Loading...
Minutes-PC 2001/05/07CITYOFANAHEIM ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, MAY 7, 2001 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California • • CHAIRPERS~IV` Jf,~HN KQOS COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: TOf~,~' A~tNOLD,~PAtJL~B~JSTW~CK, STEPHEN BRISTOL, ~, R{76E~~ N~PC~~.~S~ J`P~ME~ VANDERBILT, PHYLLIS BOYDSTUN ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ES - ~ , , ~ ~~~;'~ ~ ~ STAFF PRESENT: ~' Selma Mann, Assistant Cit~r Attorney `"~ Sgt Randy1Nes~~ ~o~l~ce~f?~epa~itment-Vice Detail Greg Hastings, Zoning Diuision Mat~ager ; Alfred Yalda, P...rincipa~~T~~ansport~#ion Planner Mary McCloskey, Deputy: P,fa~tning D,~r+~cfor Melanie Adams, Asso`cia~e~~ngine~er Greg McCafferty, Sen~p~'Plann+~r ~~~ EIly Fernandes, Se~ia~$~Cfet~ry ~, Linda Johnson, Princ~al-~larth~r"' ~~ Jan~ce 0'Connor, S~nior Secreta~r~ ~ Della Herrick, Associat~~Planner ' S ~2 ~ rv Monika trori~oso,-GOmmt~ni~y, ~eveJopment 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 complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Bostwick PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H:IDOCS\CLERICAL\MINUTES1AC050701.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net Page 1 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Two people spoke with concerns. 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. The Planning Commission directed staff to agendize a workshop on the issue of group homes and sober living facilities. CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 1-A through 1-C on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There wifl 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 Bostwick offered a motion for approval of Consent Calendar Items 1-B and 1-C, seconded by Commissioner Bristol, vote taken and motion carried. Item No. 1-A was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • A. a. CEQA EXEMPTION - SECTION 15061(b)(3) Approved b. REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION TO INITIATE Initiated applications APPLICATIONS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT for General Plan NO. 2001-00391, AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO THE DISNEYLAND Amendment; RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-1, AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE Amendment to The ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2 AND AN Disneyland Resort AMENDMENT TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT PUBLIC REALM Specific Plan No. 92-1; LANDSCAPE PROGRAM PERTAINING TO THE PROPOSED Amendment to the ANAHEIM RESORT THIRD THEME PARK PROJECT: Doug Anaheim Resort Moreland, Walt Disney World Co., P.O. Box 25020, Glendale, CA Specific Plan No. 92-2; 91221-5020, request to consider initiation of applications for and an Amendment to amendments to the City of Anaheim General Plan, The Disneyland the Anaheim Resort Resort Speci~c Plan No. 92~1, the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. Public Realm 92-2 and the Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program Landscape Program pertaining to the proposed Anaheim Resort Third Theme Park Project. pertaining to the The proposed Anaheim Resort Third Theme Park Project development of the encompasses a total of approximately 92.7 acres in the City of Anaheim Resort Third Anaheim, California. The Project site consists of two components as Theme Park Project. follows: one component (the proposed "Third Theme Park Overlay") encompasses approximately 77.6 acres generally located south of (Vote: 7-0) Katella Avenue and east of Harbor Boulevard, of which 52.9 acres are located within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Area, C-R District (this acreage is proposed to be redesignated as the Anaheim Resort "Future Expansion DistricY') and 24.7 acres are located within The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan Area, Future Expansion District; and, the second component (the proposed "Disney Way Parking Area") • encompasses approximately 15.1 acres generally located north of 05-07-01 Page 2 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Disney Way, between Harbor Boulevard and Clementine Street within The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan Area, Parking District (East Parking Area). INITIATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-55 C~ • ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the proposed project falis within the definition of a CEQA Categorical Exemption Section 15061(b)(3). ACTION: That the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve initiation of applications, by resolution, for a General Plan Amendment; an Amendment to The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1; an Amendment to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2; and an Amendment to the Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program pertaining to the development of the proposed 92.7-acre Anaheim Resort Third Theme Park Project, for the purpose of presenting the applications for study and consideration at a public hearing to determine whether approval of the proposed applications would be in the public interest and would serve the purposes of implementing the General Plan and enabling orderly development of the project area. Further, the operative date of the Resolution for the purposes of setting a public hearing pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.060 would be the date that the Planning Director determines that the applications are complete, including pre-hearing compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Introduction by Staff: SR7977LJ.DOC Linda Johnson, Senior