Loading...
Minutes-PC 2001/03/12~ CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, MARCH 12, 2001 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California • C~ COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: P, COMMISSIONERS ABSENT"~-~1`~?~Y~qRI~IC .. 6 ~~.K''. STAFF PRESENT: ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~'~ ~ ~ Selma Mann, Assistant ~r~y A" ~r~n~y~" ~~ Greg Hastings, Zoning Ui~iisio~,~il~n~c,~e~6 Greg McCafferty, Sern~~Planr~~~ ~¢r~_~ Sgt. Randy West, Pol~e~~~ep~~~~rient~~ice Detail David Gottlieb, Comr~~ ~ty Q~~elQprnettt ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~waa~ AGENDA POSTING~ ~~~m~let~+~ ~o~y~f ft~e ~1~ Thursday, March 8, ~(~Q~~~n~[de`~the d~~lay~as~ the outside display k~sk'~ E ~ E~ E~s~ PUBUSHED: Anah~iv'm B~ul CALL TO ORDER `~~~`°~E '' ~~ , ~ ~;,~ ~ ~ ~~ PLANN1NGf~~~1~Vll~a t~1~~MOF~ • PRESENTA ~ON ~.~C~7M~UIE;l~ REGARDING T"H~ ~T~S Q~ • STAFF UPDATE T~)=~O.MMiS: ISSUES (AS REQUEST~D~BY;, PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW TUN, ~I,~ES. JAMES VANDERBILT 3:00 P.M. on ers, and also in ~ r:~ ~ ~, ~~. ,-.. , ~ ~. ~~t~~1~01 CUf~~lT D~PAf~~MENT STAFF 3T AIVi4HEEM R~VJTALIZATION EFFORTS , ... C,?F ~~RIOl1~5rCI°TYYDEVELOPMENTS AND ~;..>.. RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please comp/efe a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Napoles PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT I ~ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- g---------------a~--------------------- I~ H:~DOCS\CLERICAUMINUTES~AC031201.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net 3-12-01 Page 1 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES C ~ RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. CONSENT CALENDAR: Items 1-A through 1-G on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Napoles offered a motion for approval of consent calendar Items 1-A, 1-E, 1-F along with continuance of 1-G (minutes for February 12, and February 26, 2001), seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt, vote taken and motion carried. Items 1-B, 1-C, and 1-D were removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. • • 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1-A CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREViOUSLY-APPROVED) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4181 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001- Approved Approved retroactive 04337) - REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME: extension of time (to Pacific National Development, Attn: Albert J. Marshall, 930 West 16`h expire on February 28, Street, Suite E-2, Costa Mesa, CA 92627, requests a retroactive 2002) extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for a previously approved three-story, 132-unit "affordable" senior citizens apartment (Vote: 6-0, complex. Property is located at 3335 - 3351 West Lincoln Avenue. Commissioner Arnold absent) ACTION: Commissioner Napoles offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously- approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Napoles offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approved the request for a one (1) year retroactive extension of time to expire on February 28, 2002 based on the following: (i) That the proposed use remains in conformance with the current zoning code and General Plan land use designation, and that there have been no code amendments that would cause the original approval to be inconsistent with the zoning code. 3-12-01 Page 2 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • (ii) That since the original approval in February of 2000, the petitioner has been working closely with various public agencies, including the Anaheim Community Development Department and the State of California, to pursue public financing opportunities which has resulted in project delays. (iii) That this is the first request for an extension of time for this permit, and the extension does not exceed the two permitted extensions of time permitted by SR2062DS.DOC Code Section 18.03.090.0301. • • 3-12-01 Page 3 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • r~ L J 1-B CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061 (b)(3) REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00387 AND SPECIFIC PLAN NO. Concurred with staff. Initiated General Plan Amendment No. 2001- 2001-00005 AND OTHER: City-initiated (Community Development 00387 and Specific Department), Attn: Lisa Stipkovich, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, 10th Plan No. 2001-00005. Floor, Anaheim, CA 92805, request to consider initiation of (a) a General Plan Amendment to redesignate these properties from the Medium Density Residential land use designation to the General Commercial This item was land use designation and; (b) the application for West Gate Specific Plan removed from the No. 2001-00005. Property is located at 2951-2961 West Lincoln Consent Calendar for Avenue. separate action ACTION: Commissioner Koos o~Fered a motion, seconded Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of a CEQA Exemption Section 15061(b)(3), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation. Initiated General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00387 to redesignate these properties from the Medium Density Residential land use designation to the General Commercial land use designation as shown on the Land Use Element Map of the Anaheim General Plan. Initiated the preparation of Specific Plan No. 2001-00005 or other appropriate zoning action, including a Reclassification and related Conditional Use Permit, to allow for a future comprehensive commercial retail land use, with an accessory open space component, on these properties. If a specific plan is pursued, the project area should be expanded to incorporate the entire intersection of Beach Boulevard and Lincoln SF2049DS.DOC Avenue. Introduction by Staff: Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 1 B, by stating this is a City-initiated request from Community Development to initiate General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment proceedings for property at 2951-2961 West Lincoln Avenue. Commissioner Bostwick stated that the staff report indicated that this was vacant, but it takes in currently developed properties, he wondered if this should wait until they do the General Plan Amendment. i David Gottlieb, Manager of Redevelopment, from Community Development stated that they have gone over the scheduling of the General Plan Amendment with the Planning Department staff and they need to move more quickly on the Lincoln landfill site. Due to the nature of the pending development applications and strong interest in this site, they did not want to wait until the General Plan Amendment process had reached a point where they would be able to identify a prospective zoning classification site that would be appropriate. It is felt that the initiation of the Specific Plan on this site now would work well by addressing the immediate needs that they have in order to form some type of framework for development of this site 3-12-01 Page 4 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • and it would also be able to be flanged in with the General Plan Amendment program as it comes to conclusion. Chairperson Koos asked if Community Development would be opposed to looking at the entire intersection; expanding the project area boundaries. David Gottlieb advised they would not be adverse to looking at the other three corners. They want to start now because the Lincoln landfill portion has the environmental assessment done, prefile application has been submitted, and continued strong developer interest. They want to move forward to get it underway and they can meet with Planning Department staff to include the other three corners too, as long as it does not delay them. The West Anaheim Visioning meetings view that entire corner as the Westgate hub and it is important to the entire West Anaheim neighborhoods. It could be a phased approach, their main concern is not to diminish the work of the visioning process or the entire Westgate hub concept, it is to get this moving. They have a multitude of different types of zoning classifications of the General Plan classi~cations on this site and it needed to be cleared up. • • 3-12-01 Page 5 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES , 1-C ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 323 ( PREV. CERTIFIED) ~ Approved CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4171 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001- Approved final 04343 - REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE PLANS: Pacific Theatres, Attn: landscape plans John Manavian, 120 North Robertson Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048, request for review of phase one landscape plans. Property is (Vote: 6-0, located at 1500 North Lemon Street-Anaheim Gateway. Commissioner Arnold absent) ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold This item was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby removed from the determine that the previously-certified EIR No. 323 is adequate to serve Consent Calendar for as the required environmental documentation for subject request. separate action Approved the phase one landscape plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 4171 (CUP Tracking No. 2001-04343) based on Commission's concurrence with staff that the landscape plans are substantially in compliance with the corresponding conditions of approval nos. 3, 6, 12, 15 and 16 of Resolution No. 2000R-166 to allow for the first phase of constructing the Lowe's home improvement pad only, in conjunction with this permit based on the following: (i) That Phase Two (final) landscape plans indicating the provision for fully- improved permanent planting on the CalTrans parcel at the southwest corner of the property, around the building pad and parking lot south of the Lowe's building, on the restaurant pads adjacent to Lemon Street, and on the pad at the southeast corner of Durst Street and Lemon Street, shall be submitted to • the Zoning Division for Planning Commission review and approval as a "Reports and Recommendations" item. (ii) The petitioner also stipulated to the following: That trees planted along Durst Street shall be 24-inch box Brisbane Box trees. That an all-whether access road shall be provided on the south side of the Lowes building to connect to the permanent parking area for access out to Lemon Street. SR2063DS.DOC Introduction by Staff: Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced Item 1-C stating this is a request for review and approval of Phase 1 landscape plans for the Anaheim Gateway project located at 91 freeway and Lemon Street. They received correspondence from Bryan Industrial Properties and submitted to Commission. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. ApplicanYs statement: John Manavian, Director of Real Estate Development for Pacific Theaters Realty Corporation stated they would like to receive approval on their request. • 3-12-01 Page 6 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Public Testimony: John Maresca, who represents Mr. Hoyt and Bryan Industrial Properties, 146 East Orangethorpe Avenue stated that they are suggesting alternatives to the Eucalyptus trees along Durst Street such as Holly Oak Evergreen or Brisbane box evergreen because they are low maintenance and easy care. Either one would provide for more pleasing tree presentation, fewer trees would be needed and smaller than 24-inch box could be used for additional cost savings. They are also concerned with traffic circulation within the Anaheim Gateway project. The current landscape pian makes reference to an undeveloped portion to the south of Lowe's building. It is not clear if the undeveloped portion also includes the drive access ways along with the building pad area. If the drive access ways are not completed at this time, truck traffic would not be able to circulate around the building and exit from project site as intended. All truck traffic would have to double back and exit on Durst. Even though it would be temporary, it would increase the wear and tear on the existing Durst Street. The unexpanded portion of Durst Street is below current City construction standards, and the increase trafFic and tikely deterioration of the street is not what the Planning Commission originally called for. They hope Commission will maintain circular traffic on the site to prevent deterioration of Durst Street. Applicant's Rebuttal: Mr. Manavian stated that the eucalyptus trees were preserved as part of the conditions that came from the Planning Commission. They would be happy to replace them with the Brisbane box tree. There is still confusion on the second point of the traffic. He does not think there was any discussion of truck traffic being restricted on Durst Street. That was the reason they gave 19 more feet and would improve centerline by 32 feet. In talking with traffic engineers, this area would be striped with no on-street parking • which could be 5- 20 years to allow for adequate room for two-way traffic, they do not need on-street parking on Durst Street. They are undergrounding and relocating power poles, moving the curb line and giving up right-of-way to accommodate the street as a true industrial collector street. The issue of the south po~tion is one of trying to move forward so they can open Lowe's this year. John Maresca stated during original discussion on this project traffic was supposed to come in off of Durst, but it was supposed to exit at Lemon Street and it was specific that they cannot turn left at Durst, they have to come out on Lemon. Plans show that they are not going to complete the driveway around that property so there is no way they can get out at Lemon Street unless they go back out on Durst then back in and through the parking lot. Asked if they could finish traffic around the dirt area that is going to be left. Mr. Manavian stated they could put in an all-weather road so that it is a temporary interim roadway. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Greg McCafferty indicated that staff does not have a problem with them replacing the trees on Durst Street with Brisbane box. There is no condition of approval that requires them to maintain the existing trees on Durst Street, that requirement was for trees on Lemon Street. Mr. Manavian stated that CalTrans has installed trees on Lemon. They are in agreement with installing Brisbane box trees. • 3-12-01 Page 7 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Following the Action: Commissioner Vanderbilt wanted to clarify the number of trees now that the variety is different. Greg McCafferty indicated they have to comply with the exhibits that Commission approved, they have to keep the same amount of trees but change the kind of trees. • \ J 3-12-01 Page 8 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • 1-D ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 321 (PREV. CERTIFIED FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2001-00025: P. D. Arena L. P., A Washington Limited Partnership, 200 East Baker Street, Suite 100, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, request review of final site plans to construct three (3) two-story office buildings in the SE Overlay Zone. Property is located at 9460 South Douglass Road. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MO710N CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified EIR No. 321 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approved Final Site Plan Review No. 2000- 00025 for the proposed three building, two-story office complex as indicated in Exhibit Nos. 1 through 8 of Final Plans and subject to the further limitation (to be placed on plans submitted for plan check) that "eyebrow" signs shall be limited to two (2) per building and shall not be located on any elevation visible to the Arrowhead Pond or on any elevation with a 180 s.f, wall sign; that the 180 s.f. wall signs shall be limited to one (1) tenant and that vines shall be planted on the perimeter wall along the east property line to discourage graffiti. The recommendation for approval is based on the submitted site, elevation, landscaping and sign plans being consistent with the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan and the Sports Entertainment Overlay Zone, as well as the design guidelines for that Zone. Introduction by Staff: Approved Approved Final Site Plans (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Arnold absent) This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. SR1093TW.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced Item 1-D stating this is a request for review and approval of final plans to construct three, two-story office buildings with the SC Overlay Zone located at 1460 South Douglass Road, Arena Corporate Center project. Chairperson Koos asked about central plaza and how it will lay out. He is concerned with the functionality of it and is disappointed with the reduction and size of the project. Asked if they explored a fountain element because he does not feel people will use a courtyard. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Statement: John Harty with Tramwell Crow Company stated the central courtyard is an aesthetic and meeting place amenity to the project. They feel water elements are not environmentally friendly, they are big energy users, costly to maintain and deteriorate over time. They would rather have the living element of palm trees and a softer more people-friendly environment. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. C ~ 3-12-01 Page 9 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Koos does not concur with Mr. Harty regarding the water element. It has high visibility from the freeway and they need to have higher planning standards for that area. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated he used to work where there was a courtyard and felt it was beneficial to have a transition from the office environment. He agrees with applicant in terms of its importance. John Harty stated that with the distance from the freeway, the view corridor and the speed traveled on the freeway, the more green and landscape you have will have a bigger impact to the overall beauty of the site. Commissioner Bostwick asked what landscape plan is on the back of the property where it abuts the Pond parking. It is a"taggers dream" back there and needs vines. Hector Biaz, landscape architect, stated that the edge has a 2 to 1 slope that will be coming down towards the property so the adjoining property will be higher. They are proposing plant material that will give height with shrubs and trees, hydroseed, groundcover and all walls will have vines. Commissioner Bostwick wants to have the applicant stipulate that they will plant some kind of vine on that wall to alleviate "taggers". John Harty stated that slope and wall is owned by the City. They are also proposing to lower that wall and putting wrought iron elements on it. Commissioner Bostwick asked staff if there was traffic control on north of the property along railroad right- of-way where it comes into Cerritos/Douglass Road and does this need some type of control. ~ Greg McCafferty indicated that as part of the mitigation monitoring plan for this project, they will be required to financially participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network and Traffic Management Coordination Efforts near the Pond and tf~at access is closed off or controlled by police officers during an event. Following the Action: Greg McCafferty asked Commissioner Bostwick whether the motion was to approve final site plan included the recommendations in paragraph 24 and stipulation with vines on the wall. Commissioner Bostwick replied yes. • 3-12-01 Page 10 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1-E ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 313 (PREV. CERTIFIED) FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2000-00016: Union Investments, c/o Stephen C. Hsu, 515 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802, requests review and approval of a Finaf Site Plan to construct a new six-story, 135- room hotel complex with integrated accessory uses consisting of two full- service restaurants, retail shops and banquet facilities and a 6%2-level parking structure. Property is located at 1750 South Harbor Boulevard- Holiday Inn Select (vacant land) ACTION: Commissioner Napoles offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified EIR No. 313 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. • • Commissioner Napoles offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Site Plan (identified as Exhibit Nos. 1 through 15 on file in the Planning Department) based upon a finding that the Final Site Plan is in conformance with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Approved Approved Final Site Plan (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Arnold absent) SR7933KD.DOC 3-12-01 Page 11 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r~ ~_J 1-F ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 320 (PREV. CERTIFIED) AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 120 (ADP TRACKING NO. MIS2001- 00010 : CM&D Construction Management & Development, Inc., Attn: Daniel Bray, 8929 South Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 306, Los Angeles, CA 90045, Summit Commercial Properties, Inc., Attn: Chris Black, 1970 East Grand Avenue, Suite 300, EI Segundo, CA 90248, requests review and approval of Final Landscaping and Final Sign Plans for an office building currently under construction. Property is located at 1900 South State College Boulevard (Stadium Gateway). ACTION: Commissioner Napoles offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified EIR No. 320 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. r~ ~_J • Commissioner Napoles offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and file the Final Site Plans (identified as Final Landscaping Plans, Exhibit Nos. 1 to 6, and Final Sign Plans, Exhibit No. 1) as submitted and described in the revised staff report dated March 12, 2001, as recommended by staff. Approved Approved (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Arnold absent) SR7936AS.DOC 3-12-01 Page 12 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • i 1-G Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of February 12, 2001. (Motion) (Continued from February 26, 2001) With correction to page 19, second to the last paragraph, Item No. 7, and page 29, Condition No. 21, hours of operations. Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of February 26, 2001. (Motion) Continued to March 26, 2001. Continued to March 26, 2001. 3-12-01 Page 13 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) Approved 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2090 Approved reinstatement (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001-04326) for 6 months (to expire on August 2, 2001) OWNER: Harvey S. Owen, P. O. Box 308, Buena Park, CA 90621 LOCATION: 1160 North Kraemer Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.9 acre located on the east side of Kraemer Boulevard, 242 feet south of the centerline of Coronado Street (The Shack). Requests reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (approved on January 31, 2000, to expire on February 2, 2001) and an amendment to a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain an existing public dance hall and sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption and live entertainment in conjunction with a restaurant. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-30 SR7926KB.DOC • Introduction by Staff: Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 2 by stating this is a request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2090 for property at 1160 N. Kraemer Blvd. To reinstate a permit which currently contains a time limitation to retain a public dance hall and sales of alcoholic beverages and live entertainment in conjunction with the restaurant. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Statement: Sue Ibraham from Law Offices of Briggs and Alexander is requesting reinstatement of conditional use permit that has been in place for close to 30 years. They are asking for a three-year extension and modification of time limitation to request reinstatement of the conditional use permit. Public Testimony: Irv Pickler stated Kline Industrial Properties are in concurrence with staff recommendations. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Sue Ibraham is not clear on the staff report's reference that the Conditional Use Permit expires on August 2, 2001 and can they apply for a reinstatement at that time. Greg McCafferty stated that the Municipal Code allows applicants to request reinstatement of permits so • long as they comply with findings that are in Chapter 18.03 of the Code. 3-12-01 Page 14 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bostwick stated that Condition No. 2 states that dance hall will no longer be permitted because it is in Development Area 3 of the La Palma Corridor Specific Plan No. 94-1 which prohibits that kind of permit, so how can they apply for a permit. Greg McCafferty stated that since the last reinstatement they have learned that there is a provision within that development area to allow public entertainment and that is why they described it in the discussion section of the staff report. As long as they maintain it as a bonafide restaurant, they can have the public entertainment. Commissioner Bristol asked if staff had statistics on the gross sale receipts of alcohol versus food. Greg McCafferty said they did not have statistics. Sue Ibraham stated it has always been a restaurant/dance hall. Commissioner Bristol feels the applicant is getting a break because there is a crime rate of 119% and he is not aware of anyone who goes there to eat. It is probably not really a restaurant. The staff report says it should not maintain a bar and it does. Staff is recommending to continue it for six months to be able to make it what it should have been for the last year. Chairperson Koos indicated that this is the third time they have been before Commission in the last three years and since the first time he was concerned about a bonafide kitchen area and at that time they convinced Commission that they fixed it. Sue Ibraham stated they operate as a restaurant and serve food until 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Bristol stated if they press this issue, they would be hard pressed to find that food had • more gross receipts, even 50/50, than alcohol. There is typically no stabbings inside of a restaurant. Sue Ibraham stated the stabbing occurred outside, almost across the street. Bob Gibson one of the owners of the Shack spoke and stated that they are a restaurant/nightclub. They open at 11:00 a.m. and serve a large lunch crowd then at night they have entertainment and dancing and still serve food. They have not had any problems in the last finro years. He elaborated on the stabbing incident and how they do not encourage negative behavior and take precautions to eliminate it. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Gibson if he had a bar and a license to have a bar. Mr. Gibson stated they have a bar, lounge, dining area and they have a City license, entertainment and dance hall permit, ABC (Alcoholic Beverage Control Department) license for full liquor and game license. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Koos asked Sgt. Randy West to elaborate from Police DepartmenYs perspective. Sgt. Randy West, Anaheim Police Department, stated crime rate is quite high for that reporting district. There were two incidences, one the stabbing and in December the location went down for 30 days based on an ABC violation that occurred in 1999. ABC office in Santa Ana monitors the activities there. Chairperson Koos stated that the request is to retain a public dance hall and sales of alcoholic beverages. Commissioner Bostwick indicated that in paragraph 9 on page 2, the dance hall permit will expire, but they can still have public entertainment with a bonafide restaurant so they can operate as they are doing now. • 3-12-01 Page 15 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Greg McCafferty stated that Mr. Gibson indicated bar/nightclub and both of those uses are not permitted in this zone, it is supposed to be a restaurant, first and foremost and as an accessory to that restaurant. They can have public entertainment, which they have in the evening, but at afl times it is supposed to be a restaurant. Commissioner Bosfinrick stated they must have records of food and alcohol consumption to know this is actually a restaurant. Chairperson Koos asked if food was senred at all hours. Sue Ibraham stated they do serve food and according to the conditions, they are supposed to serve up until 10:00 p.m. or closing, whichever occurs first. Commissioner Vanderbilt does not understand why the recommendation is to limit food service if they are all saying that food service is a measurement of whether or not it is a restaurant. Condition No. 17 states that, so why prohibit or limit food service. Greg McCafferty stated that they are not prohibiting it, they are recommending it as a minimum, so if the applicant wants to serve food beyond 10:00 p.m. then staff is in agreement. Commissioner Bristol stated that the restaurant probably will not be serving meals after 10:00 p.m. Chairperson Koos thought Commission should simply require that they must serve food while they are open. Commissioner Bristol stated the alcohol is supposed to be accessory. This is not supposed to be a bar, it • is supposed to be a restaurant, food should have more gross receipts than the alcohol and that cannot be said in this case, all he is saying is that there be food available. Sue Ibraham stated that they have adhered to the conditions in the letter and serve food when they are open. They have always been a restaurant/public dance hall that serves food until 10:00 p.m., according to the conditions, and has dancing and live entertainment and serves alcoholic beverages. Now, because the applicant did not apply in time to get reinstatement, the time has expired and staff is suggesting to take out the conditional use permit and not allow him to have a dance hall that he has had for the last 30 years. Commissioner Bristol indicated that Condition No. 19 of the Conditional Use Permit requires 60/40 percent. Sue Ibraham stated it is 60/40 percent and because this is an industrial area they need the nighttime entertainment to keep their business going. They would have to have 60/40 if they are serving food until 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated just because food is being served, it does not necessarily mean the volume of food is there. Sue Ibraham stated that the applicant can comment on the percentages of food better than she can. Mr. Gibson stated he couid not give an exact number of percentages but that they do run until 10:00 p.m. as a restaurant. Chairperson Koos commented that this is a good establishment for a certain segment of the City • population, it just needs to be a safe environment to do so. It seems that based upon the police report, which the applicant disputes, because iYs not entirely to his comfort level that it is a safe place. That is 3-12-01 Page 16 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSfON MiNUTES • why he had asked Sgt. West to comment on the nature of this operation, whatever category it is put into. How does it stack up against other places that have live music in terms of safety standpoint, public nuisance, etc. Sgt. West agrees with Mr. Gibson that during the week they do have a crowd in there for lunch. In the evenings it is a night club, that has been the observation over the years. This location has changed hands over the years to different managers and different styles of music etc., comparatively speaking. There are other clubs that are similar in nature, which again are supposed to be licensed as a restaurant and they operate as a night club in the evening only to bring in the patrons in order to survive. Mr. Gibson said in order to bring people in they have to have these promoters come in and offer music, etc. It has been the Anaheim Police Department's experience that this is when the problems occur, when you allow these promoters to bring in ditferent styles of music that may inherently cause violence or have violent in the nature of the music. As recently as February 17, 2001, their community policing officers observed violations there, patrons drinking on the patio, etc. Things that they know they are not supposed to allow, and that tells him that they do not have adequate security to deal with the minor probfems. The larger problems such as the mosh pits, fights, or stabbings, is that it is documented that it occurred on the property or was related to the property. They see problems when you have a restaurant that is licensed by ABC as a restaurant and has a permit as a restaurant, when they go outside the parameters of a restaurant by bringing in entertainment, promoted entertainment. Crime goes up and that affects the area. The unique situation is that they are quite isolated in a commercial area where there is not a lot of people around at night. That is not to negate the fact that the crime statistics are up, there are numerous incidents over the last year of problems at the tocation, documented, and either he is going to adhere to the conditions and follow the rules and operate as a restaurant or he is going to operate as a night club. • Sue Ibraham then addressed a couple of points. The crime rate again is for the area, not for the Shack specifically. Many of the police calls are for insignificant matters such as towing away a vehicle six times; this was counted as part of the 30 calls. Routine stops or suspicious person in vehicle, and it makes it look a lot worse than what it really is. The only significant incident that happened was the stabbing that happened outside the premises and Mr. Gibson was concerned and brought him inside and called the authorities. Secondly, they need to look at the good of the Shack, everyone sees the bad side of it, they play rock music, the kids' come they drink and asked is that bad about that. Not necessarily, if 26,000 people come every year, that is 26,000 kids that are off the streets that are congregating in a place that is relatively a safe environment, where there are security guards and they are having a good time. If they look at the positive aspects they far outweigh any of the insignificant things going on. Realistically, there is no way you will have a restaurant/dance hall and not have a couple of incidents once in a while by mere virtue of the amount of people there every night. She requested that the Conditional Use Permit be reinstated for a period of one year, which it has been several times before. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated the Chain Reaction, for instance, come before Commission and received a one-year permit, there is no alcohol there, it attracts young people and it is a large, music place. They were able to approve it for an extension because of the fact that there was very low police involvement. It seems that businesses like that can operate when they do have enough security and there is not a need to bring in law enforcement for whether they are incidental or major issues. He added that he can respect the applicant's need to survive yet there are other restaurants in the area that are only open during the day, and do serve the commercial industrial patrons during the day and close down for the evening, and they are able to operate. ~ 3-12-01 Page 17 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bristoi stated he agreed with Sgt. West, and he was unaware that they do have a heavy lunch volume. The applicant's attorney brought up a good point regarding the 119% not all being caused by the Shack. He is willing to do the same thing he has done two or three times for this place, to give it another six months and see what happens with the restaurant. He hopes the applicant is aware that the food versus the alcohol will be watched carefully. During the Action: Greg McCafferty stated that is to retain not a public dance hall but public entertainment in conjunction with an existing restaurant with sales of alcoholic beverages while on premises. Commissioner Bristol replied yes, that as long as it is a restaurant in six months. OPPOSITION: 1 person with concerns. ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2090 (CUP Tracking No. 2001-04326) and to amend Condition No. 1 of Resolution No. PC2000-12 to retain public entertainment in conjunction with an existing restaurant with sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption. Amended Resolution Nos. PC2000-12, PC99-141, PC98-118, PC96-101, PC95-87, • PC91-134 and PC80-92 in their entirety to be replaced by a new resolution with the following conditions of approval: 1. That the public dance hall use shall expire on August 2, 2001. 2. That if the public dance hall use expires, the public dance ha{I wi{I no longer be permitted because said use is not permitted in Development Area 3"La Palma Core" of Specific Plan 94-1 "the Northeast Area Specific Plan" in which zone the subject property is located. 3. That the outdoor patio area may be used by patrons for seating and smoking purposes only. That no other outdoor activities, including but not limited to dining, drinking, entertainment, dancing etc. shall be permitted on this property. 4. That the number of persons attending any event at this property shall not exceed the maximum occupancy load as determined by the Anaheim Fire Department. Signs indicating the maximum occupancy shall be prominently displayed within the premises. 5. That the property owner shall provide any new business operator/owner with the conditions of approval contained in this resolution. 6. That the sales of any type of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises shall be prohibited. 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. 3-12-01 Page 18 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 8. That the activities occurring in conjunction with the operation of this establishment shall not cause noise disturbance to surrounding properties and shall conform to the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance. 9. That all doors serving subject establishment shall comply with 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, deliveries and in cases of emergency. 10. That at all times when entertainment or dancing is permitted, uniformed security guards shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department to deter unlawful conduct on the part of employees or patrons, and promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, and prevent disturbance to the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises. 11. 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 businesses. That within 30 days of the date of this resolution, a lighting plan for the northeast corner of the property shall be submitted to the Community Services Division of the Police Department for review and approval. • 12. That there shall be no pool tables, amusement devices or games maintained within subject establishment without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. 13. 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. 14. That there shall be no public telephones on the premises located outside the building. 15. That this establishment shall be operated as a"Bona Fide Public Eating Place" as defined by Section 23038 of the California Business and Professions Code. 16. That there shall be no bar or iounge maintained on the property unless licensed by Alcoholic Beverage Control and approved by the City of Anaheim. 17. That food service with a fu11 meal shall be available from opening time until either 10:00 p.m. or closing time, whichever occurs first, on each day of operation. 18. 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. 3-12-01 Page 19 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 19. That the sales of any type of alcoholic beverages 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 any type of alcoholic beverages 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. 20. 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 alcoholic beverages. 21. That the operator of subject facility shall pay for the cost of any Code Enforcement inspections which may be required to address Code violations or violations of these conditions of approval. 22. That there shall be no direct pedestrian access to the outdoor patio area from outside the building. All access to this area shall be solely through the restaurant. Further, that a sign shall be posted at the entrance to the patio stating that this area shall be used for seating and smoking purposes only and that no dining, drinking or dancing shall be permitted in the patio. 23. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 24. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the SP94-1, DA- • 3 Zone unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the Planning Commission or City Council. 25. That a valid business license shall be maintained for this business from the City of Anaheim Business License Division of the Finance Department. 26. That this resolution shall be permanently posted in an obvious location within the employee work area to serve as a reminder of the conditions of approval contained herein. 27. That three-foot high address numbers shall be maintained and displayed on the roof in a contrasting color to the roof materiai. The numbers shall not be visible from the view of the street or adjacent properties. 28. That the on-site landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained in compliance with City standards. 29. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 30. That all existing mature landscaping shall be maintained and immediately replaced in the event that it becomes diseased or dies. 31. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said ~ storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas 3-12-01 Page 20 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum one-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum three-foot centers or tall shrubbery. 32. 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 Exhibit No. 1, and as conditioned herein. 33. 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 Arnold absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 33 minutes (2:12-2:45) • • 3-12-01 Page 21 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 3a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 280 (PREV.-CERTIFtED) 3b. SPECIFIC PLAN ADJUSTMENT NO. SPN 2001-00004 3c. FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2001-00026 OWNER: Catellus, Attn: Bill Dennis, 1065 North Tustin Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: ESA Services, Inc., 2525 Cherry Avenue, #310, Signal Hill, CA 90806 LOCATION: 3610-3720 East La Palma Avenue and 1001-1091 North Tustin Avenue. Property is approximately 25.7 acres located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Tustin Avenue (The Pacificenter Specific Plan No. 88-3). Specific Plan Adjustment No. SPN 2001-00004 - Request an adjustment to Specific Plan No. 88-3 (Pacificenter), to amend Appendix No. 11 pertaining to required operational conditions for the permitted hotel facility to delete the requirement for daily maid service. Final Site Plan Review (FSP 2001-00026) - request review and approval of final site plans to construct a three-story, 116-unit hotel (with kitchenettes) within Development Area 1 of the Pacificenter Specific Plan No. 88-3. ~ Introduction by Staff: Approved Recommended adoption of Specific Plan Adjustment No. SPN 2001-00004 with modifications to the City Council. Approved Final Site Plan. SR7928KB.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 3 by stating this is a request for Specific Plan Adjustment 2001-00004 and Final Site Plan Review 2001-00026, for property located at the south west corner of La Palma Avenue and Tustin Avenue, and it is the Pacific Center Specific Plan. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. ApplicanYs Statement: Jeff Farano, 2300 E. Katella, Suite No. 235, Anaheim, CA, spoke on behalf of the applicant, Extended Stay America. Also, the Architect Mr. Frank Chi of MCG Architects was present. MCG is well known throughout America and was hired to design this project. Mr. Farano stated that what is before the Commission today is a request for site plan approval plus the request for a waiver regarding the daily maid service, which is an element and condition in the specific plan where this is located. Overall, ESA concurs with most the recommendations and statements in the staff report, with the exception of the requirement for the daily maid service, that is really the major concern. As stated in the staff report, that is a critical issue to Extended Stay America and there is not a lot of room for compromise in that particular issue, but there are many other alternatives and compromises that they have offered that he feels would satisfy the Commission's concerns. ESA would agree to allow maid services, daily maid services to be offered as a condition, as opposed to the requirement in the Specific P1an and that recommended by the staff report is that daily maid service be provided. i 3-12-01 Page 22 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ESA is a fairly new company, went public on the NYSE in 1995, with two hotels. It grew fairly rapidly since then with a new product that it has developed and has become very popular. In 1996, ESA had 40 hotels with 50 more properties under construction. In 1999, they had 362 properties open, with 23 properties under construction, 33 properties under option, 5,600 employees. In 1999 they were named the Best Practice Champion by the Cornell Universities of the Hotel Administration, this is based on the product that they have developed, catering toward business travelers. In 2000, they have grown to 392 properties with 19 properties under construction, 58 under option and 6100 empioyees. in 2000 also, for the second straight year they were named as Fortune 500's fastest 100 growing companies, also ranked fifth in earnings for share and 11th in revenue growth. It is a very fast growing company and it is built on what has been a very high quality product geared directly toward the business travelers. Based on what they had developed, a unique operational and construction system. The product itself designed for the business traveler, it is catered toward out-sourcing which is defined as having companies around the country that have business travefers that need a place to stay. Their average stay at this hotel is two weeks, and this company basically caters to those large corporations and local businesses and goes around and makes arrangements of business relationships for these travelers to stay. The basic elements of this hotel is high-quality, convenience, and value. There is a data port in every room, they have a recliner, cable television, fully equipped kitchen. The quality of these amenities and the construction is high-quality because basically they build these hotels for the long-term stay, as opposed to a less-expensive motel product. 