Loading...
Minutes-PC 2000/08/14~ Fo'?~,HEIM~A`AZ CITY OF ANAHEIM ! ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~O`N D E D ~'y1 DATE: MONDAY, AUGUST 14, 2000 MORNING SESSION: Chairperson Koos called the Morning Session to order 11:00 a.m. in the Council Chamber. 11:00 A.M. • Staff update to Commission of various City developments and issues (as requested by Planning Commission) • Preliminary Plan Review '. PUBLIC HEARING: 1:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT; Chairperson Koos called the Public Hearing to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber and welcomed those in attendance. Public Hearing Testimony The Pledge Allegiance was led by Commissioner Vanderbilt. Arnold, Bostwick, Koos, Napoles, Vanderbilt Boydstun, Bristol Selma Mann Greg Hastings Greg McCafferty Della Herrick Kim Taylor Don Yourstone Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 10, 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, July 20, 2000. ~~ H: DOCSIC LE RI CALWI I N UTES W C081400. DOC Assistant City Attorney Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Associate Planner Associate Planner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Principal Transportation Planner Associate Civil Engineer Planning Commission Secretary Senior Secretary planninqcommission(a~anaheim.net 08-14-00 Page 1 AUGUST 14, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None RECEIVING AND APPROVING THE MINUTES FOR THE PLANNING Approved COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 31, 2000. (Motion) (Vote: 4-0, Chairman ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos abstained. Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Chairman Koos abstained and Commissioners Commissioners Boydstun and Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Boydstun and Bristol Commission does hereby approve the minutes for the Planning Commission were absent) meeting of July 31, 2000. '~ '. APPROVING REVISED MINUTES FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 17, 2000. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Vanderbilt offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold abstained and Commissioners Boydstun and Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the revised minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of July 17, 2000 with an additional revision to Page 25, replacing Commissioner Bostwick's name with Commissioner VanderbilYs name and page 28, paragraph 9, adding additional wording. Approved (Vote: 4-0, Commissioner Arnold abstained and Commissioners Boydstun and Bristol were absent) 08-14-00 Page 2 AUGUST 14, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '. 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE Determined to be in ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN: Michael Worley, North Orange County conformance with the ROP, 2360 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801, requests a Anaheim General determination of substantial conformance with the Anaheim General Plan Plan for the proposed lease of classroom space for a business school. Property is located at 1177 North Magnolia Avenue. (Vote: 5-0, ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioners Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Boydstun Boydstun and Bristol and Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does absent) hereby find that the North Orange County ROP's proposal to lease space aE 1177 North Magnolia Avenue for the purpose of operating a business school is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. SROOOKT.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for General Plan Conformity. Staff recommends that Commission, by motion, find that the North Orange County ROP's proposal to lease property at 1177 North Magnolia Avenue is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. ', '. 08-14-00 Page 3 AUGUST 14, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~i ~. '. B. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4128 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000-04238) - REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS: Dennis McCullough, 17875 Von Karman, Suite 301, Irvine, CA 92614, requests review and approval of final building elevations, landscape and sign pfans for a previously-approved commercial retail center. Property is located at 600-626 North Brookhurst Street. ACTION: Chairman Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Boydstun and Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Chairman Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt voted no and Commissioners 8oydstun and Bristol were absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final building elevations, landscape and sign plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 4128 (Tracking Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04238) with the following stipulation: (i) That trellises shall be installed on the north wall of the Staples building; and that vine pockets be installed along the rear building walls of the retail building. Approved Approved final plans (Vote: 4-1, Commissioner Vanderbilt voted no and Commissioners Boydstun and Bristol absent) (ii) That canopy signage be limited to finro (2) "Pegasus" logos or two (2) "Mobil" signs; that the price sign be limited to price information, "Mobil" and "Car Wash" signs; and that the freestanding commercial SR7796VK.DOC identification sign be limited to "Staples" and the six (6) tenants in the retail building. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating that this is a request for review and approval of final building elevation, landscape and sign plans for a previously-approved commercial retail center at 600-626 North Brookhurst Street. Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the final plans submit to the recommendations in paragraph no. 22 of the report including plans that were submitted to the Building Division indicate enhanced paving similar to what Commission approved with the original conditional use permit. ApplicanYs Statement: Dan Van Rossen, P.O. Box 2110, Ventura, CA, stated he represents Morteza Yassini, property owner and developer. They reviewed the staff report and have a few comments on page 4, items 19 and 20. Item 19 asks that they stipulate to the inclusion of vine pockets along the rear wall of the retail building, which was Condition No. 11 and trellises on the north wall of the Staples building adjacent to Gramercy Avenue. These conditions do not apply to the surrounding buildings, but if is Commission's desire then they will stipulate to both of those. Item 20 suggests changes on the monument sign, the convenience store and the gas island canopy. On the gas island canopy they have two issues here. As a Mobil franchisee they are required to comply to the fullest extent possible with the Mobil facility franchise provisions of their franchise agreement. Secondly, staff suggested that the name "Mobil" be deleted from the canopy leaving only the Pegasus logo. They believe it is appropriate to have the name of the business on the canopy. They feel it is a benefit that is enjoyed by many service stations in Anaheim. He requested that Commission permit them to place the name "Mobil" on the canopy. 08-14-00 Page 4 AUGUST 14, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Staff also suggested that the convenience store future tenant signage be reduced from 3 positions to '. 