Planner, introduced this item as a request from the Walt Disney Company for Planning Commission to initiate the applications for General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00391, Amendment No. 6 to the Disneyland Resort Speci~c Plan 92-1, Amendment No. 4 to The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, and an amendment to The Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program pertaining to the development of the proposed Anaheim Resort Third Theme Park project. The purpose of this request is to formally initiate the review process for the previously noted amendment proposals, not to consider the merits or environmental impacts of the proposals associated with The Anaheim Resort Third Theme Park project. At a later date, the Planning Commission and City Council will hold public hearings to consider the merits and the environmental impacts of the project and to consider whether to approve the subject amendments. The staff report includes a summary of The Anaheim Resort Third Theme Park project, as well as each of the requested actions for the General Plan Amendment and the Specific Plan Amendments and The Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program Amendment. Staff has reviewed the Walt Disney Company request and recommends that the Commission initiate the applications for the 92.7 acres of the project area for the purpose of presenting the proposed amendments for study and consideration at a public hearing to determine whether approval of the proposed applications would be in the public interest, and would serve the purposes of implementing the General Plan and enabling orderly development of the project area. Commissioner Bostwick asked about the deletion of the extension of Gene Autry Way and Clementine Street through the project area, he wants to clarify they are not making any move on that, it is strictly part of the proposal for future consideration. 05-07-01 Page 3 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Linda Johnson stated that this action is to initiate the application process, it is not to discuss the merits of the project and no action will be taken on those requests today. If the Commission initiates these applications, they will complete the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which is under preparation and this will be circulated for public review. Following the circulation of the EIR and receipt of comments, they will schedule the items for noticed public hearings. When these are scheduled they will be making staff recommendations. Commissioner Bristol asked about addressing the EIR information. Linda Johnson explained a notice to the newspaper will be published, as well as notices sent to the surrounding neighborhoods, advising when this will be heard as soon as the EIR is completed. Chairperson Koos asked if the EIR will encompass all impacts including housing, transportation, and circulation issues? Linda Johnson stated that the EIR will address all topical issues. Discussion after the Meeting: William Fitzgerald Director of Anaheim Home they are concerned about the Third Theme Park project. There is an overflow parking situation on Saturdays and during the week when the big parking lot is filled up. They are also concerned about paying back the $500 million bond issue if light rail comes in and people start staying af hotels in other cities. They are asking Commission to consider the parking problems and putting hotels in instead of a theme park to help pay off the bond. He urged Commission to investigate parking overflow before any other decisions are made. • Commissioner Arnold advised him to return to public hearing with his opinions when the Third Theme Park is being considered. L ~ 05-07-01 Page 4 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • • B. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY NO. 2001-00001 -ANAHEIM CITY Determined to be in SCHOOL DISTRICT - REQUEST TO DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WITH substantial conformance ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR THE EXPANSION OF HORACE MANN (Vote: 6-0, ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: Anaheim City School District, 1411 South Commissioner Boydstun Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, request to determine conformance abstained) with the General Plan for the proposed school site acquisition for expansion of Horace Mann Elementary Schoof. Property is located at 918 North Citron Street. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol (Commissioner Boydstun abstained) and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the Anaheim City School DistricYs proposal to acquire real property located at 918 North Citron Street for the proposed expansion of Horace Mann Elementary School is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. SR7975JW.DOC C. Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of April 23, 2001. Approved ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission (Vote: 7-0) does hereby approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 2001. 