan issues and landscaping, building architecture and signage. Commissioner Koos indicated based on what Mr. Manavian has indicated his impression is that the project would still be the same and would therefore like Commission to act on it today. John Manavian responded his preference would certainly be that Commission vote favorably on the project. Chairperson Boydstun asked staff to confirm whether each of the additional restaurants will come to them as a Reports and Recommendations item so they can see what they look like. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated as conditioned that is the way they would return to Commission. Jack Mandell, represents Lowes and is the off-site development manager, stated they have worked long and hard with Pacific Theatres to come up with a site plan. There are a number of ways to lay one of these out, but they came up with what they felt was the best workable site plan with them. They like the visibility from Lemon Street. If they start moving the buildings in front what happens because Lowes is such large corporate entity is that any material change like that to the site plan would have be returned to their committee in North Carofina and go through another approval process which could long delay the process again. They were expecting to start in January of this year. Pacific Theatres has done a very good job with this site plan and he understands some of the concerns but they continue to come back with a change here or there that does not serve anyone. Either they do have a viable project or not, and • he felt that Commission feels that they do have a viable project. I The project works well as far as circulation, which is a major issue with their committee in North Carolina. If they loose the circulation that they have then that could jeopardize the project internally because it is a very busy store and that is why they need these large parking fields that work well for easy in and out which is what they are proposing. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Mandell how Lowes would feel about a reduction of the sign off the freeway since that is the City's direction. Jack Mandell responded that Lowes was founded in North Carolina and has been around for 55 years. They have 100-foot tall signs there routinely. They are referring to people that might be driving through from other cities, which is also who they would like to attract. Travelling eastbound on the freeway the view from the overpass is a key view for them and wants Commission to consider that. Chairperson Boydstun felt that they could lower the sign enough that it showed the Gateway and Lowes part over the freeway going east. Usually when someone calls for directions they are usually told who the main tenant is which is the sign that you look for. Jack Mandell indicated that would be more of a justification to expose others that would be in the center. He did not feel that a 10-foot change is aesthetically going to make that much difference. John Manavian stated in looking at the digital photograph, which shows 60 feet just gets the Anaheim Gateway name and Lowes above that. Anything lower than 60 feet brings that Gateway name down. They looked at lowering the Gateway name and let Lowes be on the very top. That would drop it down to 45 feet. (. Commissioner Arnold asked if that simulation is on Commission's materials. 06-05-00 Page 17 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES John Manavian stated that they may not have it in their particular materials. He thought the height was +• 60 feet and had agreed to the lowering from 70 feet to 60 feet with the sign contractor. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated in this rendering it appears the freeway takes a dip, from the west end it starts to decline and at the rendering the lowest is reached on the freeway and missed the Lemon Street exit. At this point he was not certain whether the height is material because whether you can see some of it or not it is not going to make much difference to people because they are not going to have another exit opportunity until Raymond/East Street. Chairperson Boydstun stated when you exit off of Lemon you would be at the top at Harbor and are going to see. John Manavian explained if you miss Lemon then the next opportunity is Raymond then either come back on the freeway or take the frontage road. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated the aspects of this are that you are at the lowest point with the bridge in the way. By looking at it at face value you might say yes it seems prudent to place the sign as high as possible but so many other factors and places along this corridor would be more relevant. John Manavian stated once you pass the bridge you could see the sign. It is a question of being able to see it before then. Commissioner Koos asked Mr. Mandell if the Lowes Corporation cared how the other major tenants are oriented even if it did not impact the footprint of Lowes. Jack Mandell responded any material change to the site plan would need to be approved by their Real Estate Committee. ~~ John Manavian stated if you move those buildings over and the parking has been displaced that would impact their parking. Suddenly these buildings shifting over would impact their parking field. Where their parking would occur is where the buildings use to be. The customer is not going to park on the side; they would all be competing for those parking spaces on that internal part of the project. That is one of the issues when you turn a corner. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. McCafferty about page 13, paragraph 55 under the Recommendation, staff recommends to continue this item but he did not get the sense that the applicant would change their proposal and rearrange the restaurant uses based on the discussion today. The applicant's other concern is the freeway oriented sign. If the sign returns as a Reports and Recommendations Item would staff feel comfortable with that. Greg McCafferty stated staff still has fundamental design differences with how the site plan is laid out. They met with the applicant and talked internally at the Recommendation Committee meeting, including Mr. Greg Hastings, and the consensus was that the center could be laid out in a more efficient manner to enhance the pedestrian activity and the landscaping. Some of the centers that they have seen recently constructed in Orange County, including the one referred by the applicant which does have the Home Base, for example, it does have the main entry, the driveway "throaY' that goes all the way to Home Base and does not stop midpoint in the parking lot. They also have food court uses that are in the center of the project. Therefore, staff does have fundamental design issues and their recommendation would still stand as written in the staff report. Chairperson Boydstun stated there is another center that is very similar to this on Brookhurst, the Home Depot, but it does not have the amenities that this project has and they did not seem to have a problem with that project. This project is certainly much better that the other center. '. Frank Mandell spoke regarding the main drive all the way to the front, Lowes does not like that and are opposed to it because what it tends to do is to attract cars to the front of the store that is a busy area for 06-05-00 Page 18 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . people that are loading and unloading. They would rather have them get to the back of parking field and ~ start looking for the parking spaces before they get to the front of the store and tie up their main aisle in front. It works better without a main thoroughfare all the way to the front of the building. Commissioner Koos asked staff to confirm whether their recommendation would be for a denial if acted up today. Greg McCafferty stated that staff's current recommendation is to continue to redesign. If the redesign is not possible then they would rethink their recommendation and it would likely be for a denial. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated regarding the issue raised earlier about the security gates, she discussed the matter with staff and the environmental consultant. In looking over the staff report and Attachment "D", which is the letter to Bryan Industries with regard to some of the issues that were raised today and addressing why the EIR concludes that the impacts did not reach the level of significance, to be deemed significant for purposes of CEQA. Nonetheless, in order to ease the property owner's mind with regard to what is perceived as potential impacts they came up with a condition of approval rather than a mitigation measure that would be added to the project. That condition would indicate that the applicant shall cooperate with Bryan Industrial Properties and the City of Anaheim with respect to Bryan's application to the City for approval to construct security gates for the private streets on Bryan's property to the north of the applicanYs property. That would set the process for what would happen in order to install the security gates. Chairperson Boydstun stated based on what Mr. Manavian had indicated he did not have a problem with that. John Manavian responded none whatsoever. He emphasized that they are building the best project of its kind and are looking at the elements that make a home improvement an anchor center off a freeway the . best of its kind. They have asked for the downzoning, had done the EIR process and asked for the focus ~ tra~c study in order to fook at this project. In Iooking at the land use that is appropriate and the development standards that have been put on this project, they exceed them in a major way for this kind of a project. He is in odds with another option for the site that were suggested of a concept project that they have not proposed, it is not what they marketed and leased. Commissioner Arnold asked that they include the condition that the buffering of the plaza area return as a Reports