1 and that the future tenant position on the pricing sign be deleted. If Commission agrees with staff then the applicant will reluctantly agree to eliminate the tenant position on the pricing sign but they believe that good, clean, and attractive signage can actually add to the aesthetics of the center and the building versus a blank wall along Brookhurst, and at the same time attract better tenants. Therefore, they ask that the 3 future tenant positions on the convenience store be approved according to their proposed plan. Regarding the monument sign, staff is recommending that the number of retail names spaces on the monument sign be reduced from Staples and 6 spaces to Staples and 4 spaces which is puzzling to them. There has been no suggestion that the sign area or size be reduced, but only the number of names, which they strongly disagree with. Each of the 4 spaces that are there would be larger than the 6 spaces that they proposed, they would simply be smaller in size. They had previously agreed to reduce the number of retail tenants and at that time there was no mention of reducing the number of name spaces. They have a situation with building orientation. The retail building right angles to Brookhurst, it is not frontage. The building orientation together with extensive landscaping that is required including berms and trees will dramatically reduce the tenant visibility from Brookhurst thus a name on the sign in the front becomes much more important. The retail spaces are presently configured to be similar in size, basically 2,000 feet. Since they are generally the same size it becomes very difficult to determine who should be on the sign. In keeping with the City's desire to have fewer tenants, but to have tenants of a higher caliber, they have aggressively sought out national tenants or at least local tenants with name recognition. Each time they speak with a prospective tenant one of the first questions they ask is what will their position be on the monument sign. In addition to the Staple store there are only going to be 6 tenants. They feel it is imperative that each of those 6 tenants will have a space on the freestanding commercial identification sign. He asked that Commission approve their request for the 6 spaces. '. He heard conversation prior to this meeting regarding the pedestrian path through the parking area. This came up the last time he was before Commission and at that time he indicated that there would be a pedestrian path. The path will be in a"brush finished" light concrete that will be clearly distinctive from the asphalt. It will be clearly visible and will meet all of the ADA requirements as indicated on the site plan. Commissioner Bostwick asked what staff s reasoning is for the 4 spaces instead of 6 spaces. Greg McCafferty explained that staff was trying to be consistent with how Commission and City Council have been considering signs for retail centers in the recent past. The last one being the large sign for the Lowe's project on Lemon and 91 Freeway. In looking at the goals and objectives for the Brookhurst Corridor which is to try to eliminate the amount of signs down Brookhurst Street along the corridor, this center has 2 freestanding signs. One is the price sign that mixes the pricing with the Mobil logo and the car wash. The intent of the other sign is to identify the center and the tenants. They felt that the fewer spaces on the signage the better for that sign. They should identify what the commercial center is and then choose based on the major tenant, Staples, who already has visibility, to put them on the sign and to choose what tenants they felt were impo~tant to identify on that sign without having to have every tenant in that building identified on the sign. Commissioner Bostwick asked if he was referring to the Mobil as well as Carl's Jr. as being one of the six. Dan Van Rossen stated they have frontage and their own visibility. Greg McCafferty stated that the price sign will have Mobil on it. He thought that the Carl's Jr. would , not have any identification on that sign because they are right at the street. ' Commissioner Arnold stated that staff has not asked the applicant to reduce the size of the monument sign. 08-14-00 Page 5 AUGUST 14, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~. Greg McCafferty confirmed that was correct and indicated that they have asked that the applicant reduce the amount of tenants that they are showing on the sign. He used the analogy of Brookhurst and Ball where there are some old non-conforming signs that are name plate after name plate of signs which detracts from the area. This is in the Redevelopment Area where they are trying to improve the look of the whole corridor and felt that it is something that Commission should deliberate and consider the applicanYs request for the two signs. Commissioner Arnold asked whether it is the number of letters on the sign that give it a busy appearance rather than the size or amount of visual material on the sign. Greg McCafferty confirmed that was the concern. The conditional use permit that Commission approved was for the structure of the sign. Chairperson Koos stated regarding the Pegusus logos, he thought he has seen gas stations that just have the icons on the canopies. He asked if there were any recently approved in Anaheim that were that way. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, advised that they have been conditioning projects for a few years with that in mind. Some of the older service stations may still maintain the logo and the name on each front. What staff is trying to do is to minimize the amount of signage. The canopies themselves are usually enough because they are identified with a particular oil company. Staff would prefer to have the logos rather than the name of the business. Commissioner Bostwick asked what was done with the Mobil station at Ball and Brookhurst. Greg Hastings responded that it was approved fairly recently. He would need to verify the '~ information, but it being on a corner he thought they were probably allowed to have identification on both directions. They probably just have the logo, but staff would need to check on that. Chairperson Koos stated that regarding the Pegusus logo issue, he felt they are more attractive and there is no mistaking as a gas station and is supportive of that. The other matter of the number of tenants to be displayed on the monument sign, the main issue was the size of the sign, which was taken care with the CUP. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated there are several comparable sizes in the City of Anaheim and when it comes to them being identified on the sign by their name, he is not sure what value that has. He suggested not requiring them to list the name of the shopping center on the sign so they can have the space and text for the sixth business. The shopping center is identified by the name of the main tenant when it comes to consumers tying to find them. He asked staff if it was a code requirement to have the name of shopping center on the sign and asked why the name is always on top. Greg McCafferty responded it is not code requirement, it is the petitioners choice. It is not a regional center of significance so it may not be as important for the center. Commissioner Arnold asked the City Attorney about fine distinctions as to where Commission dictates what sort of logo can appear. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney. stated they are concerned with first amendment issues and tends to go along with the recommendations when they are talking about a general logo as opposed to dictating a particular logo. Perhaps it should say "it's logo" instead of Pegasus logo. Commissioner Arnold was concerned and suggested Commission may want to restrict the amount of . material that appears on the canopy, but how the tenant represents themselves is up to them. ( Commissioner Bostwick stated it would be either the icon or the name. 08-14-00 Page 6 AUGUST 14, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Vanderbilt indicated some logos contain the name, others are an icon and '. Commissioner Arnold suggested that they should be able to put up either/or. Greg Hastings stated page 3 of the staff report indicates the logo is only 2 feet in diameter and Mobil is 16 square feet. Staff is trying to minimize the amount of signage while still allowing them to have identification. Morteza Yassini, owner and developer for project, stated every tenant will need name recognition if their business. Other canopies in the City have names and the gas stations need identity from far away. They are only asking for two names and one Pegasus logo. Chairperson Koos asked staff what was allowed Ultramar gas station on Harbor and South. Greg Hastings thought they were limited to one in each direction, but would check on it. Commissioner Arnold stated there is a consistency issue, therefore, they should check past approvals. Greg Hastings stated a comprehensive report can be brought back, but it will need to be continued. On the majority of them, they looked at the situation. Greg McCafferty stated final plans submitted for freestanding sign show Carl's Jr.'s and Mobil on that sign as well as the other signs. Dennis McCullough, Architect, stated on the elevation of the large freestanding sign, Carl's and Mobil were indicated as an example of the size of the sign that would go on those panels. Carl's and Mobil front on Brookhurst and do not need signage on those panels. Six signs are intended for the six ~, inline tenants. Chairperson Koos suggested leaving the signage issue up to the developer for now so that he can present their plan as either/or. Later they can decide if wording orjust logos constitute the best design. Selma Mann stated if the original plans are clarifications, it should indicate that the clarifications are in substantial conformance and it should be clear for the record just what that determination relates to. If they are making a determination of substantial conformance with regard to signage they are not there by changing the rest of project just because something is or is not indicated on the signage exhibit that is submitted for consideration on the determination for substantial conformance. For example, if there is some enhanced type of treatment that was part of their original approval that is not related to the signage then that original approval would prevail, in that the determination of substantial conformance is limited. To the extent that the request for substantial conformance is modified by the Commission that the modification should appear on the plans themselves. At the time those plans are being checked that the modifications are included and that if the staff report indicates that the applicant is stipulating to whatever is being stipulated. Chairperson Koos stated that this is an item is on the R&R section of the agenda on this project that did not show these treatments and the applicant admitted as such. The staff is alert to what Commission is referring to in terms of the original plans. Chairperson Koos suggested dropping C(ii) altogether. C(i) reaffirms what the original CUP stated. Greg McCafferty stated C(i) requires the vine pockets, but he did not think that it required trellises on the north wall of the Staples building which they are agreeing to place on the building with this final plan approval. He suggested that it be made as part of the plans submitted to the Building Division ', for Plan Check as part of the approval. 08-14-00 Page 7 AUGUST 14, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Selma Mann suggested if it is something that they intend to include in the plans and the applicant has '~ stipulated to that then she would recommend that it be on the plans. Chairperson Koos suggested leaving in C(i). ', '. 08-14-00 Page 8 AUGUST 14, 2000 . CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ', C. (a) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 311 (PREV.-CERTIFIED) (b) THE DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-1, FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2000-00013: The Walt Disney Company, Attn: Doug M. Moreland, 500 South Buena Vista Street, Burbank, CA 91521, request reviews and approval of Final Site Plan Review No. 2000- 00013 for The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 Parking District (West Parking Area) and Hotel District setback areas adjacent to the north and south sides of future Magic Way befinreen Walnut Street to the west and Disneyland Drive to the east. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Boydstun and Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified EIR No. 311 and its Addendum are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the subject request. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Boydstun and Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Final Site Plan No. 2000-00013 (identified as Exhibit Nos. 1 through 2 on file in the Planning Department and Attachment A to the August 14, 2000 staff report), on the basis that the Final Site Plan is in conformance with The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1. Approved Approved (Vote: 5-0, Commissioners Boydstun and Bristol absent) SR7809DH.DOC ', Della Herrick, Associate Planner, introduced this item stating it is a request for review and approval of Final Site Pfan No. 2000-00013 setting forth the landscape design for the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan Parking District within the west parking area and Hotel District setback areas adjacent to the north and south side of Magic Way befinreen Walnut Street to the west and Disneyland Drive to the east. Staff has reviewed the submitted plans and finds that the final site plan is in conformance with the specific plan requirements. Staff recommends, by motion, determination that the previously- certified EIR No. 311 and its addendum are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation and that the Commission approve Final Site Plan based up a finding that the Final Site Plan is in conformance with the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. ~, 08-14-00 Page 9 AUGUST 14, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~, PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2000-00025 Continued to 2c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT August 28, 2000 2d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04224 OWNER: Charles Hance, 828 West Vermont Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Valli Architectural Group, 81 Columbia, Suite 200, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 LOCATION: Portion A: 828 West Vermont Avenue. Property is 0.9 acre located on the south side of Vermont Avenue, 110 feet west of the centerline of Citron Street (Coast Corvette). Portion B: 800 West Vermont Avenue. Property is 1.1 acre located on the west side of a public alley, 315 feet south of the centerline of Vermont Avenue (Formerly A-1 Body and Paint). '~ Reclassification No. 2000-00025 - To reclassify Portion B of subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04224 - To permit and retain an existing unpermitted truck rental facility and permit a self-storage facility with waiver of (a) required setback adjacent to a freeway and (b) required interior setback adjacent to any residential zone boundary. Continued from the Commission meetings of June 19, and July 3, and July 17, 2000. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ~~ SR7747KB.DOC 1, Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for reclassification of property at 800 West Vermont Avenue (Portion B) and to construct a self storage facility with U-Haul truck rental facility on both Portion A and B, 828 West Vermont Avenue and 800 West Vermont Avenue. Commissioner Koos asked if the applicant was present. There was not response. Asked staff whether the applicant knew there was a public hearing today. Greg McCafferty stated he contacted the applicant yesterday and he knew that the public hearing was today. (This item was then trailed to give the applicant an opportunity to be present. It was later hear following /tem No. 6.] Greg McCafferty stated staff recommends approval of rezoning of Portion B and recommends approval of self storage facility in part and recommends denial of the truck rental business. 08-14-00 Page 10 AUGUST 14, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chuck Hance commented on staff report. He asked to be able to keep split face block on the building ', because there is no room to put glass. Stucco will be difficult to keep clean because it is so close to landscaping. The emergency gate is actually 10 feet and not 6, as indicated in staff report. He wants to keep finro lots separate because they are different operations and it would cause problems if he combined the lots. He is unaware of any outdoor displays that are not permitted on his property. He has a car out in front of the business but has a permit for it. Staff is concerned with traffic, but he will only have two trucks, which are usually rented on weekends so that is only one trip in and one trip out. He felt doors that staff is concerned with will not be seen due to planters and there is no other place to put the doors. Lori Hulen, 180 South Avenida Felipe, represents Vermont Avenue and Citron Street neighbors. They are opposed to the U-Haul business because U-Haul trucks are dropped off on the streets because gates are closed. They are also concerned with the potential parking lot that the applicant is obtaining and is concerned that it will be a parking lot for all the trucks. Chuck Hance stated that he was concerned with the trucks on the street so he now leaves the gate unlocked but closed. He tells customers to put truck in lot and drop keys off in the drop box. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt advised those who submitted the petition to perhaps adding more descriptive language to the petition so people can fully understand what they are being asked to sign. Commissioner Arnold noted that neighborhood group no longer has opposition to the storage facility. He understands both residents and business owner's problems and has strong reservations about the U- Haul facility and feels potential traffic could be detrimental to the neighborhood, especially if the business grows. ', Chairperson Koos indicated that the applicant stated that the doors cannot be seen from the freeway. There are ways of developing a line-of-sight and he wants a comfort level that if they are going for a office type look then he wants assurances that the doors cannot be seen from the freeway. Greg McCafferty advised that the exhibit that the applicant submitted shows concrete barrier on Caltrans side, but you have mesh/chain link above that which can be seen through from the freeway. There is no way of telling what the applicant has proposed is actually to scale. The applicant has superimposed the wall onto his elevation exhibit showing that. Staff recommends that those doors be internally loaded so they cannot be seen and be painted in a color that blends in with the building. Chairperson Koos stated based on the architectural drawing it appears that they feel that the line-of-sight is such that the doors can not be seen. Chuck Hance explained how he illustrated the view from the freeway with photographs he took and presented to Commission. Greg Hastings stated this is all new information that staff would like to review. Also, the view may be different depending on what kind of vehicle is on the freeway Chuck Hance stated he showed the pictures to staff a month ago. He is unable to hide doors 100% from a bus on the freeway, but can hide from most. SUV's will not see the doors. Greg Hastings indicated that due to the importance of this area, staff's recommendation for approval is based on the fact that no loading would be seen. Staff would like it to be reviewed very carefully. Regarding the photos, he did not believe that staff has seen the pictures in the Commission's possession and disagrees that they have had those pictures for weeks. ', Chuck Hance advised he showed them to Mr. Kevin Bass and others when they had a meeting. 08-14-00 Page 11 AUGUST 14, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairperson Koos is supportive of a continuance because he would like staff to feel comfortable with ', what is being proposed. Chuck Hance stated Mr. Bass was the one who suggested raising the planter and he was told that would solve the problem. Greg Hastings stated staff made recommendations about ways that Mr. Hance could address this issue, however, he does not see anything that shows 100% obstruction from the freeway. Chuck Hance stated he has just tried to hide the bottom floor, which is where the entrances are. Chairperson Koos stated staff s intent is to conceal the doors and he is leaning toward approving a self storage facility where one can not tell it is a self-storage facility. Some of the applicanYs own photos show that the piece of wood can be seen. He asked if the applicant understood the sensitivity of this area, this can be resolved if ample time is give to address the issue. Greg Hastings noted there are lodging facilities on the other side of the freeway that will have a view into that area. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked whether there are any landscape options instead of architectural changes. Greg Hastings responded that there is landscaping proposed on this plan, but it would not screen 100%. If there was a wall landscaped with vines and trees it would work, but would be costly. Chuck Hance stated the cost is not the problem, but he felt it would look like a prison from the inside due to lack of landscaping. He would like to give it a nicer look not simply from the freeway but also for his ~, customers. Chairperson Koos stated it is not a major consideration for the City because no one but the customers are going to see the landscaping on the inside. Greg McCafferty advised staff feels he has done a good job with the way the appearance of the architecture on the upper floors. Staff was not supportive of having the doors on the outside but Mr. Hance felt they were needed to be successful. Staff recommended to him that the doors not be visible from the freeway, but they do not feel comfortable that they will not be seen the way they are now. Chuck Hance stated he was not certain what to do because they need doors in a mini-storage facility. Chairperson Koos responded of course, but they do not want the doors to be seen. Greg Hastings stated an accurate sectioned dimensioned view and something that shows that the doors are hidden, fence treatment are needed. Details, dimensions and section view that very clearly shows beyond anybody's doubt is needed. Greg McCafferty stated that if the applicant can demonstrate that the line-of-sight for the roll-ups is below the line of sight from the freeway, he would accomplish staff's requirements. It would then be an exhibit that Commission could approve and staff could enforce. Chuck Hance stated dimensions are accurate. Planters are concrete and were installed by Caltrans so he can not change it on the outside. Commissioner Bostwick asked whether staff had a problem with the block building rather than stucco. ', Greg Hastings explained that the intent is to match the block wall to look like it is seamless, but they need to guarantee that it is the exact same material and color. 08-14-00 Page 12 AUGUST 14, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chuck Hance stated he may have to get permission from Caltrans to buy that block because they special ', ordered the biock. Commissioner Bostwick offered motion for a continuance to August 28, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, vote taken motion carried. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition to the U-Haul rental portion of the request and submitted a letter. ACTION: Continued subject request to the August 28, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to submit additional details of the proposed project including an accurate dimensioned section view of the property, a plan showing the roll-up doors screened from view, and the proposed fence treatment. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Boydstun and Bristol absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 33 minutes (2:58-3:31) ~J ', 08-14-00 Page 13 AUGUST 14, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ', 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04221 Granted, in part OWNER: Evergreen Roya{le, 12631 Sunswept Avenue #1, Garden Grove, CA 92843 AGENT: O'Neal Communications Group, Attn: Saied Naaseh, 18500 Von Karman Avenue #870, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 1919 East Center Street. Property is 3.1 acres located on the north side of Center Street, 310 feet west of the centerline of State College Boulevard (Evergreen Motel). To construct a telecommunications monopole with waiver of minimum interior yard setback. Continued from the Commission meetings of June 19, and July 17, 2000. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-93 SR1056TW.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a continued public hearing item for property located at 1919 East Center Street, Evergreen Motel. A request to construct a telecommunications monopole and accessory ground-mounted equipment. The previousfy advertised ~, waivers have been deleted and staff still recommend denial based on the current location of the monopole towards the back of the facility. They still feel that the flagpole is more appropriate in front part of the motel. [Commissioner Koos asked if fhe application was present. There was no response and therefore this item was trailed and later heard after ltem No. 2. Commissioner Arnold cautioned that they should not be extraordinarily lenient with applicants or it would create an incentive for them to abuse the system. Greg McCafferty stated last week the case planner contacted the applicant and was told thai he would be here today, however, when the case planner spoke to the applicant today and he indicated that he would like to request a two-week continuance. Chairperson Koos did not see any point in going further with continuing this item because it appears there is a problem between a landlord and the tenant. Selma Mann advised it is up to the Commission and there is an appeal process to the City Council so the applicant is left with recourse. Traditionally, the Commission has not made a denial decision in the absence of the applicant, particularly when it appears that there is still some kind of negotiation going on and the applicant is attempting to comply with the requests of staff. Commissioner Arnold is concerned that the applicant is not present here and did not even request a continuance in writing. It greatly delays the business of the City and Commission and creates a potential for abuse. ', Selma Mann advised the Commission could go either way on this. She understood the applicant asked the planner for a two-week continuance and was not certain it had to be in writing. 08-14-00 Page 14 AUGUST 14, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '~ Greg McCafferty was informed that the planner called the applicant to find out whether he was going to attend this public hearing and was told he did not know the public hearing was today. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, pointed out that if Commission were to deny this request today, whether or not the applicant is present, there is a way that if a flag pole were to be brought in on this property that was secondarily used as an antenna, it is something that staff could work with the applicant on for an administrative approval, if that is the case. However, staff would be concerned about the location of the flag pole, as indicated in the staff report. He did not think that a denial would keep the applicant from being able to seek a flag pole in the front of the property and use that secondarily for antennas. Chairperson Koos stated that he is leaning to approving the conditional use permit conditioned upon its location. Commissioner Arnold stated for the record that he was not present at the previous public hearings related to this item, but thoroughly reviewed the minutes and all supporting documentation for this item. On Condition No. 12, Greg McCafferty recommended that the exhibits be modified accordingly to show the location of the flag pole within the front landscape setback along Center Street. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Denied Waiver of Code Requirement on the basis that the proposed waiver was deleted following public notification. '. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04221 with the following change to the conditions: Modified Condition No. 12 to read as follows: 12. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 5, Revision No. 2, except, however, that Exhibits shall be modified to show the location of the flag pole in the landscape area befinreen the front of the building on Center Street and the south property line, and as conditioned herein. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Boydstun and Bristol absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 8 minutes (3:32-3:40) '. 