7hey have a strict maintenance program applicable to all hotels, one of the things that they have developed is that the rooms are cleaned twice a week, in all products throughout the country whether they want it or not. Twice a week, it is a requirement to come in, change the bedding, c{ean the bathroom, clean the kitchen, any dishes that might not be cleaned. Another key, they do offer daily maid service, primarily to the long-term travelers as previously stated, most people stay two weeks at an average, but • the daily maid service is offered to them if they want, for a fee of approximately $5.00 per day, it varies depending on the area. The rooms are limited to two persons per room and that is strictly enforced. These products also, as opposed to some hotels and some national chains, are designed to fit in the area in which it is being built. ESA wants to match the area that they are going to build in. For example, in the color rendering, this building has been designed to match both design and colors to the adjoining Expo. Relative to the issue of quality, ESA went beyond substantially what the landscaping requirements are. The color rendering before Commission is representing of the actual landscape plan. 7o a certain extent there is some landscaping that is not seen on the rendering. To the left, you will see a row of trees and landscaping at berm that you do not see, but the rest of it is fairly accurate to what you see and being the number of trees and the size of the trees. The palm trees that you see are in the center of the building, the lobby area. Those trees are not required by a landscape plan, but have been added in because they want to establish a quality project for the travelers. There were 16 trees that were required, they will provide 20 full size trees. The landscaping and ground cover exceeds what is required. There is a coin-operated laundry inside, off the ground floor hallway. This is an interior-oriented hotel, which means that the hallways and the inside and the entry to the rooms are from the interior hallways. This company does have and exercises the right to refuse service because they recognize some problems that might come up. They will refuse service to a family looking for a place to stay. This cannot be in any way compared to a motel. They have a nationwide marketing program. Basically, their marketing is limited to twice a week in the • U.S.A. Today. It is geared toward the business traveler, there is no tefevision, no radio, no other marketing than that. 3-12-01 Page 23 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • This company is aiso one of three hotel companies in the country that has hired the Gallup Poll to do a poll of the travelers to decide what it is they like about it, and what amenities they like to have. The other two are the Ritz and the Four Seasons. He reiterated, in this type of hotef, the business traveler is an average stay of two weeks, they do have a tendency to spread work out on the table. That goes to the issue of daily maid service. What they have found is that these travelers/guests request that they do not have daily maid service and not have an interruption. However, twice a week the rooms do have maid service. The building design is not a flat-walled building, there are substantial cut-outs that give you basically a more pleasing building. It has grills that are painted to match the side of the building, the window frames have been painted a green color. The Specific Plan for this property permits 150 rooms and an exterior- oriented product. That is something to note because what could be built here under the existing Specific Plan is a Iess expensive Motel 6 type product. What is being proposed is substantially increased and a much higher quality. It is 116 rooms, which are less rooms and it is an interior type hotel, which the rooms are oriented inside as opposed to outside. That is a distinction that goes toward the justification of this waiver request. Also, being an interior oriented hotel, there is substantially more security than you would see in a motel type use. The entrances are all electronic security entrance, you need a business card or room card to get into it. That is beneficial now and through the maintenance and operations of this building. ESA has picked this site specifically for several reasons. 1. Adjoining to the Anaheim Technology Center. The Anaheim Technology Center has a substantial • amount of businesses, corporate and local businesses. The only place they can currently go to is on Imperial Highway or in Brea or Placentia. Their market research has found that this is important. They have talked to several businesses in the area, such as Boeing. These type of corporations have said that will be a substantial need to them and welcome it. 2. Also, in the design of this product, it is not seen on this plan but you will see it on the site plan, the property edge, along the railroad tracks, they are planned and will build a decorative block wall which is not required. This is a$150,000 expense which goes toward the quality of what they (ESA) want to build and they feel this is substantial. It will decrease in height as it gets closer to the freeway, but it adds to the quality. 3. This building throughout the entire hotel they are going to put in double-paned windows, not required but something they feel is a quality. It adds to the expense of the building, but because of the long-term nature of this investment they feel it is important for their guests and for the quality of this building. 4. Justification for the waivers, ESA has found that there are several problems, both marketing problems and operational problems with a daily maid service. In regard to the operational problems, none of their other hotels have daily maid service throughout the country. They are set up that way, their operations are built that way, they have won their awards in setting it up in this way because of taking care of the needs of their guests. They have to change operationally everywhere they build a hotel, it is going to effect the whole operation, and the value of the product, That is one of the reasons why not just because the guest does not want it, it's an operational difficulty. It is an interruption of their management style, which has been proven to be successful, and iYs a marketing aspect problem as well. tt basically goes against the product and the marketing efforts itself. • 3-12-01 Page 24 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • In addressing this issue, they have met with Code Enforcement and the Police Department to discuss this issue, as to why they are requiring it and insisting on it. We want to reach an agreement to take care of what everyone's concerns are. The daily maid service was put in place in order to handle some problems in the West Anaheim motel. There were several things that were put into place to control the crime problem, the health and safety problem. They felt that the daily maid service gave/accomplished several things: 1. The observation of the room on a daily basis inhibited any criminal activities that might go on there. 2. The room service was necessary because people were actually living in there and cooking and they needed the daily maid service to take care of the health problem. 3. This would also help prevent any Code violations such as people doing illegal wiring and bringing in cooking apparatus, etc. 4. The daily maid service, as well as some other things they adopted took care of these needs. He can understand this is a critical issue. One thing that makes that not applicable here is that this is in a specific plan. The specific plan is a separate zoning/planning area in which different zoning and pfanning criteria can be applied. It does not set a precedent setting value to the other areas throughout the City. Not only legally, but practically as well because what you have here is a property that has been zoned, and planned with a hotel, office, retail, other things, and it is also contained. Therefore, you can have some variance from zoning requirements throughout the City. it does not have a legal zoning precedent setting value throughout the City. There are substantial differences, first of all, the people are going to be coming in asking for a waiver of this, that you do not want to give, are going to be your typical motel product. This is not your typical motel • product on the west end. There is a substantial construction difFerence between a low-cost mote{ down on Srookhurst and Lincoln versus what this product is. The construction materials are different, the design is different, the amenities are different, the operations are different, there is no relationship between a standard low-cost motor lodge/motel versus which is defined as a hotel. The likelihood of being able to get a relationship between the two praducts is not likely and you can have a definite distinction between the two. Suppose they decide to sell it, and that has been a concern. It is highly unlikely for several reasons. If you look at the general areas of where most of these problem motels exist, they are generally in a residential area, near schools, near grocery stores, or other places where the people live or want to stay. This is in an industrial area, the Anaheim Technology Center, is anticipated to be very successful over the next 10 to 20 years. It is an expensive hotel to build and it is going to be maintained, it is always going to be operated by a company that is going to maintain it, service it, and make sure it maintains a value. You will always have the security, it is designed and it is built in its interior operation is set up that way. Mr. Farano asked for some clarifications to the staff report. On page 8, under the recommendation on Item No. 24, he understands that this is to be an administrative adjustment as opposed to an amendment, which procedurally is different. Yet as an adjustment it moves on, and this is a question to staff as an adjustment; it is not a recommendation of approval by the Commission to City Council, but it is the Commission's decision if it goes under the Consent Calendar. Yet Item No. 24 has language that says Commission recommends approval to the City Council. Is this an amendment or an adjustment? • 3-12-01 Page 25 MARCH 12, 2001 PI.ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Greg McCafferty stated that this is an adjustment, it is amending the development standards for this hotel site and what the Municipal Code says under Section 18.93.090 is that any action by the Commission favoring the adoption of a specific plan adjustment shall be in the form of a recommendation to the City Council. Therefore, it is a recommendation to City Council. Chairperson Koos indicated he thought he received contrary information in the morning. Selma Mann stated that unless it is a denial their action is ~nal. Chairperson Koos asked if this is a public hearing automatically for the City Council? Selma Mann advised no, the recommendation is for approval or if their decision is for approval it goes as a recommendation to the City Council and then the City Council will need to act on it. If the recommendation is denial, their action is final and the City Council may or may not choose to bring it up for action. Mr. Farano restated his question and asked does it go to them as a consent item, a"B "Item to City Council or a public hearing? Selma Mann indicated that initially it would go as a"B" Item and public hearing is involved with "B" Items. Greg McCafferty stated that on paragraph 24, if it is a recommendation for approval, he suggested striking the requirement under Condition No. 9 that says that the guestroom shall not be rented, let, occupied, etc. for 30 days. The Municipal Code already covers that and it would be redundant to put it so staff deleted that as welL • Mr. Farano asked for clarification of Mr. McCafferty's statement. Greg McCafferty stated that under paragraph 24 there are two recommended conditions, the second one staff would recommend that Commission not recommend it to City Council, but to delete it. Mr. Farano agreed. He then went onto inquire about Item No. 4. Which is the item at issue, under paragraph 24, the language that ESA would like to see is basically in the Appendix 11 of the Specific Plan, Item No. 4. The condition in that specific plan states, "that every occupied hotel guestroom shafl be provided with daily maid service." Their recommendation is to state "that every occupied hotel guestroom shaff be offered daify maid service" So you are replacing "provided with" to "offered". Together, with the requirement and fact that they clean their rooms twice a week. If a guest would like the room cleaned he can have it cleaned. In regard to a precedent setting value, another thing to consider is Hotel Circle's specific plan in the resort area. That is where the ESA hotel is now, they do not have a requirement of daily maid service. As of today, he has not heard any problems or other motels or properties around the City trying to use that as a comparison of the precedent setting value. It is just so different than where the problem properties would be, that it is a sufficient comparison. In conclusion, Mr. Farano emphasized this not a motel that will have the problem that you need a daily maid service for, it is not designed that way, it is not operated that way and although nobody can offer any exact guarantees for the next 20 or 30 years, you are not going to have a problem of what this might become somewhere down the road. In studying everything in this hotel and in this quality and what they have offered and the operator itself, that there is adequate justification for this waiver, it is necessary for this hotel. • THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 3-12-01 Page 26 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that he has stayed in an ESA in the Bakersfield area. When he stayed there, the room did not have kitchen facilities and he did not see anything in the report that stated all the units would be designed that way. Mr. Farano stated that in the site plan presented, all the rooms have kitchen facilities in them. The hotel that Commissioner Vanderbilt stayed in, was the first hotel that ESA built. It did not have kitchen facilities. Also notice that the problem in comparing what you might have stayed in is that some of the first hotels of ESA are exterior oriented hotels. They have now evolved to what you see here today and this is what they are building, an interior hotel. ESA does have to build according to the pfans submitted and all the rooms in the plans do have kitchenettes in them. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if one night stays would be possible at this location. Chairperson Koos asked Mr. Farano if some ESA have work out (exercising) facilities. Mr. Farano indicated most do not but it can vary depending on where you are. If someone indicates a definite need for one it might be considered, but that is something, if they are going to add to it, if this makes sense for them to get in that business. The one in the Resort Area does have a pool because their studies felt that a pool was something that wauld be needed. Most {ocations do not have pools. The amenities can vary, depending on the needs and the location. Chairperson Koos asked if they wanted to add one later, if it would go through the Building Department or if they wanted to change out something, if they would have to go through the Planning Commission? Greg McCafferty indicated that would be a change to the exhibits so they could either administratively determine that it substantialfy conform to those exhibits and if they had concerns about that then they • would bring it to Commission as a Reports and Recommendations Item. Commissioner Bosfinrick felt they could change a room and put in exercise equipment and it would not substantially change the complexity, in fact it would reduce the number of units and increase the parking. Commissioner Boydstun indicated that for people who are working 12 to 14 hours day this would be something nice to have on the property. Mr. Farano indicated ESA is geared toward taking care of the business traveler, and if that is something that would make their hotels successful, they would consider it. Chairperson Koos stated that based on information from before that in 1999 there was 300 already built and 300 under construction it sounds like they would know what they need. Commissioner Bostwick indicated they are using a company to do their surveys and they have built this many across the country they must have something, a track record of knowing what their customer is and who it is and why they are doing it. Mr. Farano stated that what they saw from 1995 to what they see today is due to evolving and reacting to those polls. Commissioner Bristol said he visited the site Saturday and met with a Lee Stein. He was shown around, visited the rooms and tried to get as much information as possible regarding the room service, etc. 7he weekly rate is $359 and the daily is $75, in order to get daily service, you do a$75 a clip, $525 versus the $359 at that particular location. • Commissioner Boydstun indicated there are no schools or stores. 3-12-01 Page 27 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bristol stated that before he could say anything Mr. Stein turned and said he knew what he was looking at, he was looking at drug activity and things like that, he indicated to Commissioner Bristol that this facility is a lock down at 11:00 p.m., you cannat get in there. Someone has to come greet you and allow you in. Mr. Farano said that is another key, the design would be an interior door. Commissioner Boydstun suggested that "maid service shall be provided two times a week and be made available to every occupied hotel guest room with their request at a nominal fee." Greg McCafferty advised that what needs to be done is in paragraph 24, you would just modify Condition No. 4, incorporate that language and then recommend it. Commissioner Vanderbilt indicated when the project was looked at, it was first presented as a hotel and its proximity to the freeway. The fact that he had stayed at one before because it appeared as a hotel to him and he would like to think that anybody traveling through this corridor on the Riverside freeway could use that. He is concerned about the idea that a family is going to show up at the counter and be told they cannot stay there because they are a family. He understands that this company has sort of evolved, it had a type of hotel in Bakersfield and now it has evolved to this type. The chances of it evolving more in the future, based on marketing conditions, he believes are as likely as they have been in the past. He is somewhat resistant to making this change in terms of accommodating this one type of business because the desire to maintain everything that we have been working on so far with the west end and even though there are some arguments here about how they are different. He believes the whote thing that we have been trying to say is let's define what a hotel/motel is and try to be as specific as possible about what those establishments are and then set conditions to conform to that. That is sort of his position on this. He is concerned about its proximity to the freeway, even the discussion about signs and how we would • want certain signs to be available to those driving on the freeway informing them of gas stations and/or hotel locations. It gets to that idea that if we are going to approve it as a hotel, then it should comply to all the requirements of a hotel as they have come to evolve to this point. He is concerned about the family issue and also asked what defines maid service? Is it possible if someone goes in and just empties the trash cans could that constitute maid service. 1 do not know if it would be as expensive as cleaning the room and changing the sheets. Maybe this is the area he'd be more willing to compromise. Chairperson Koos indicated this is not known when the conditions are placed on west end hotels. We are acting somewhat on faith that maid service means maid service. Commissioner Bristol said what he was told on Saturday was there is one full cleaning a week, and the other one that Mr. Farano is talking about is changing towels and/or bed linen. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if this was daily. Commissioner Bristol indicated no. Two maid cleanings, one is thorough the other one is just coming in and changing towels and things like that. It is not a full cleaning but the argument here is whether or not there is access to a unit or not, because sometimes people literally do not want to be bothered. Chairperson Koos said that does not fall neatly into either hotel or motel categories, but is closer to a hotel. He goes along with what is being proposed. This is a good thing for Anaheim that they are in a specific plan. We can set up different rules, we are a city with 50 square miles, and it is not reasonable to apply the problems of one part of our City, City wide. • 3-12-01 Page 28 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Farano said he would like to add to Commissioner Bristol's statement, he thought the suggestion by ~ Commissioner Boydstun was two full maid services, and would agree to that. To address Commissioner Bristol's concern, they do not necessary reject a family coming in, they do rent to families, but they are primarily a business traveler. If a family starts coming in with their refrigerators and beds and all these kinds of things, they are going to refuse that. If they are coming in and there are rooms in the hotel that night, they wi11 rent to them, but there is a two-person restriction, so it would have to be a very small family. Commissioner Boydstun indicated she was at an ESA hotel and she asked this question and her understanding was that if she and her husband went with two grandchildren, they would rent two rooms. Mr. Farano indicated that is not a problem, that ESA is trying to keep it 1ow key and quiet for the people that have spent 15 hours working and want to go sleep. Commissioner Vanderbilt indicated that the argument he was making in regard to the proximity to the freeway, he asked if Mr. Farano's understanding when they had done some of the approvals for this whole project that ESA was going to get a hotel that was more broadly accessible or did he feel that this definition of a hotel would fit neatly into what you understood, this whole project? Not just the structure itseff but how it relates to everything around it. Commissioner Boydstun indicated she usually travels with children and she would look for more of a resort-type hotel as most families would, where there are activities for the children. If it was just she and her husband, they would be interested in cfose proximity to where he is working, not what was in the area. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if staff had any statements based on everything that has been explained that may have changed the position that they have? ~ Greg McCafferty stated that staff still stands by their recommendation, how it is worded in the staff report. Greg McCafferty asked for clarification of the statement, be made available upon request. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-certified EIR 280 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Recommended approval to the City Council of the proposed Specific Plan Adjustment No. SPN 2001-00004 to the Pacificenter Specific Plan No. 88-3 to amend Appendix No. 11 pertaining to required ogerational conditions of the permitted hotel to delete the requirement for daily maid service. Modified Condition No. 4 of Appendix No. 11 to read as follows: 4. That full maid service shall be provided two (2) times a week to every occupied hotel guest room. More frequent maid service shall be made available upon request at an additional charge. Approved Final Site Plan (FSP) No. 2001-00026 as being consistent with the Development Standards of Amendment No. 3 of the Pacificenter Specific Plan, ~ including the location of the hotel facility as intended on the premises, the exterior building materials and architecture which is complementary to the adjacent home 3-12-01 Page 29 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MfNUTES • improvement store, and that landscaping be provided on both the east and west sides of the proposed railroad sound wall to eliminate graffiti opportunities. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights for Specific Plan Adjustment No. SPN 2001-00004 and presented the 10-day appeal rights Final Site Plan Review No. 2001-00026. DISCUSSION TIME: 44 minutes (2:46-3:30) • ~ 3-12-01 Page 30 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4006 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001-04334) OWNER: Erdtsieck Family Limited Partnership, 625 North Main Street, Orange, CA 92868 AGENT: Fred Erdtsieck, 625 North Main Street, Orange, CA 92868 LOCATION: 1354 North Red Gum Street. Property is approximately 1.85 acres located on the east side of Red Gum Street, 390 feet south of the centerline of La Jolla Street. Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on March 2, 1998, to expire on March 2, 2001) to retain a large equipment rental yard. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RE50LUTION NO. Continued to March 26, 2001. SR7932KP.DOC Chairperson Koos offered a motion for continuance to March 26, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Bristol, vote taken and motion carried. u OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 26, 2000 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 3-12-01 Page 31 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 5c. CONDI710NAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04332 Granted OWNER: James A. Liberio, Trustee of the Liberio Family Trust, 1720 West La Palma Avenue, #A, Anaheim, CA 92801 Raymond Kubicki, 6307 Canobie Avenue, Whittier, CA 90601 AGENT: Dave Bartlett, 36 Bramford Street, LaDera Ranch, CA 92694 LOCATION: 1712, 1720 and 1730 West La Palma Avenue and 1017, 1021, and 1031 North Euclid Street. Property is approximately 2.3 acres located south and west of the southwest corner of Euclid Street and La Palma Avenue. Requests to construct a three-unit commercial retaif center and a freestanding, drive-through pharmacy with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-31 SR1001CW.DOC Introduction by Staff: Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item, Conditional Use Permit 2001-04332 for property at southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Euclid Street. Request to permit commercial retail center and freestanding drugstore with drive-through lane with minimum number of parking spaces. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. ApplicanYs Statement: Kathy O'Kronley, 1200 17~h Street, Denver Colorado. They agree with the staff report and conditions, submitted renderings of before and after, and also briefly explained changes. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol asked about the wall behind the ARCO station. The applicant replied the wall is coming down. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that there seems to be emphasis on the faCade of the building but as you go back there are no architectural features, asked applicant if the blank wall could be enhanced. Also, in terms of the north elevation, will the signage cover the length between the finro "diamonds" that are farthest apart? John Koehler's response +s illegible since he was not speaking into a microphone. ~ Commissioner Vanderbilt wants to encourage taking away the starkness. 3-12-01 Page 32 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNfNG COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Koos asked about vertical lines on the rendering. John Koehler, architect; responded the elevations are correct, those are joints in the stucco. Chairperson Koos asked if they were approving the exhibits. Greg McCafferty stated if the exhibits are consistent with the existing exhibits on file, but they have not been able to verify that because they were just submitted. Commissioner Bostwick said that the additional retail building is now on the property line rather than being ~ve feet off of the property line as requested in the staff report. Greg McCafferty stated that is why they have it conditioned in the staff report. After the stafif report was written, late last week, they received revised plans from Walgreens that showed it at zero setback. Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer, wanted to clarify the critical intersection right-of-way along La Palma and Euclid. The future critical intersection line is 65 feet from centerline on both streets, not 68 feet from centerline on shown on site plan. This works to the applicant's advantage, there is an additional three feet available for front setback landscaping or other private improvements. They want to add two conditions of approval. The first related to lot line adjustment. The condition should read as follows, "A lot line adjustment shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division to merge the existing parcels into two legal fots, such that Walgreens is within one lot and the commercial retail center is within the second lot. The adjusted property line shall conform to zoning and building setback requirements. The 1ot line adjustment must be approved by the City Engineer and recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder prior to issuance of a building permit." The second is related to existing 20-foot-wide easement along property line that would not be needed by the current development so • recommendation is, "That existing 20-foot-wide road easement along the south property line is not Chairperson Koos compared blueprints to color elevations and noticed some inconsistencies and wondered which one Commission is considering. Placement of Walgreens is different and split face block is not on plans. John Koehler indicated it would be blueprints. Greg McCafferty stated that it can be an exhibit. Chairperson Koos stated they will consider the plans as an exhibit with the annotation to be added about the split face rock. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked staff how they will check the recommendation they made on page 5 regarding the landscaping. required for the proposed development, therefore the legal property owner shall submit an application to the Public Works Department, Real Property Section for either an encroachment license or right-of-way abandonment. The encroachment license or abandonment shall be approved prior to issuance of a building permit:' Greg McCafferty stated they discussed incorporating landscape planters around the buildings and the developer was agreeable to that. They did not have plans in time to evaluate that, so prior to issuance of the building permit, they will look at it to make sure they incorporate landscape planters. If they cannot come to an agreement they can appeal to Commission as a Report and Recommendations item. Staff suggested adding, "that a covenant be submitted to the Public Works Department and Zoning • Division to manage the two parcels as one in terms of parking, access and architecture." This way if one parcel is purchased later, they still have a unified commercial retail center. 3-12-01 Page 33 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, added that covenant would need to be unsubordinated and subject to review for approval as informed by the City Attorney's o~ce. During the Action: Greg McCafferty asked that material board that the applicant presented at the public hearing be incorporated into the design of the final elevation. • • ~ ~ - • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Waiver of Code Requirement pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces; based on the concurrence of the Traffic and Transportation Manager with the findings of parking study that the number of parking spaces proposed would be adequate to serve the contemplated uses on-site. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04332 as conditioned, (to construct a three-unit commercial retail center and freestanding drive-through pharmacy). Added the following conditions: That a lot line adjustment shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division, to merge the existing parcels into two (2) legal lots such • that the pharmacy is on one lot and the commercial retail center is within the second lot. The adjusted property lines shall conform to Zoning and Building setback requirements. The lot line adjustment must be approved by the City Engineer and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder prior to issuance of a building permit. That the existing 20-foot wide easement along the south property is not required. The legal property owner shall submit an application to the Public Works Department, Real Property Section for either an encroachment license or right-of-way Abandonment. The Encroachment License or Abandonment shall be approved prior to issuance of a building permit. That in the event a parcel map to subdivide subject property is recorded, an unsubordinated restricted covenant providing reciprocaf access and parking, approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager and Zoning Division and in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, shall be recorded with the Office of the Orange County Recorder. A copy of the recorded covenant shall then be submitted to the Zoning Division. In addition, provisions shall be made in the covenant to guarantee that the entire complex shall be managed and maintained as one (1) integral parcel for purposes of parking, vehicular circulation, signage, maintenance, land usage and architectural control, and that the covenant shall be referenced in all deeds transferring all or any part of the interest in the property. • 3-12-01 Page 34 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 19 minutes (3:31-3:50) • • 3-12-01 Page 35 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 6b. WA{VER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04327 OWNER: The Eparchy of Our Lady of Lebanon, 333 South San Vicente Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048 AGENT: St. John Maron Catholic Church, Attn: Reverend Antonie Bakh, 1546 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1546 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 1.29 acres located on the south side of La Palma Avenue, 140 feet east of the centerfine of Anna Drive (Saint John Maron Catholic Church). To construct an addition to an existing church with waiver of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) maximum structural height, (c) minimum front yard setback and (d) minimum rear yard setback. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Chairperson Koos offered a motion for continuance to April 23, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Bristol, vote taken and motion carried. • OPPOSITION: None Continued to April 23, 2001. SR7931 VN.DOC ACTION: Continued subject request to the April 23, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow adequate time for the petitioner to work with Public Works Department staff to complete a sewer study. YOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 3-12-01 Page 36 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQU{REMENT Approved 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04333 Granted for 2 years (to expire on March 6, OWNER: Larry P. Henry and Carol Henry, 225 North Loara Street, 2003) Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT; Dean Garcia, 1303 Beacon Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 309 North Manchester Avenue. Property is approximately 0.25 acre located on the south side of Manchester Avenue, 210 feet west of the centerline of Loara Street (Agape House of Prayer). To retain an unpermitted church in an existing building with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. SR1092TW.DOC CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-32 Introduction by Staff: Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04333 for property at 309 North Manchester Avenue, request to retain unpermitted church and existing building with waiver of • minimum number of parking spaces. THE PUBLIC HEARWG WAS OPENED. ApplicanYs Statement: Dean Garcia, Administrator of Agape House of Prayer. Asking for approval of project. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristof stated that he visited the property on Saturday and was impressed. He didn't pay attention to the staff report until after he left the property and asked why staff recommends deniaf. He does not see a problem with approving it for a year. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked how the applicant realized he needed a CUP. Dean Garcia stated that when they got the property they weren't quite clear on what the process was going to be. The street has now been completed, it is a cul-du-sac and they are abiding by what is necessary to do. Chairperson Koos asked if Manchester was affected by I-5 widening and was the configuration of the lot always this way where they pulled out into the street. Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineer stated that based on 1986 photos, they had a little more room but was backing up to the street, they did not conform to the Code at that time either. ~ Commissioner Bristol stated that he did not remember any cars out on the street when he was there Saturday. 3-12-01 Page 37 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Dean Garcia stated you have enough room to pull out to existing parking and there is a concrete area. Commissioner Boydstun stated this is going to be a temporary use, what else could they do with this property right now. He has cleaned up the property. Commissioner Bristol stated that if you are going to put a use on something, this is it, it is a remnant piece and has lost some of its value with the closing of the freeway. Commissioner Bostwick said that these are non-conforming properties due to the widening and taking and rework of the street. The City should have taken all of it and processed it into a new plan and program through the Redevelopment Agency. Commissioner Bristol asked if staff sees anything happening in the next 24 months on this property. Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer, Public Works Department, stated relative to Manchester Avenue, there is a gap between the property line and the street and she is not sure if CalTrans or the City owns it. In order to park in that area, the applicant needs to obtain an encroachment license from the City or CalTrans. Commissioner Bristol asked if that was in front of their own building; Melanie replied yes. Commissioner Bostwick asked if it would prevent them from access to their property; Melanie stated they would not prevent access, but there are legal issues that Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, can clarify. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that since the property owner owns the adjacent lots, isn't he in the • position to put a reciprocal agreement together that allows the church to use the property. Melanie Adams stated if he were able to stay completely within his own property, but there appears to be a gap between his property line and where the physical street is. He as ability to enter into agreements with the adjacent properties. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if it would be staffs opinion that it would be an easier path to take since the owner has written the letter welcoming the church. Alfred Yalda clarified that the area he is backing up in a public right-of-way, it would be a liability for the City. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated he understood that but the owner of the other parcels has parking spaces. Alfred Yafda advised he does not; if you look at every use and the square footage of them and add actual code requirements, he really does not have any parking. The parking study submitted to Planning Commissions shows a sketch that has absolutely no parking. These are imaginary parking spaces in front of driveways. Commissioner Bristol stated that the assumption is Mr. Henry has to have parking on four or five parcels that he owns. Alfred Yalda stated there is opportunity for them to create a parking lot in a vacant area. Commissioner Bristol advised the applicant that they need to return and inform the Traffic Engineering • where they are going to park on Mr. Henry's property, per that letter. 3-12-01 Page 38 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Selma Mann advised it appears that there is not enough information to be able to determine whether those parking spaces are usable under the code for this particular use, although it may be that because of the different hours of operation, it is something that actually would work. It would be something the Traffic Division would like to take a closer look at and come back with a recommendation. They can come back with regard to exactly the type of agreement that the owner would need to enter into to make sure that they're still happy to do that. Commissioner Bostwick stated that they need to find out if they can access their property without the encroachment license. The fact that CalTrans widening created property that somebody can't access without going through administrative process is confusing. He felt that a four-week continuance would be good to resolve these issues. Chairperson Koos encouraged the appticant to talk to the owner to look at all available property and develop a plan of action. Commissioner Bristol stated Mr. Henry probably already knows about this and if he does not he will want to know that he cannot go from a public right-of-way to another right-of-way to get to his own property, he is "landlocked". Alfred Yalda stated the parking spaces that the applicant is showing in front are 13 feet, they do not meet City code. He is encroaching 5 feet on the public right-of-way then he needs 24 feet to back up. Chairperson Koos asked if it was always like that. Alfred Yalda does not think it was always like that, it was different, but whatever CalTrans took away, they compensated the property owners. If he lost his parking he has to be properly compensated. i Chairperson Koos stated that as a result, they have rendered it so that you cannot ever, by City Code, have a use there. Commissioner Bosfinrick stated it created non-conforming uses out of the property. Alfred Yalda stated that is correct and he does not have actual parking. They are sticking to the street and the sidewalk out there. Chairperson Koos indicated that perhaps he was compensated but did not realize that he was preventing himself from complying with Municipal Ordinances. Melanie Adams received new information and stated the area in question is Anaheim right-of-way so they can move forward with the condition of approval that the applicant would make an application for an encroachment license or right-of-way abandonment and that either would need to be approved within a certain time period. That would allow them to develop the area for non-conforming parking. OPPOSITION: Received 1{etter of support. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved waiver pertaining to the minimum number of required parking spaces. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04333 (to retain an unpermitted church • within an existing building) with the following change to conditions of approval: 3-12-01 Page 39 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Modified Condition No. 1 to read as follows: 1. That this conditional use permit sha{I expire in one (2) years ftom the date of this resolution, on March 6, 2003. Added the following condition: That within 120 days the legal property owner shall submit an application to the Public Works Department, Devefopment Services Division for either an Encroachment License or an Abandonment. Said Encroachment License or Abandonment shall be completed within 6 months to allow the applicant to park adjacent to the building. VOTE; 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent} Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 29 minutes (3:51-4:15) ~ r 3-12-01 Page 40 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • DISCUSSION FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARING: Commissioner Bostwick stated to Mr. Yalda that going north bound on State College at the 91 Freeway, it has been widened to three lanes but there are no signs that say the right lane must turn right and it causes confusion. Alfred Yalda stated there is a sign there, and the second sign cannot be put in because it is in CalTrans right-of way, they have already notified CalTrans, but they are slow to respond. Commissioner Bostwick stated that the other one is westbound on Ball Road. When you leave Walnut Street there are three lanes but it merges to two at the railroad tracks, it is marked but isn't marked well enough. Alfred Yalda stated they will be happy to take care of these concerns. Chairperson Koos stated that on the Lincoln exit on 5 freeway South it just says "exit". Mr. Yalda stated they are not completed with the freeway yet and all signs will be placed. Chairperson Koos also feels a Civic Center sign should be at the 5 freeway South. Alfred said Redevelopment Agency went to CalTrans and got an encroachment permit and he will check with it. Commissioner Bostwick also pointed out that the on 5 freeway South, Disneyland Drive/Ball Road only has one sign which is right after the Lincoln bridge which is difficult to see, it needs another sign. ~ ~ 3-12-01 Page 41 MARCH 12, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ADJOURNED AT 4:20 P.M. TO MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2001 AT 10:30 A.M. FOR PRESENTATION BY THE PLANNING CENTER REGARDING THE GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CODE UPDATE PROGRAM. Respectfully submitted, ~'~~~~~y ~~'l cv-'t c~.~ Elly Fernandes Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~f ~J ~ f~ ~ _ • ~J 3-12-01 Page 42