and Recommendations Item. Commissioner Bristol stated that there are only two issues remaining. The circulation with Lowes is fine but they are referring to other areas such as the drive-through restaurants. Commissioner Koos asked if they have run this past any of the City's elected officials. John Manavian responded that they have discussed this project with the Mayor because there was an opportunity for a car dealership at this project. One of the major di~culties they have had is dealing with what the expectations were for this project via the City of Fullerton and their concerns of what was going to happen here that would be competitive in nature. So they have tired very hard to create a project that no one would perceive as being competitive because they are doing something, not unique, but different enough that they are not taking anything away from that corridor of retail uses that Fullerton has. They entertained the car dealership; they did not want the car deafership because they thought there would be a war about this dealership. The Mayor did not want to see it go to any type of automotive uses. Commissioner Koos asked if the general plan amendment and the zoning reclassification are tied to the EIR and if there is analysis for those inside the EIR or do they stand alone. i~ 06-05-00 Page 19 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i~ During the Action: Following the motion to deny waiver (a) which failed to carry, Chairperson Boydstun asked Ms. Mann if a tie vote means they will need to continue this for two weeks until Commissioner Bostwick is present. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, advised that Commission could try an alternative motion and then if there is another tie on an alternative motion then by operation of the Code it would automatically be continued until there is a full Planning Commission in order to break a vote, but they may be able to break the tie with an alternative resolution. • • ~ ~- ~ ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke with concerns A letter was received with concerns. ACTION: Recommended Certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 323 to City Council including the adoption of a Statement of Findings and Facts and a Statement of Overriding Considerations subject to the findings in and attachments attached to the staff report dated June 5, 2000. Recommended approval of General Plan Amendment No. 370 (Exhibit A) to City Council. Vote on GPA: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) Granted Reclassification No. 99-00-10 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. '~ Vote on Reclassification: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement as follows: denied waivers (b) pertaining to minimum parking lot landscaping, and (c} pertaining to required dedication and improvement of right-of-way on the basis that they were deleted following submittal of revised plans. Commissioner Koos offered a motion to deny waiver (a) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces and motion FAILED TO CARRY with a tie vote (Commissioners Arnold, Boydstun and Bristol voting no and Commissioner Bosfinrick absent). Commissioner Arnold offered an alternate motion to approve waiver (a) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces and MOTION CARRIED (Vote: 4-2, Commissioners Koos and Vanderbilt voting no, and Commissioner Bostwick absent). Commissioner Koos offered a resolution for DENIAL of Conditional Use Permit No. 4171 and the resolution FAILED TO CARRY with a tie vote (Commissioners Arnold, Boydstun and Bristol voting no and Commissioner Bosfinrick absent) Commissioner Bristol offered an alternate resolution to Grant Conditional Use Permit No. 4171 and the resolution PASSED with 4 yes votes (Commissioners Koos and Vanderbilt voted no and Commissioner Bostwick was absent). The following conditions were added: ', That the freeway sign shall not exceed forty (40) feet in height and the sign area shall be limited to two hundred fifty (250) square feet per face in conformance with the definitions of Code for sign area and as interpreted by City staff. 06-05-00 Page 20 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~. That pedestrian access shall be provided along the drive aisle on the north side of Pad E connecting from the sidewalk on Lemon Street. That a plan showing noise buffering of the plaza area through the use of a"green wall" and other suitable materials shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. That the applicant shall cooperate with Bryan Industrial Properties, Inc. and the City of Anaheim with respect to.Bryan's application to the City for approval to construct security gates for the private streets on Bryan's property to the north of the applicanYs property. Vote on CUP: 4-2 (Commissioners Koos and Vanderbilt voted no and Commissioner Bostwick was absent) MOTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the Council review of Environmental Impact Report No. 323, Reclassification No. 99-00-10, Waiver of Code Requirement, and Conditional Use Permit No. 4171 in connection with Council review of General Plan Amendment No. 370. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated this item will be set for a public hearing before the City Council. '. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 46 minutes (2:11-3:57) /, 06-05-00 Page 21 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (. 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERM{T NO. 200d-04197 (MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 830) Continued to July 3, 2000 OWNER: Yie Sang Yoo, 1845 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Amy Lee, 3600 Wilshire Boulevard #1905, Los Angeles, CA 90010 LOCATION: 1845 West La Palma Avenue. Property is 0.30 acre located on the north side of La Palma Avenue, 225 feet west of the centerline of Onondaga Avenue (Happy Day Preschool). To increase enrollment at an existing preschool with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the Commission meetings of May 8, and May 22, 2000. '. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR2020DS.DOC Applicant's Statement: Pat Brown, Independent Processing Services, 2210 Marine Avenue, Gardena, CA, stated at the last meeting this item was continued. Commission had several issues that they wanted analyzed and reviewed, which they have done. The petitioner was requesting an increase in enrollment to a maximum of 50 chifdren, however, that 50 is erroneous. It appears according to their records that 1963 through 1971 there were 71 children, which was sanctioned by both the Fire Department and the State of California. From 1986 to 1991 there were 71 children. From 1993 forward there has been close to 70 children. In essence, they are only asking for 11 additional children. tt appears that those children are the ones dropped off at 3:00 p.m. for the after school programs and are basically there from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The van drops them off and picks them up which does not increase any additional vehicular tra~c circulation other than the vans. Page 2 of the staff report indicates vehicular access via an existing narrow one-way driveway from La Palma. On a number of occasions he has observed that it works well. There appears to be 7 to 8 vehicles, primarily staff, parked at the driveway and they do not encroach upon the children's playground. They have not had any complaints or concerns from the Police Department or Code Enforcement during the last number of years. It seems to have worked well. Page 3 of the staff report it was requested that they look for satellite parking, which he thought was an excellent suggestion from the Commission. They have a parking agreement but it is notarized but not recorded, they are in concurrence with having to be recorded. '. The site is the BBC office, which is to the west of the Happy Day School. Approximately half a mile away, however, they do utilize the 7 spaces, which have been granted. If you take the 8 spaces that are currently parked on the site and the 7 spaces equals 15 total spaces, which means the parking required by staff and Code. The BBC property works well because 39 spaces are provided and 33 are required by Code, so they are not encroaching on the requirement for the BBC facility as well. 06-05-00 Page 22 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . Page 4 indicates that they submitted a letter prepared by a parking consultant that analyzed the + circulation traffic impact and came up with the fact that the facilities will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the streets and immediate vicinity will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon public streets since a number of users will remain the same. The variance will not increase traffic congestion with the off-street parking areas and lots since the number of users will basically remain the same. Also a loading and unloading area inside the property will be provided but is not necessary inasmuch as they pull up in front and the drop off and pick up the works fairly well. He indicated he gave Commission a copy of that drop-off and pick-up schedule. It is staggered which is a good idea because it phases. In addition to that there was some concern by the City Traffic and Transportation Manger, but he felt in this particular situation it has been working for a number of years and there have not been any complaints or problems from Code Enforcement. Page 6 states that Code Enforcement indicates that no violations or complaints are on record regarding this property. In reviewing the conditions of approval, their only concern is Condition No. 1, page 9 of the staff report. It indicates 7:30a.m. to 6:30 p.m. but their hours are actually 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. They would like to see Condition No. 11. changed dealing with the permitted use for 1 year only. They would like to see it run with the current operator. Public Testimony: Sheri Kidwell stated she is the teacher for