08-14-00 Page 15 AUGUST 14, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 't 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04233 Continued to September 11, 2000 OWNER: Sanderson J. Ray Development, 2699 White Road, Irvine, CA 92614 AGENT: SBA Inc., Attn: Steve Stackhouse, 3151 Airway Avenue F-120, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 LOCATION: 3364 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 2.79 acres located on the north side of Riverside (91) Freeway, and is accessed via a 652-foot long, 32-foot wide ingress/egress easement on the south side of La Palma Avenue, 1,240 feet east of the centerline of Shepard Street (Concourse Bowling Alley). To construct a freestanding "monopalm" telecommunication antenna facility. Continued from the Commission meeting of July 17, 2000. '~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7811 KP. DOC Commissioner Napoles oifered a motion for a continuance to September 11, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick, vote taken and motion carried. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the September 11, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to address the non-conforming status of the existing telecommunication monopole at this property and design issues with City staff. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Boydstun and Bristol absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ', 08-14-00 Page 16 AUGUST 14, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES " 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 32 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04242 Granted for 1 year OWNER: Lakeview Investment Company Ltd., Attn: Kaye F. Richey, 1667 East Lincoln Avenue, Orange, CA 92865 AGENT: Paula Schlue, 430 North Lakeview Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 404-452 North Lakeview Avenue. Property is 3.1 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Lakeview Avenue and McKinnon Drive. To establish conformity with existing Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing nonconforming commercial retail center and liquor store, and to permit a massage facility in the same center. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-94 (To expire 8-14-2001) SR2027DS.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request to establish conformity for the existing center and liquor store and also to permit a massage business in the same center for property located at 404-452 North Lakeview Avenue. Staff recommends approval of the massage establishment and the conformity for the center and liquor store and recommends approval based on Police Department input of 1 year for the massage business. ', Applicant's Statement: Paula Schlue, 9047 Grand Circle, Cypress, stated that she had comments on the following conditions: • Condition No. 1. She is asking consideration of an indefinite permit only because she has an establishment and license in the City of Orange and has been in business there for 4 years and has a good record there. • Condition No. 2. During the fall she would like to open an hour earlier (open at 9:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. on Sunday). . Item No. 8. She already has a security system that has been registered with the Police Department. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos asked if Ms. Schlue understood the reasoning for Condition No. 1. Paula Schlue responded that she understood but felt because she already has a massage establishment permit and has been in business for 4 years in the City of Orange that there would be consideration made. Commissioner Koos stated that the Police Department indicated that she has a clean operation but Commission needs to consider the possibility if she sells the business to someone else not as diligent, it is a land use issue. Commissioner Vanderbilt did not have an objection to the applicanYs request of opening one hour earlier. /, Commissioner Koos stated he would like to allow enough leeway to the hours of operation and asked if her requested time would give her enough leeway in the future. Paula Schlue thought perhaps Monday through Fridays 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and Saturdays and Sundays from 8:00 to 7:00 p.m. 08-14-00 Page 17 AUGUST 14, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ', Commissioner Bosfinrick feit those proposed hours were fair and indicated he has utilized the Body Center in Fullerton and Orange. He felt they run a good operation. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked Ms. Schlue to verify whether she operated the facility in the City of Orange and now this operation in Anaheim. Paula Schlue verified that was correct. Commissioner Arnold was concerned about Condition No. 29 referring to signage. He asked what is happening to the non-conforming freestanding sign and whether it is being addressed here. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if the sign is already up. Paula Schlue responded that there are finro signs, and marquee sign in the front on Lakeview and her sign on the building. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if it is on the marquee and Ms. Schlue responded it was and that the text said "Body Center". Greg McCafferty advised the existing sign on Lakeview has a permit and is a"grandfathered" sign. Therefore, it would not have to come down. On Condition No. 31 he suggested replacing Western Avenue and Lincoln Avenue with Lakeview Avenue and McKinnon Drive. • • ~ •- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None '. ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 32, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04242 for one year (to expire August 14, 2001) with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Modified Conditions Nos. 2 and 31 to read as follows: 2. That, as stipulated to by the petitioner, the hours of operation shall be limited to Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 9 p.m., and Saturday and Sunday from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. 31. That if required by the Urban Forestry Division of the Community Services Department, street trees shall be installed, by the property owner, within the public rights-of-way adjacent to Lakeview Avenue and Mc Kinnon Drive. The size, type and number of trees shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Urban Forestry Division of the Community Services Department. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Boydstun and Bristol absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (2:14-2:24) ~, 08-14-00 Page 18 AUGUST 14, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ', 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIO 6b. VARIANCE NO. 2000-04403 Granted OWNER: NMC Anaheim, LLC, Attn: Ken Self, 18801 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300, Tarzana, CA 91356 LOCATION: 2180 East Lincoln Avenue. Property is 27.8 acres located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and State College Boulevard (Anaheim Town Square). Waiver of (a) maximum area of signs, (b) minimum distance between signs, (c) maximum height of freestanding signs, (d) maximum sign width, and (e) minimum sight distance, to construct a 16-foot high corner monument sign within an existing commercial center. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-95 SR1157JD.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request to construct a 16-foot high monument sign with waivers located at 2180 East Lincoln Avenue (Anaheim Town Square). Staff is recommending approval of the proposed monument sign. ApplicanYs Statement: Ken Self, Vice President of Operations for NewMark Merrill Companies, the owner of the project, 18801 '~ Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300, Tarzana, CA, stated that they are in concurrence with the recommendations and conditions of approval. The sign is part of a much larger scheme. They were before Commission in the past regarding the elevations for the remodel of the project and are in the process of adding the sign as well as taking down signs and replacing them. He submitted information regarding the overa{{ signage plans to Commission which he then discussed in detail. The first page is a breakdown of where they are currently on signage and where the signage will be after the entire program. They are proposing to reduce the signage from approximately 1,920 square feet to 1,047 square feet of signage. The second page is a large site plan with the location of existing signage with exception of the sign that is out on the corner that is part of this variance package. Those are all existing locations of signs that are being rep{aced with smaller signs than what is currently there. The third page is a digital picture of the corner as it currently exists where the proposed sign will be placed. The intersection is being widened. There is currently a process going on with Public Works Department to widen the intersection. Most of the buildings there will be disappearing. There is also a rendering of that corner in the future. One of the variances with the sign is that this is a three-sided blade sign and they thought they would have a public area, a plaza in befinreen the two buildings on the corner, which creates identification for the signage but also adds an architectural element in front of the plaza to protect that from the street. There are also a series of pictures of the existing signs. Behind that is the signage that they are proposing to replace those signs. Another page shows a black and white silhouette of the current signage and a silhouette of the proposed signage. There are two locations where they plan to put a 25-foot monument sign and replacing 38-foot signs. There are 6 locations where they plan on taking a variety of different shaped signs ranging from 25 ', feet up to 30 feet with 16-foot signs. 08-14-00 Page 19 AUGUST 14, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Their overall sign plan is to basically come up with a uniform look along State Coliege and Lincoln and the ', corner sign becomes a part of that entire program. There was a shark fin sign up on top of the Fallas Paredes building. They have torn down the sign as part of the remodeling. There is a building out in the corner that they actuafly tore down, the old Capri Coffee Shop, which has an existing pylon sign currently existing but will be torn down, as part of this program. The architectural condition of adding some element to the 2-sided panels of the sign to make them not quite as flat is fine with them. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos asked whether there would be a conditional use permit in the future coming forward on this property. Ken Self responded no and explained that there is an existing conditional use permit. They went through and actually revised the elevations of that conditional use permit through a Reports and Recommendations. Once the corner gets redeveloped it would need to come before Commission as a revision to the conditional use permit. The corner has approximately 2,000 square feet and after the dedication and taking from Public Works Department they will probably have approximately 12,000 square feet of buitdable area; they are completely tearing down the buildings that are currently there and building two new buildings about 6,000 square feet each. Commissioner Koos asked if that is going to require entitlement. Ken Self explained they would have entitlement to build so many square feet as part of the taking, but the design setbacks and all those issues would have to return to Commission for approval. They cannot grandfather the use since they are not going to build the bui{dings right on the street as they currently are. '~ Commissioner Koos wondered why Commission does not see it all together. Ken Self explained the sign went before the process because they have to take down signs that have been a"grandfathered" use. Secondly, it is a requirement of K-Mart that they have approval rights on the remodel of the project. Also, currently they do not control all of the parcels on the corner, so they cannot put forth plans on a building that they have no control of. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if the sign will be erected before the other buildings are removed. Ken Self responded no. Currently the sign is in the middle of those buildings. They cannot build a sign until they bui{d the two buildings and they cannot build the replacement building until after the taking, which is probably 9 to 12 months off. For them to go forward with the remodel, they have to have the capability to sign the corner with K-Mart. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if there would be a time when K-Mart did not have a sign. Ken Self stated they have to have the entitlement, so when that taking occurs and the buildings come down, K-Mart knows they have the right to make sure the signage goes out on the corner. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated it seems the sign does not provide any type of direction. There appears to be much larger signs that appear to be much closer to actual access points or driveways on Lincoln and State College. Since the sign is going to be facing northwest, it wi!! only be visible to traffic traveling south on State College or west on Lincoln. Even then, because of the bend that occurs before that intersection, they will only see it when they are committed to one lane at the stoplight. He suggested that it might be more of a reinforcement of advertising than it would be for identity of the site. 1, Ken Self explained that they have gone through a lot of work to brand the identity of the center and give it a logo so that people know where Anaheim Town Square is. He would be fearful of any sign that is a 08-14-00 Page 20 AUGUST 14, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES directional sign by an entrance. From that standpoint, all signs are a reminder of who is there and to be '~ an architectural element that is blended in with the courtyard and everything that is there. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if the sign were just the Anaheim Center, but K-Mart is requiring their sign on that corner is keeping their hands tied. Ken Self stated it is a major intersection and will be the gateway to the center and that is where the statement of the center needs to be. Chairperson Koos stated it is such a large site, then there is this new corner that is oriented towards the intersection and it is a pedestrian friendly atmosphere on the corner, yet all the signage has nothing to do with the uses that will be on the corner, rather they will be the same old stuff that is spread out through the site. He is getting at the purpose of the sign to begin with. Ken Self explained the purpose of sign is to identify the center itself and create a statement of the center and to identify tenants that you would not be able to see that are back in the center. Chairperson Koos stated there will be 5 signs on Lincoln and 3 more on State College that list all of the major tenants on each sign according to the illustrations. Ken Self indicated those are not the tenants that are on every single sign. There are different tenants on each sign. Commissioner Arnold commented that he thought it was a vast improvement to the area and senses that