the 4 year-olds at Happy Day Pre-School. She has been working there since August and has had no problems with the parking. They now park at the BBC and are carpooled to their site, which makes the parking lot free for the parents to use. The Happy Day Pre- School is very good for the community and she has seen no problems with the parking. (. Ellen Ahn stated her 4-year-old son attends Happy Day Pre-school. She is one of the later drop-off moms because she has flex time and the beauty of Happy Day Pre-School is that it caters to working parents. There is never more that 5 to 10 cars at most during any 15 minute period. They need to sign in for childcare purposes. The increase of enrollment is primarily due to the after school children that come in from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. This imposes no burden on the traffic situation because there is only one van that is doing all the carpooling for these after school children. Happy Day Pre-School has been open since the early 1960's and it has always maintained an enrollment of 70-72 children for over 30 years. It is an asset to the La Palma community because 30% of the school is non-Korean, but it is also an asset to the Korean community. It provides excellent pre-school services for the community. The property is weA maintained. It accommodates her schedule. She is an attorney and is an executive director of a non-profit organization in North Orange County and is an extremely concerned mom. She would never jeopardize her son's safety in any way or even the public safety if she saw that happening at Happy Day Pre-School. Chairperson Boydstun asked Mr. Brown about their letter of operation, in which they show employees as 5 teachers and 1 assistant and the largest shift, is at 3:00 p.m. and yet there was a mention of 15 cars. Pat Brown responded that they have parking available for 15 with the satellite site plus the on-site. There is more than adequate parking to accommodate the staff on-site. They were told to find a satellite and obtain a lease with that property in case there was overFlow parking and this would put them closer to the required amount by Code. Chairperson Boydstun asked when the largest shift at the site was. , Ellen Ahn explained that although she is a parent she is speaking on behalf of the operators because ' their English is limited and she speaks Korean. She responded that the largest shift was in the afternoon. 06-05-00 Page 23 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . Chairperson Boydstun stated that she went over there the other evening and sat across the street and the ( most cars that she ever saw at one time out in front were. The most anyone had to walk to get their children was to pass 3 cars to get to their own car. Since it is a wide street and there is street parking it is a very easy pickup. Ellen Ahn stated that has also been her experience and this preschool is quite comparable to others in the area. Commissioner Arnold stated he had concerns, which has to do with the parking arrange with BBC. He did not feel it is legally sufficient since the license could be revoked at any time. The concerns go beyond what is mentioned in the staff report. They will actually need some provisions that will make it more enforceable. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, confirmed that was correct. If they are going to have something that is going to allow the waiver then they would want an agreement that indicates that the agreement can not be terminated or modified without the written approval of the City of Anaheim or barring that 90 days prior written notice so that there would be an opportunity to call back the conditional use permit. Pat Brown indicated they did not have a problem with that and will ensure they live up to that condition. Commissioner Arnold stated a concern about the number of employees over time. What the applicant was seeking was an increase in the maximum number of children. But the parking is mostly dictated by the staff and asked Mr. Brown if he anticipated that they might have an increase in the number of employees in the future. What type of State requirements is there with respect to the number of staff? Is there a potential with 81 children that they will find that they need more staff members and asked if he would be agreeable to a condition limiting them the number of staff? '. Pat Brown responded at the current time they meet of the State requirements for staffing. There is really not a need for additional staff due to the fact that these children are the ones dropped off in the afternoon. The afternoon program, from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., would not necessitate additional staff. Commissioner Arnold asked if he would be agreeable to a condition limiting the number of staff to 6. Pat Brown responded that would be fine. Chairperson Boydstun stated in the afternoon if they have the young children that they are keeping there all day plus the 11 children with 1 staff member. Pat Brown explained that they phase out. The pickup is in increments of 5 or 10 minutes so they are continually dismissing them. So they are not all held until closing time. Chairperson Boydstun stated that it would seem that they would need to have another staff member there. Pat Brown stated in his past experience with other locations there were up to 50 to 60 children with 1 recreation leader and they made sure that all the children were phased and returned home safely over a period of time. Chairperson Boydstun asked staff what the requirements were from the State. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated regarding pre-school aged children the ratio is 1 teacher for every 12 children. With play area and indoor area it is required to have 35 square feet of indoor area per child which they comply with. They would need to have 75 square feet per child of outdoor area. The ', teacher ratio would equal to 6 2/3 employees, and was not certain the policy of the State whether they would round it off to 7 employee. It would be safe to say 7 would be a maximum. 06-05-00 Page 24 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY O~ ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . Commissioner Bristol stated if they use the entranceway in the gated area to access the alley and asked ~ if that woufd be counted as outdoor space. Pat Brown responded that the more he looked at that and spoke with various traffic engineers outside the City they advised against it. Commissioner Bristol agreed. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, indicated if they backed up to La Palma then there would be a concern. Chairperson Boydstun stated the pickup and drop-off is curb parking. She did not see a single car back out then she sat there the other night. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked about the van. Pat Brown responded that the van does not back up. It pulls up. Commissioner Bristol stated there was a van there today at 9:30 a.m. in the driveway that would need to back up. Pat Brown stated they could have the van not pull in the driveway and have them pull up in the front. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked what day of the week was street sweeping. Pat Brown responded it is on Wednesdays. '. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if that would be a 4-hour block of time that the van would need to use the driveway. Ellen Ahn stated during that time of street sweeping the van is out moving. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that Mr. Brown had indicated that there was a time when the Fire Department allowed 71 students. Pat Brown confirmed that the Fire Department and State sanctioned 70 children and basically looks at it as an occupancy load factor. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that part of the justification for denial, page 6, item 20 of the staff report, was the Fire DepartmenYs concern of the access of the facility during emergency due to the two gates installed across the driveway and asked if the Fire Department has concerns with the number of students or simply the gate. Alfred Yaida advised that off-street parking could in the future be taken away which means they will be required to park on-site and should have some type of access. It would be in violation of the Code to back up onto La Palma. Greg McCafferty responded to Commissioner Vanderbilt's question by stating that the Fire Department was primarily concerned about access to the site in the event of an emergency. On page 3, paragraph 12 of the staff report that illustrates a photograph of the facility it show gates across the driveway and has several cars that are facing head-in into the driveway. Currently as the existing condition is they have no access out to the public alley. Currently there is no choice but to back up onto La Palma Avenue from the site. ', Commissioner Koos stated this was originally developed as a house and intended for that use. He would promote an efficient reciprocal agreement as a measure to mitigate access parking throughout the City, 06-05-00 Page 25 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . utilizing available space. Yet he did not think they still have a comfort level that this agreement is ( legitimate and long standing. Until they do, they can not act today. He is not comfortable with on street parking being counted as part of the project's operation because they do not know if that would change. Therefore, he felt this item needed to be continued. Commissioner Arnold agreed with Commissioner Koos. He also favored reciprocal agreements from time to time where they seem appropriate but this is not sufficient for this project. He is concerned afso with street sweeping. They were told the van never parks in the driveway yet Commissioner Bristol observed it parked there today; and then there is the Fire Department's concern about access during emergencies. Therefore, it seems that there are still a number of problems that need to be resolved and he did not feel it was wise move forward on this proposal Commissioner Bristol agreed. He saw the gate open and vehicles inside the driveway and drove the site 3 times including the alley to confirm what he observed. The fact is that they do need to back out of that site and they cannot go through the alley. For 81 children there needs to be 6,000 square feet outside or 5,300 square feet for 71 children. He does not see that they have that. Pat Brown thought that would not be the case with most day care centers throughout Southern California. Commissioner Bristol stated but if they would do this on the conditional use permit would a new use be approved under these same conditions with the same variances for parking. Pat Brown stated that it depends what services it provides for the community. Commissioner B~istol stated then there would be concerns of health and safety. Are they always going to be lucky backing up onto La Palma? ', Pat Brown stated that the only way they could accomplish that would be to have parallel parking on both sides and eliminate a portion of the playground for a turnaround radius. Commissioner Bristol stated that would mean there would be less space. Pat Brown stated he was just trying to work through some of these issues to see if there was a possible solution, which he felt, is also Commission's intention. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked Mr. Yalda what if a van travelling on La Palma would park a little past the middle of the driveway and back into the driveway so that when it parks it is facing La Palma driving forward. Alfred Yalda feel it was not a good practice to do that because the van sits higher which makes the visibility limited more than a regular car. He suggested a 3-point turnaround area next to the house so they can backup to that area and go out on La Palma forward. He suggested 10 foot X 18 or 20-foot area. Pat Brown stated they would be happy to work with the Transportation Planner on that issue. Chairperson Boydstun offered a motion for a continuance to July 3, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Bristol, vote taken and motion carried. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, advised in modifying Condition No. 13 for the agreement to say that an unsubordinated parking agreement between the subject property owner and the property owner of 2141 West La Palma Avenue be satisfactory to the Zoning Division, Traffic Engineering and the City Attorney and shall be recorded with the County of Orange Recorder's Office and then continue on with ', the rest of Condition No. 13. - ~ • I - ! 11 11 ! : • ! - - - • 11 11 • - ! • - 06-05-00 Page 26 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~. SUPPORT: 2 people spoke in favor of the project. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the July 3, 2000 Pianning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to meet with Traffic Engineering staff to revise pfans regarding access to La Palma Avenue and for the applicant to submit a revised unsubordinated parking agreement. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, recommended that Condition No. 13 listed in the staff report be modified to read as follows: 13. That an unsubordinated parking agreement between the subject property owner and the property owner at 2141 West La Palma Avenue, satisfactory to the Zoning Division, Traffic and Transportation Manager, and the City Attorney shall be recorded with the County of Orange Recorder's Office. A finaf recorded copy shall be submitted to Zoning Division. This preschool enrollment expansion shall be null and void in the event that said parking agreement is terminated by either property owner. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 32 minutes (3:58-4:30) '. /, 06-05-00 Page 27 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (. 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2000-00024 5c. VARIANCE NO. 2000-04398 5d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04216 Continued to July 3, 2000 OWNER: William and Patsy Keough; Eugene and Marie Pardella; Fred and Yoshiko Kimura; Vito and Josephine Bucaro; Allen M. and Kathy J. Wattenberg; Richard and Enriqueta Wattenberg; Attn: Allen Wattenberg, 15234 Matisse Circle, La Mirada, CA 90638 AGENT: Mercy Charities Housing California, Attn: Dara Kovel, 500 South Main Street, #110, Orange, CA 92868 LOCATION: 2240 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 1.9 acre located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, 515 feet west of the centerline of Brookhurst Street. Reclassification No. 2000-00024 - To reclassify subject property from the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple Family) Zone or less intense zone. Variance No. 2000-04398 - Waiver of (a) required setbacks in special areas, (b) minimum number of parking spaces, (c) maximum structural height and (d) minimum yard requirements (deleted), to construct a 46- unit "affordable" apartment complex. ~~ Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04216 - To establish a child day care center for up to 36 children with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR2016DS.DOC Chairperson Boydstun asked Ms. Kovel if she would like a continuance in order to allow time to advertise an additional waiver pertaining to density. ApplicanYs Statement: Dara Kovel, Mercy Charities Housing California, stated that she understood that was their only option so they would opt for the continuance. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, advised they need to readvertise to allow for the additional density that is not currently authorized by the Brookhurst Commercial Corridor Overlay (BCC Overlay) and they would need to consult with the Redevelopment Agency staff and suggested continuing this item until July 3, 2000. (. Dara Kovel stated she did not know whether it was appropriate to submit their presentation at this time or wait until July 3, 2000. 06-05-00 Page 28 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (. Chairperson Boydstun suggested they might want to wait until July 3, 2000 so they can present all the information together. Dara Kovel stated there were some residents who were interested in speaking. Chairperson Boydstun asked if there is anyone present today who will not be able to attend the July 3`d meeting and would like to give testimony at this time. ~7"here was no response from the audience.J Commissioner Arnold stated he is certain staff is committed to making that a firm date and having everything pulled together. Chairperson Boydstun asked that this item be placed at the beginning of the agenda so the people in the audience would not have to wait again. Greg McCafferty responded that this would be Item No. 2 on the July 3~d agenda. Commissioner Napoles offered a motion for continuance to July 3, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Koos, vote taken and motion carried. • • ~ ~ ' • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the July 3, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order to advertise an additional waiver pertaining to density. I. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) 1 DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (4:31-4:35) ~~ 06-05-00 Page 29 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1. 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVtOUSLY APPROVED) 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04225 (MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4075) Approved amendment to floor plans of Master Conditional Use Permit No. 4075 OWNER: Raymond Runo Trust, Attn: Norma Hillman, Dan Neyenhuis, and Lillian Runo, 1120 Kenwood Place, Fullerton, CA 92531 AGENT: Fairmont Private Schools, Inc., Attn: David R. Jackson, 100 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 125, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1575 West Mable Street. Property is 0.89 acre located on the north side of Mable Street, 270 feet east of the centerline of Loara Street (Fairmont Private School). To amend previously-approved floor plans to eliminate classrooms and reduce the warehouse area. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-76 (To expire 3-1-2019) SR1155JD.DPC ApplicanYs Statement: (. Paul Bunton, Bunton, Clifford & Associates, stated they are the architect for the project and is representing Fairmont Private Schools. The applicant has a minor amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04225 that was approved by Commission last year. Since that time the school has decided that they would like to shift some of their program around, reduce some classrooms and increase some offices. Staff, therefore, felt it would be prudent to return to Commission to request approval. Irv Pickler, 2377 Mall Avenue, Anaheim, stated he is representing Bryan Industrial Properties. He read a letter and distributed copies of that letter to Commission. The letter stated that the position of the property owners as it relates to Fairmont School and the above reference Master CUP 4075 has not changed since the proceedings from the CUP approved just last year. In regards to the amendments as requested by Fairmont School per the CUP 2000-04225, the property owners request that the Planning Commission ask the applicant to go on record confirming that the displacement of classrooms by this CUP will not in any way increase the number of classrooms nor increase the square footage of classrooms nor increase the number of students beyond the amount allowed per the last CUP approval 4075. Applicant's Rebuttal: Paul Bunton explained that they are simply reducing classrooms rather than adding classrooms to the campus. David Jackson, Fairmont Schools, stated since the last time that they were before Commission due to the delays it took so long and with all the traffic problems ,etc. they have noticed a slight deterioration in the number of inquires that they are seeing in their Mable campus. They have studied the whole situation and accepted that they are not only not going try to grow further as far as students at the campus, but that they will keep it at the current size and will be looking at some possible slight reductions in the future. So there was no need to have these additional classrooms and do a lot of other relocation. They noticed that . it did make a lot of sense for them to consolidate the majority of their office space and some of their ( spaces that they use to help all of their other campuses, most are in the Mable Street area except for the business office next door at 100 South Anaheim Boulevard, which they will be relocating a few people 06-05-00 Page 30 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . back to Mable Street. They feel they will be able to give better service to the Mable Street campus and to ( their other campuses. They would like to have more storage space so they will be replacing some of the classrooms with storage space. They feel it would work much better for everyone, including their neighbors. It will not increase their traffic or the number of parking spaces required. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated when the applicant converts from classrooms to office use and eliminate their classroom needs for students and import 11 employees from this location, at 100 South Anaheim Boulevard, they anticipate an increase in parking needs. David Jackson explained that on their previous CUP that plan was to move these same people over. There are other people located in the existing buildings that they are going to move. They will end up with storage space, some of their classroom might be a little more larger. They will, essentially, have more space and will have consolidated all of their staff at the same location. They are hoping it will cut down on some of their staff. For example, they currently have 5 receptionists in that area which they are trying to cut down to 3 and will probably be able to cut some of their other staff in the future. During the Action: Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated, for the record, that this is actually Master Conditional Use Permit No. 4075 and that the number indicated at Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04225 is the tracking number. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke with concerns. (. 1 letter with concerns was received. ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved the modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 4075 (to permit the expansion of an existing private school) by approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04225 (to amend previously-approved floor plans to eliminate classrooms and reduce the warehouse area) based on the findings listed in the staff report dated June 5, 2000. Amended Resolution No. 99R-175, in its entirety, and replaced it with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: That the applicant shall prepare an "Emergency Response Plan" and submit it to the Fire Department and Planning Department for review. The school shall be responsible for the implementation of the Emergency Response plan and for assuring that all school personnel working with students. 2. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his review and approval showing conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. 3. That the driveway on Mable Street shall be reconstructed to accommodate ten (. (10) foot radius curb returns in conformance with Engineering Department Standard No. 137. 06-05-00 Page 31 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4. That an on-site trash truck turn around area shall be provided per Engineering '. Standard Detail No. 610 and as required by the Department of Public Works, Street Sweeping and Sanitation Division. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 5. That the developer/owner shall provide a detailed water usage analysis and building plans for Public Utilities Water Engineering review and approval in determining the adequacy of the existing water system to meet the project's water requirements. Any system improvements shall be done in accordance with Rule No. 15A.6 of the water utility's Rates, Rules and Regulations. 6. That trash storage area(s) shall be provided and maintained in a location(s) acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with the Public Works Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum one (1) gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum three (3) foot centers or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 7. That a trash packer service shall be implemented. 8. That a maximum of one (1) wall sign shall be permitted for this property and no other advertising signs shall be permitted. Plans for the wall sign shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning Division, Planning Department and shall comply with the development standards for the ML (Limited '. Industrial) Zone. 9. That outdoor storage shall be prohibited. 10. That a landscape plan for the landscape setback adjacent to Mable Street shall be submitted to the Zoning Division specifying type, size and location of existing, proposed and refurbished landscaping and irrigation for review and approval of the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. Following approval and prior to final building and zoning inspections, the landscaping and irrigation facilities shall be installed and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved plan. 11. That the activity authorized by this resolution shall be permitted only in conjunction with the private school located to the east of the subject property. 12. That hours of operation for this facility shall not exceed 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday as stipulated to by the petitioner. 13. That signs shall be posted at the entrance to the parking lot on this property to limit parking to staff and employees only, and to prohibit drop-off or pick-up of children in the parking lot. 14. That there shall be no student access into the rear or westerly parking areas, as specified on the submitted plans approved by the Planning Commission. 15. That the applicant shall submit a signed statement, approved by the City Attorney's Office, acknowledging that industrial uses are permitted in the ', surrounding area, and may be located immediately adjacent to subject use. The statement shall indicate the permitted primary uses and conditionally 06-05-00 Page 32 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . permitted uses specified by the ML (Limited Industrial) Zone, and shall I acknowledge that the uses may be subject to change by Code Amendments without further notice to the subject property owner. Said signed statement need not be a recorded document. A copy of the signed statement shall be on file with the Planning Department. 16. That the existing fencing shall be continually maintained. 17. That this conditional use permit shall expire on March 1, 2019, or concurrently with expiration of the current lease on the property as stipulated to by the petitioner, whichever occurs earlier. 18. That three (3) foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible to any nearby street or adjacent properties. 19. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection and a plan for recycling shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division for review and approval. 20. That landscaping shall be provided around the above ground large meter or fire line to shield it from public view. 21. 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. 2 of Exhibit No. 1, and Exhibit No. 1A, (CUP No. 2000-04225) and Revision No. 1 ', of Exhibit No. 2, and 3(Master CUP No. 4075), and as conditioned herein. 22. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 15 and 19, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 23. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 3, 7, 10, 13, 18, 19, 20 and 21, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 24. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (4:37-4:43) I. 06-05-00 Page 33 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '. 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04213 7c. (MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3528) OWNER: Canyon United Methodist Church, Attn: Tom Rothaar, 101 Chaparral Court, Anaheim, CA 92808 AGENT: Greg Hammill, 414 Fernhill Lane, Anaheim, CA 92807 Concurred w/staff Approved reinstatement of Master Conditional Use Permit No. 3528 for 2 years (To expire 12-9-2001) LOCATION: 101 South Chaparral Court. Property is 1.3 acre located at the southwest corner of Kaiser Boulevard and Chaparral (Light of the Canyon United Methodist Church). To consider reinstatement of Master Conditional Use Permit No. 3528 which currently contains a time limitation (originally approved on July 27, 1992, to expire on October 9, 1999) to retain 4 modular structures used for a temporary church sanctuary, offices, classrooms, a library and kitchen facilities. I~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-77 SR7788KP.DOC Applicant's Statement: Greg Hammill, 414 Fernhill Lane, Anaheim Hills, stated he is available to answer any questions. He understands the staff report and concurs with all of the conditions of approval. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, recommended adding a condition regarding the applicant's construction completion date which would state that the temporary trailers authorized by this permit shall be removed from the premises by December 9, 2001 or within 30 days from the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the permanent buildings authorized by Conditional Use Permit No. 4170, whichever occurs first. Greg Hammill asked if that would be an amendment to the Recommendation in the staff report, page 4 (c)1. Greg McCafferty responded Condition No. 1 has to do with the term of the reinstatement and the added condition has to do with the trailers. Greg Hammill indicated that he was in agreement. During the Action: Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated, for the record, that this is actually Master Conditional Use Permit No. 3528 and that the number indicated at Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04213 is the tracking number. /. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3, as defined in the State E1R Guidelines and is, therefore, 06-05-00 Page 34 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. '. Approved reinstatement of Master Conditional Use Permit No. 3528 (Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04213), to expire on December 9, 2001 or until 30 days from issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the permanent building, whichever occurs first. Amended Resolution Nos. PC98-165 and PC92-91 in their entirety, and replaced them with a new resolution, which includes the following conditions of approval: 1. That the subject conditional use permit is hereby reinstated for a period of approximately two (2) years, to expire on December 9, 2001. 2. That the trailers shall be maintained with fire sprinklers to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. 3. That the driveway on Chaparral Court shall be maintained with ten (10) foot radius curb returns as required by the City Engineer in conformance with Engineering Standard No. 137. 4. That this property shall be maintained in conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway location. 5. That the temporary trailers authorized by this permit shall be removed from the premises by December 9, 2001 or within thirty (30) days from the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the permanent buildings authorized by Conditional '. Use Permit No. 4170, whichever occurs first. 6. That this 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 Nos. 1 and 2, and Exhibit Nos. 3 through 5(Master CUP No. 3528). That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (4:44-4:46) /. 06-05-00 Page 35 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '. 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 8b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04214 (MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3647) Approved Denied Approved, in part OWNER: Omar L. and Grace C. Blanchard, Trustees, Attn: Rex Blanchard, 191 Old Springs Road, Anaheim, CA 92808 AGENT: Associate Building Inc., Attn: Don Gilmartin, 425 East Arrow Highway, #235, Glendora, CA 91740 LOCATION: 191 South Old Springs Road. Property is 1.42 acre located at the northwest corner of Monte Vista Road and Old Springs Road (Hillsborough School). To permit an expansion to an existing child day care facility and private elementary school with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces (deleted). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-78 SR7745KB.DOC Applicant's Statement: ', Rex Blanchard, Hillsborough School, 191 Old Springs Road, Anaheim, stated they currently have temporary buildings which they are going to replace a permanent structure. Ann Christianson, manager at 181 Old Springs Road, stated she is concerned with parking in the area. There are cars parked everywhere. They are parked in the street and the lots in the school are full. When parents come to pick-up and drop-off the children it adds to the parking problem. When they have activities such as "open house" the area simply does not have enough parking. Their office building is next door to subject property. Commissioner Bristol asked if they park in their parking area. Ann Christianson responded they do not. Commissioner Koos asked where the cars are parking. Ann Christianson stated that the cars are parked everywhere but she does not know whether they are from the school. The cars are parking on the street and all the lots are full. Chairperson Boydstun stated that they are not adding to their enrollment so this would not add more cars than what they already have. Ann Christianson stated just as long as it does not add to the tra~c. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, advised that the site is leased to a tenant that exceeds the City parking requirements. He has been there several times. He has worked with Mr. Blanchard to provide them with on-street parking in front of their property for about 15 to 16 vehicles. It is an internal problem and that they leased their building to another business and they simply have too many employee that park everywhere out there. 1, 06-05-00 Page 36 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Rex Blanchard explained that there are two locations on the same street. The subject property is at 191 (. South Old Springs Road and the parking problem is coming from across the street at 160 South Old Springs Road. Commissioner Arnold asked whether that property would be at the northeast corner of Monte Vista and Old Springs Road. Alfred Yalda confirmed that was correct, on the north side of the street. Rex Blanchard stated the overtlow that Ms. Christianson is referring to is not due to the school, but to the tenants that are overtlowing from across the street. They have no parking problem at their property. During the Action: Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated, for the record, that this is actually Master Conditional Use Permit No. 3647 and that the number indicated at Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04214 is the tracking number. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke with concerns. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Denied Waiver of Code Requirement on the basis that the proposed waiver was deleted following public notification. Approved, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04214. Modified Resolution No. ', PC93-131 adopted in connection with Master Conditional Use Permit No. 3647 in its entirety, and replaced it with a new resolution which includes the following conditions approval: 1. That the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 3861 (to permit a temporary modular building in conjunction with an existing child day care facility and private elementary school with waiver of minimum structural setback from a hillside secondary arterial highway) to the Zoning Division. 2. That any existing trees which are removed shall be replaced on a two-to-one (2:1) ratio with minimum twenty four (24) inch box trees. 3. That the wrought iron fence with stucco pilasters shall be maintained adjacent to Monte Vista Road and Old Springs Road. 4. That the enrollment of subject facility shall be limited to a maximum of two hundred (200) students (infants through 6th grade). 5. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his review and approval showing conformance with the latest revisions of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. 6. That the driveway on Old Springs Road shall be maintained with ten (10) foot radius curb returns as required by the City Engineer in conformance with '. Engineering Standards. 06-05-00 Page 37 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7. That trash storage areas shall be maintained in a location acceptable to the '. Department of Maintenance and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. 8. That an on-site trash truck turn-around area shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Department of Maintenance. 9. That a sign shall be posted in the drop-off zone prohibiting parking for the picking-up of students and that the picking-up of students shall be staggered throughout the day to prevent parking and circulation problems. 10. That signage shall be limited to legally permitted and approved signs existing on the date of this resolution. Requests for additional signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendation item. 11. That a landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item for the relandscaping of area previously occupied by the temporary building. 12. That no roof-mounted equipment shall be permitted in conjunction with this request. 13. That subject property shall be developed and maintained 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 Nos. 1 and 2 and Exhibit Nos. 3 through 6(Master '. CUP No. 3647) and marked Exhibit No. 1(CUP No. 2000-04214). 14. That prior to issuance of a building permit of within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 5 and 11 above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 15. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 2 above- mentioned, shall be complied with. 16. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (4:47-4:52) '. 06-05-00 Page 38 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '. 9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04215 (MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3293) Concurred with staff Approved Approved modification to Master Conditional Use Permit No. 3293 OWNER: Vicorp Restaurants, Inc., Attn: Rick Foerster, 400 West 48'h Avenue, Denver, CO 80216 LOCATION: 2110 South Harbor Boulevard. Property is 0.92 acre located on the east side of Harbor Boulevard, 200 feet south of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue (Baker's Square Restaurant). To construct an outdoor dining area in conjunction with an existing sit- down restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-79 SR7783VK. DOC Applicant's Statement: Ray Baker, Facilities Director for Vicorp Restaurants, Inc. specifically Baker's Square in Anaheim, stated they have been working for the last several months on a conditional use permit for additional outdoor dining at that location which a number of customers have expressed interest in and they would like to go ', fonivard with this project. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol commented that this is a good project and Chairperson Boydstun agreed. During the Action: Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated, for the record, that this is actually a modification of actually Master Conditional Use Permit No. 3293 and that the number indicated at Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04215 is the tracking number. FOLLOWING 15 A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING GOMM1551UN AGIIUN. ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Approved modification to Master Conditional Use Permit No. 3293 (Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04215). Amended Zoning Administrator Decision No. 90-42 adopted in connection with Master Conditional Use Permit No. 3293, in its entirety, and replaced it with a new resolution, which includes the following conditions of ', approval: 1. That the establishment shall be operated as a"Bona Fide Public Eating Place" 06-05-00 Page 39 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . as defined by Section 23038 of the California Business and Professions Code. ' 2. That there shall be no bar or lounge maintained on the property unless licensed by Alcoholic Beverage Control and approved by the City of Anaheim. 3. That food service with a full meal shall be available from opening time until either 11:00 p.m. or closing time, whichever occurs first, on each day of operation. 4. That there shall be no pool tables maintained upon the premises at any time. 5. That subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a public premises (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premise as defined in Section 23039 of the California Business and Professions Code. 6. That the sales of beer and wine shall not exceed 40% of the gross sales of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of beer and wine and other items. These records shall be made available, subject to audit and, when requested inspection by any City of Anaheim official during reasonable business hours. 7. That there shall be no live entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted on the premises at any time without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. '. 8. That the sales of beer and wine for consumption off the premises shall be prohibited. 9. That there shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcohol beverages. 10. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the windows of nearby residences. 11. That the business operator shall comply with Section 24200.5 of the Business and Professions Code so as not to employ or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. 12. That all doors serving subject restaurant shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and shall be kept closed and unlocked at all times during hours of operation except for ingress/egress, to permit deliveries and in cases of emergency. 13. That the outdoor dining area shall be completely enclosed by fencing or other such permanent structure as approved by the City, at least forty (40) inches in , height, into which entry is only possible from the interior of the business. ' Emergency exits required by the Uniform Fire Code shall be maintained, but not utilized by patrons/employees other than in an emergency. 06-05-00 Page 40 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '. 14. That there shall be no direct pedestrian access to the outdoor dining area from outside the building. All access to this area shall be solely through the restaurant. 15. That the daily hours of operation for the restaurant shall be as follows: 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. - Sunday through Thursday 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. - Friday and Saturday 16. That prior to issuance of a building permit the developer shall pay the Sewer Impact and Improvement Fee for the South Central Area. The fee will only be applied to the addition. The fee is currently $163/1,000 square foot. 17. That prior to issuance of building permit primary mains and Fire protection service, shall be paid to the Water Engineering Division in accordance with rules 15A and 20 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations. 18. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his review and approval showing conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. 19. That prior to issuance of a building permit or within 90 days from the date of approval of this project, the applicable traffic signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount established by City Council Resolution. ', 20. That all driveways shall be maintained to accommodate fifteen (15) foot radius curb returns in conformance with Engineering Department Standards. Existing broken or cracked driveways shall be removed and replaced as required b the City Engineer. 21. That prior to issuance of a building permit or within 90 days from the date of approval of this project, the developer Division in an amount established by the City Council Ordinance/Resolution. This fee will be used to fund traffic and transportation improvements within the area impacted by this project. Said fee shall be subject to adjustment by the City Council. 22. That no compact parking spaces are permitted except the existing 20 (8' X 18') compact parking spaces located in the east parking area. 23. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses. 24. 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. Exceeding, violating, intensifying or otherwise deviating from any of said assumptions and/or conclusions, as contained in the parking demand study, shall be deemed a violation of the expressed conditions imposed upon said waiver which shall subject this conditional use permit to termination or modification pursuant to the provisions of Sections 18.03.091 and 18.03.092 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. ', 25. That there shall be no advertising on the umbrellas or the outdoor dining 06-05-00 Page 41 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES furniture. '. 26. That there shall be a landscape planter with minimum 4-foot high shrubs installed on the west elevation of the building to screen direct view from Harbor Boulevard directly into the patio area. 27. That trash storage areas shall be maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for Planning Department and Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division approval. 28. That trash storage areas shall be refurbished to comply with approved plans on file with the Public Works Department and that the enclosure gates shall be painted. 29. That the owner of the owner of subject property shall submit a letter to the Zoning Division requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1011 (to permit a drive-in restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces). 30. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the CL (Limited, Commercial) Zone unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the City Council, Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator. 31. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, ', and 21 above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 32. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 10, 13, 26,27, 28 and 29 above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Further, if an extension of time is requested for the alcohol sales portion of this request, it shall be considered at a noticed public hearing. 33. 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 Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Exhibit No. 4(CUP 2000-04215) and Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3(Master CUP No. 3293) and as conditioned herein. 34. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. '. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (4:53-4:54) 06-05-00 Page 42 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1. 10a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 10b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 10c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04196 (MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.1298) Continued to July 3, 2000 OWNER: Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church of Anaheim, 700 West South Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Greg Ramirez, 6731 Stanton Avenue, Buena Park, CA 90621 LOCATION: 700 West South Street. Property is 3.32 acres located at the southeast corner of South Street and Citron Street (Grace Lutheran Church and School). To construct finro changeable copy "marquee" freestanding signs with waiver of (a) permitted identification signs and (b) minimum distance between freestanding signs. Continued from the Commission meeting of May 8, 2000. I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7789KP. DOC Commissioner Bristol offered a motion for a continuance to July 3, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Napoles, vote taken and motion carried. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the July 3, 2000 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant because the church is considering changes to the submitted sign program. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. I. 06-05-00 Page 43 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES I. 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 11b. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15861 IREVISION NO. 1) Approved 71c. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 99-03 (READVERTISED) Approved OWNER: Paul S. Murata and Sachiko Murata, 194 South Lakeview Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Muskoka Development, Attn: Brian Kerr, 34 Balboa Coves, Newport Beach, CA 92663 LOCATION: 194 South Lakeview Avenue. Property is 6.16 acres located on the north side of Lakeview Avenue, 130 feet east of the centerline of Cerro Vista Drive. Tentative Tract Map No. 15861 (Revision No.1) - Request for amendment or deletion of conditions of approval pertaining to building pad heights for a previously-approved 5-lot single-family residential subdivision. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 99-03 (Readvertised) - To permit the removal of 2 additional specimen trees in conjunction with a previously-approved specimen tree removal permit (4 specimen trees total). SR1050TW. DOC ~. Applicant's Statement: George Kerr, Salkin Engineering, 1215 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, stated that they agree with the staff report and the recommendations. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. FOLLOWING 15 A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING GUMM15510N AGIIUN. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 15861, Revision No. 1. Amended Condition No. 14 of Tentative Tract Map No. 15861 to read as follows: "14. That the building pad heights shall not deviate more than one (1) foot from the figures shown on the grading plans submitted to the Planning Commission and marked as Exhibit No. 1, Revision No. 1." Approved Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 99-03, as readvertised. Amended Condition No. 2 of Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 99-03 to read as follows: I. "2. That the 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 Exhibit No. 3, Revision 1." 06-05-00 Page 44 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) ~. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for Tentative Tract Map No. 15861 and the 22-day appeal rights for Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 99-03. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (4:55-4:56) Following this item: Chairperson Boydstun made a suggestion to staff. When they can tell an item is going have a lot of discussion could they put those items towards the end of the agenda so people that have anticipated short items could go first. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated they try to balance out with the fact that with the larger items they have a lot of people waiting for a long time. They can look at that to see if there are "quick" items that they try to put them at the beginning of the agenda, if that is Commission's pleasure. '. (. 06-05-00 Page 45 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1. 12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 12b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part 12c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04217 Granted, in part OWNER: Michael and Lucy Kurkjian, 2331 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Western States Engineering, Attn: Carmen Begay, 1150 North Richfield Road, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 3085 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 0.52 acre located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard. To construct a gasoline service station with accessory convenience market, and a fast food restaurant with waivers of (a) permitted encroachments into required yards, (b) minimum dimensions of parking spaces (deleted), (c ) minimum landscaped setback adjacent to arterial highways, (d) minimum structural setback adjacent to interior property lines, and (e) minimum landscape requirements adjacent to interior property lines. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-80 II SR7739KP.DOC I. Applicant's Statement: Joseph Karaki, architect, Western States Engineering, 1150 North Richfield Road, Anaheim 92807, stated he is in agreement with the staff report. Public Testimony: Irv Pickler, representing Bryan Industrial Properties, stated they are not opposed to the project. They wanted to make sure that the phones are inside as the Police Department requested. Also on the north side they own some adjacent commercial businesses and want to ensure that the applicant will not block their view. If there is a retainer wall that is fine, but they do not want a block wall that is 6 feet high. 1. Chairperson Boydstun noted that there was no wall on the plans. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. McCafferty if there was a wall on the north side. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, responded that the plans do not indicate a wall on north side. Joseph Karaki explained that currently there is no existing wall but there will be a small retaining wall 3 to 4 feet high, and the closer the retaining wall gets to the street the lower it becomes. Commissioner Bristol asked if the "Shell Oil" sign is to come down. Joseph Karaki confirmed it would be coming down. Greg McCafferty advised that staff would like to condition the sign to come down. Commissioner Koos asked if they investigated the canopy heights at the other previous approval. Greg McCafferty advised that staff did have a condition of approval to recommend. 06-05-00 Page 46 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '. Commissioner Koos explained that at the morning session they discussed the 16 feet, 6 inches clearance Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that this intersection has a lot of industry. There would be many pedestrians that would probably take advantage of the mini market to buy their lunch. He has always been concerned about the City's practice of heavily landscaping the corners so that any pedestrian who wants to make entrance to a property has to go down the sidewalk and cut in where the driveways are. An exception is the Arco gas station, which caddy-corners this block. The sign is oriented the same way the applicant is proposing and they added some stepping stones to cut across the landscaping. He asked Mr. Karaki if they could install stepping stones on their landscaping as well. ', Joseph Karaki responded that they have no problem with adding the stepping stones. They have 20 feet of landscaping, and the right-of-way as it currently is is12 feet and no one knows when this right-of-way will be exercised, perhaps 10 to 15 years from now. canopy. Joseph Karaki stated that it has to be within the standard of 16 feet, 6 inches on the bottom side of the canopy. Greg McCafferty stated that with the past few service stations Commission has been conditioning that the underside of the canopy be a maximum height of 15 feet. Joseph Karaki indicated that they can live with that but certain oil companies have certain requirements. He would like to keep it at 16 feet if possible. Commissioner Koos asked Mr. Yalda if any trucks exceed 15 feet in their total height. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, responded that their signals are 17 feet of clearance because sometimes they are hit by trucks. Commissioner Arnold felt that the nature of the area would justify the applicanYs request. Commissioner Vanderbilt encouraged the applicant to consider that addition as a way to accommodate and encourage pedestrian use of their property given its location. Commissioner Arnold felt this was an excellent comment. During the Action: Commissioner Vanderbilt stated with regard to his suggestion besides being in the minutes is that it be listed in the action. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, explained that Ms. Solorio will be drafting a Mini Action Agenda, which incorporates these additional conditions of approval, which gets carried over to the resolution. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that he would like to pursue this as a practice in the future. Joseph Karaki stated that he did not have a problem including that. Commissioner Bristol stated that they ask the applicant to encourage and put in the plans a pedestrian passage from the corner to the site. Commissioner Koos recommended that perhaps they remove the element of uncertainty and be specific. ', Chairperson Boydstun stated that Mr. Karaki is specifying that he will install stepping stones within the landscaping so pedestrians have access. 06-05-00 Page 47 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '. Greg McCafferty advised that Condition No. 3 references the review of landscape plans, which Commission can review, and at that time to ensure it was included. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke with concerns. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration. Approved, in part, the Waiver of Code Requirement as follows: Approved waivers (a) pertaining to permitted encroachments into required yards, (c ) pertaining to minimum landscaped setback adjacent to arterial highways, (d) pertaining to minimum structural setback adjacent to interior property lines, and (e) pertaining to minimum landscape requirements adjacent to interior property lines. Denied waiver (b) pertaining to minimum dimensions of parking spaces on the basis that it was defeted following public notification. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04217 with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Modified Condition No. 3 to read as follows: I. 3. That minimum 24-inch box sized trees shall be planted in the landscape planters immediately adjacent to La Palma Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard. A minimum of five (5) trees shall be planted along the interior property lines, and a minimum of four (4) trees adjacent to the street frontages and outside at the ultimate right- of-way for a total of nineteen (19) trees. That stepping stones shall be provided across the planters to encourage pedestrian access to the property. That final landscape plans with said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. Once approved, the landscaping shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the plan. Added the following conditions: That the inner side of the canopy shall be reduced to sixteen (16) feet, reducing the overall height to not more than twenty faur (24) feet. This information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. That the existing freestanding pole sign indicating "Shell Oil" shall be removed prior to the issuance of a building permit. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 11 minutes (4:57-5:08) /, 06-05-00 Page 48 JUNE 5, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ', (. (. THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:10 P.M. TO MONDAY, JUNE 19, 2000 AT 9:30 A.M. FOR A MORNING WORKSHOP ON TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES NEAR THE MOUNTAIN PARK SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY Respectfully submitted, ~~~ ~ Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~r -(`~ -~~ Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary 06-05-00 Page 49