the signage program is creating a sense of place and has features that can tie it all together. Commissioner Vanderbilt thanked the applicant for proposing the plaza idea. He has paid attention to " others, but the importance of it being seen encourages the pedestrian walkway. The fact that the sign is located where it is, is an obstruction and furthermore it does more than just bring identity. He stated that he appreciates the effort to identify the center and they are succeeding in trying to bring about unification to the whole project, but feels strongly about the sign issue and, therefore, will be voting no on it. Chairperson Koos felt it is a good idea to create a public space in the project and concurred with Commissioner Vanderbilt that the plan should be oriented to the intersection where one can see the fountain and see people going and out. But a 16-foot sign would be detrimental to the creation of a pedestrian environment. Ken Self stated with the openness of the plaza, the sign itself is small enough in size to see the actual visual intent going into the plaza from any direction except when making a left hand turn onto Lincoln from State College. Explained that visual concept is open because the plaza does not sit in front. In developing many centers, most people sit closer to the building rather than closer to the corner because of the noise. Commissioner Arnold thought that the nature of pedestrian traffic at that intersection is such that there will not be a great visual barrier there. The way that it flows and the extent to which people are going to that center for a variety of reasons, they are going to easily find their way into the more aesthetically pleasing, more pedestrian and consumer friendly aspects of the center and does not think it will hide it. Chairperson Koos wondered if there was justification for making the findings for the variance. The staff report mentions 5 street signs in effect, and they are really talking about 2, Lincoln and State College. Commissioner Arnold does not have difficulty making the waiver on the basis of the hardship. They have also noted in the past where the granting of the ordinance actually resulted in substantial improvements ~ to the property, that impact on the local community and land use was something that Commission took , into account. 08-14-00 Page 21 AUGUST 14, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Vanderbilt stated they are still not certain about the actual plaza, it is proposed but it is not " something that is being voted on. There are no guarantees that they will end up with that plaza there. Another concern about this particular sign is the nature of it being fanned out into three panels. Though this particular motion is before Commission, he would be supportive of it being just one panel with K-Mart and name of the center as well as the large A at the top. He would be more comfortable supporting one panel, and thought that the three are excessive. Ken Self stated they went through about 8 variations with the Planning staff and this is the plan that was worked into. Greg McCafferty advised staff felt that the plaza and water feature was important enough that they actually labeled it as an exhibit. By approving this variance, the applicant is committing to some form of plaza that will come in the future, after the sign is constructed. Chairperson Koos stated they have no problem with that. Commissioner Arnold stated he is concerned that there will be no plaza if they do not approve the signage program. Chairperson Koos reiterated his earlier comment that it is better to see this as a package. Ken Self agrees, because from his aspect they know what they are doing, from Commission's aspect they are trying to put a few pieces together. The inability of Public Work and Transportation to come to a determination on the dedication is affecting their progress to go fonNard at this corner because that level of taking has been changing because of the requirements of the intersection. Layout of sign is based on the most ultimate taking that would happen. " Chairperson Koos was able to support the project only after Mr. McCafferty suggested that the plaza could be conditioned with a sign. Greg McCafferty explained that in the rendering of the sign at that location, they are also showing the plaza and that is why they made a note in the staff report that the recommendation is comprehensive and should include the plaza in substantial conformance with the exhibit. Chairperson Koos asked if it would be a phased development so that the sign goes in with the plaza. Ken Self responded they can stipulate that the sign not be built until they build the plaza. The sign means nothing without the buildings behind it. Chairperson Koos indicated it satisfied his concern. Greg Hastings noted that current buildings have to be torn down before the sign can go. Chairperson Koos indicated he has a problem with the height, but height is not before Commission. Greg McCafferty stated the only waiver that is remaining is the distance between signs and length of sign. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. ', Granted Variance No. 2000-04403 subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report. 08-14-00 Page 22 AUGUST 14, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '~ VOTE: 4-1 (Commissioner Vanderbilt voted no and Commissioners Boydstun and Bristol were absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 33 minutes (2:25-2:58) 'r '~ 08-14-00 Page 23 AUGUST 14, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ', ~~ ~. ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARING: Commissioner Koos asked whether Commission had ever formally asked for a housing element-type workshop. He then requested that an affordable housing workshop be scheduled during a morning session, perhaps for %2 hour to 1 hour, from the Community Development staff on the City's efforts to comply with the State requirements and status of the regional housing needs assessment numbers and all those issues regarding housing. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, thought that request was made of the Housing stafF but would check into that. Commissioner Arnold asked whether they could also look at issues such as population growth, density, and smart growth. He thought they are all linked together in different ways. Greg Hastings acknowledged that staff could certainly look at that. It may end up being two separate workshops since there is a lot of information to cover. Chairperson Koos also asked to include some guidance as to what role specifically the Planning Commission has in assisting the City Council in developing inclusionary zoning requirements and housing with respect to affordable housing, etc. He felt this issue is too important for the City to be "meandering along" given pressing issues such as the motel issue, etc. They need to take a more informed and proactive position on afl these issues. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:45 P.M. TO MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2000 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. 08-14-00 Page 24 AUGUST 14, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ', Respectfully submitted: ~ ~~ Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary ~vrna-~c~rc~'~ ~"Ct~'c~c~ Simonne Fannin Senior Office Specialist Received and approved by the Planning Commission on S- ~~"'0~ ~, ', 08-14-00 Page 25