05-07-01 Page 5 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Public Comments: Judy Johnston, 2114 W. Cris, Anaheim, California. She has lived in West Anaheim for 20 years and feels there is a problem with boarding houses, and sober living facilities. She would like feedback about what can be done. There is a home at 1610 Brookhurst that is supposed to have ten people in it, she does not know if the City has done anything about this. The neighbors on both sides have block wall damage, auto damage, there is screaming and yelling, men looking over the fence, they are afraid to go into their backyards. This home does not have a conditional use permit. There is another home at 2149 Pacific, that is supposed to house only women, Code Enforcement inspected it and said it was to be reduced to six residents. It appears that when one person has moved, another moves in. There is a question as to what the Americans With Disabilities Act says about people being qualified as disabled as they have to meet certain criteria, which is that they have to have been or are in rehabilitation. There is no screening device to see if they are meeting this criteria. They want to know who can put in place that kind of screening. She stated that she sees a problem with Prop. 36 coming. When she reads the law she wonders if they are going to decide how much one needs according to the arrests in a neighborhood? Her neighborhood is proactive, they have a watch group, and they are trying to get rid of three drug-dealing houses. They are across from Loara School District, the children are already coming to her neighborhood to buy drugs and they want to stop it. She asked what Planning Commission can do? Norma Likewise, 2122 West Harle Avenue, Anaheim, California. She has lived there for 45 years. She • asked Planning Commission about Prop. 36 and stated that in order to meet local government zoning ordinances and development to receive funding, they have to meet the local ordinance. What is the local ordinance? How many people are allowed to be in a house? She understands six or less people may live in these homes and wants to verify this with the Planning Commission. There are ten people living in 1610 South Brookhurst. They have asked Code Enforcement to go out and check on it and were told there were ten people living in the house. This was reported back to Mr. Greg Hastings in Zoning Division and he said they were not able to do anything because they pulled their permit before it was a sober living house. She felt this was not lawful. The investors who are investing in these homes are greedy, enterprising people, they buy the houses, and sell them as sober living homes. They can move six people and charge $500 a month each that is what they are paying at 1610 South Brookhurst, that is $5,000 a month that the landlord is making. There is no drug counseling, no alcohol counseling, all they are required to do is to go to Alcoholics Anonymous. The owners and managers of the house are yelling and screaming obscenities so all can hear. She feels the City has to ensure that when Prop. 36 is enacted on July 1S`, this must be in place to rectify this problem. The neighborhood will help the City of Anaheim to implement the program properly and to get supervision there, to rehabilitate drug addicts and alcoholics. She wants to see that they are getting what they need to be rehabilitated and feels at this point they are not. Chairperson Koos requested that staff prepare a workshop on this matter for Planning Commission. Ms. Johnston also stated there is nothing to stop landowners from buying a whole neighborhood. Chairperson Koos stated that Commission wants to protect the integrity of the neighborhoods. Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager indicated this is a very gray area, it is very complicated and he • appreciates the opportunity to work on this and bring forward more information. 05-07-01 Page 6 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u • 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 31 Approved 2b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00049 Granted, unconditionally 2c. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04434 Granted, in part INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Attn: Elisa (Vote: 7-0) Stipkovich, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, #1003, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 110 North Rose Street. Property is 0.29 acres located at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Rose Street (Hatfield House). Reclassification No. 2001-00049: To reclassify subject property from the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone to the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone or a less intense zone. Variance No. 2001-04434: Waiver of (a) maximum fence height, and (b) maximum height of accessory buildings to construct a new block wall and a two-story detached garage in conjunction with the relocation of an existing two-story, historically-significant, single-family residence. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-56 VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-57 SR2069DS.DOC Introduction by Staff: Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner introduced this item stating this is a request to rezone property from the RM-1200 to RS-7200, and also a request for waiver of maximum height of accessory buildings. The waiver pertaining to maximum fence height has been deleted. He indicated representatives from the Community Development Department are present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. ApplicanYs Statement: Monika Troncoso, who represents the applicant, City of Anaheim Community Development Department. What they are proposing is the rehabilitation of a 1900-square foot property, to restore it to its original condition, and this is in keeping with Secretary of Interior Standards. She apologized for the late change in plan, originally they proposed a two-story garage structure, they were informed by their historic consultant that it is in keeping with the character of the house, which was a concern of theirs. They would like to retain the variance. Second is a reclassification from RM1200 to RS7200, which is consistent with the neighborhood. It would protect the property from becoming or reverting to a higher density zone. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos asked Ms. Troncoso to clarify that the historic consultant said that two-story garage is consistent with houses developed during that era. Are there a lot of examples in the Colony area of this construction? r ~ ~J 05-07-01 Page 7 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Ms. Troncoso stated that there is the Grimshaw House across the street, but this was a new construction. She does not know of any original construction projects. There is a new house built in character on Sycamore Street, this is another example she can think of. Commissioner Boydstun stated that it is on Sycamore Street just west of West Street and one at 893 South Lemon have the original garages with the second story. Commissioner Bostwick stated that the house on the corner of Cypress and Heritage Lane is also one. Chairperson Koos stated that there are some built in that era with this feature. He asked if there were others and if that is a proper justification for a variance because some houses in that era did have them? Ms. Troncoso stated that the reason for the variance is the garage's proximity to the adjacent properties. If the structure were to be located on the other side of the property, it would not warrant a variance. Commissioner Arnold asked if it was in a different location on the property would it be allowed? Ms. Troncoso replied it would. Chairperson Koos asked if the neighbor to the north expressed concern over the second story and Ms. Troncoso stated no. Commissioner Bostwick stated there is a condition in the Conditions of Approval regarding the detached garage, that no portion of it should be used for habitable purposes, and no kitchen facilities placed in it. • • • ~ ~- ~ ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 31, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Granted Reclassification No. 2001-00049, unconditionally. Granted Variance No. 2001-04434, in part, as follows (and subject to the conditions as stated in the staff report dated May 7, 2001): Denied waiver (a) pertaining to maximum fence height since it has been deleted. Approved waiver (b) pertaining to maximum height of accessory structures based on the findings as listed in the staff report dated May 7, 2001. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (1:49-1:54) • 05-07-01 Page 8 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 313 PREV.-CERTIFIED Approved 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04351 Granted OWNER: Thomas E. Inch, PO Box 2999, Sedona, AZ 86339 AGENT: RCNA Corporation, Attn: Mr. Alex Irshaid, 218 North Lincoln Avenue, Suite 102, Corona, CA 92882 LOCATION: 2080 South Harbor Boulevard. Property is 0.65 acres located at the northeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue (Doll City). To permit the conversion of an existing legal non-conforming retail building into a full-service, semi-enclosed restaurant with waiver of (a) utility equipment screening and location requirements, (b) minimum number of parking spaces, and (c) permitted number of wall signs and sign standard matrix requirements. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-58 SR7952DH.DOC Introduction by Staff: • Della Herrick, Associate Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for approval of a conditional use permit, to permit the conversion of an existing legal, non-conforming retail building into a full-service, semi-enclosed restaurant with waiver of utility equipment, screening and location requirements, minimum number of parking spaces, permitted utility encroachment screening, location requirements, minimum number of wall signs and sign standard matrices. Staff reviewed the plans and supports approval of the conditional use permit. The proposed conversion of the retail store into a restaurant use brings the use into conformance with the specific plan, and the proposed outdoor dining area does comply with the specific plan, Code requirements and the design plan, which encourages outdoor dining uses along Harbor Boulevard. The proposed site improvement brings the site into greater conformance with The Anaheim Resort Speci~c Plan Design Guidelines, enhancing the appearance of the site by providing for additional landscape and a renovated building farade. Staff reviewed the requested waiver and supports the waiver of utility equipment, screen and location requirements. Due to the existing site constraints placement of the utility device behind the setback area would result in the elimination of at least one parking space, which would create a hardship for the property. The utility device will be screened from public view and staff feels that the intent of the Code to screen such devices will be met. Staff supports the requested waiver of minimum number of parking spaces based on the information and conclusions set forth in the parking study, that a waiver of the minimum number of parking spaces would not impose an undue burden on the street and highways, and that an adequate number of parking spaces would be provided for this site. Staff supports the requested sign waiver as this is a corner property and one wall sign which is permitted by Code would not have visibility to both Orangewood Avenue and to Harbor Boulevard. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this conditional use permit as conditioned in the staff report and the requested waivers. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. r~ ~J 05-07-01 Page 9 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ApplicanYs statement: Dale Noble represents landowner and developer. Chairperson Koos asked if Mr. Noble agreed with the conditions in the staff report. Mr. Noble stated that regarding the two sign item, the City is reviewing that now, because on corner lots they agree there should be two signs. On the parking issue, Mr. Noble indicated there was a representative from Katz, Okitsu & Associates present to answer questions. Steven Nim, 2060 South Harbor Boulevard. He represents the TraveLodge Hotel directly north of the proposed restaurant site. He as the owners of the TraveLodge are in favor of this project, it will be an improvement to this corner near the southern entrance to The Anaheim Resort. The look is not what they want it to be, they are highly in favor of this project going forward. He found out in the morning session what the project is going to be, a Denny's 24-hour restaurant. Even though they are in favor, they have concerns for the Commission to address. Parking, the requirement is for 91 parking spaces, the variance requested 43 spaces, which is less than 50% of what is required. Years ago when the property was built, as well as the property next door, 75 parking spaces were approved for 119 hotel rooms. He emphasized that should this restaurant not have enough parking, seeing that there is no parking allowed in The Anaheim Resort on the City streets, they feel the restaurant parking lot, if full, would overflow into their lot. They can provide no additiona{ parking for the restaurant. Item No. 2 refers to noise. He did not know until this morning what the project would be, there was something about an outdoor seating area, they were concerned. However, now that they know it is a restaurant, they are not overly concerned, they just did not want loud music outdoors. • Item No. 3 refers to alcohol, now knowing what the project is there is no large concern about this. Item No. 4 has to do with construction noise and debris. They asked that during the construction process that construction crews coordinate with the hotel management so that guests can be advised when there might be some sort of disturbance expected. Item number 5 has to do with kitchen exhaust in the design of the restaurant. They asked that they be sure the kitchen exhaust does not impact their property, their swimming pool is directly next to where the restaurant is going to be located. He asked that Commission take these items into consideration. Rock Miller from Katz, Okitsu and Associates, Licensed Traffic Engineer. He learned this morning that Commission is concerned with the parking variance. He put together a presentation for Commission. He has appeared before Commission previously on a parking study and related items. His firm does a number of parking studies for Anaheim and other communities throughout Southern California. He feels his recommendations to the City are important, he has more at stake than the private development in front of Commission. Mr. Alfred Yalda has known him for years and he is sure would speak to the fact that their studies are generally reliable, accurate and well written. His firm also does a tremendous amount of work in pedestrian planning and circulation. He did a study on pedestrian capacity problems in The Anaheim Resort area. One key finding in that study related to a pedestrian intercept survey done on Harbor Boulevard directly East of Disneyland, they surveyed people walking along the sidewalk, the second most common response cited for foot traffic was going to restaurants. Most common reason was going to Disneyland, the restaurants amounted to 43% of the people surveyed. u 05-07-01 Page 10 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • They have surveyed a number of restaurants of the type proposed, the parking demand for these types of restaurants is substantially lower than the number required in the City Code, especially when surveyed in the Resort area. The studies read that the parking requirement for a restaurant within the Resort area is the same as outside Resort area. The number is 15 stalls per 1000 square feet, which is a relatively large number and works well for high-quality steakhouses that tend to have long lines of people waiting for long periods of time. This is an excessive number to apply to a restaurant that does not have a lot of people waiting. The restaurants surveyed in this area are primarily breakfast and lunch restaurants, Denny's, Baker's Square and Carrow's. They have consistently come up with a relatively low requirement for those restaurants. An environment where it could be as many as half the people arrive by foot if the Disneyland surveys are correct, and also the nature of this restaurant is such that it will not require the same 15 stalls as a high-quality steakhouse would have with a waiting list. Surveys related to this show the TraveLodge hotel does have parking problems. He has surveyed a number of hotels. The number of about .6-parking stalls per room is the number below when things get into trouble. The City of Anaheim's Code and most projects in the City are built at a rate of .8 to 1, the majority of the projects do not have parking problems. He evaluated this project to see how close to .6 it came. He studied the Stovall's Best Western near Katella and Ball Road and Disney Drive, which is also parked at .6 per room, and has no additional allowance for a restaurant on site. When they hear of a parking problem, they find that the minimums surveyed and measured are being violated for these properties. The hotels during lunch hour are quite empty and so are nearby restaurants. He drove by TraveLodge before coming to the meeting, this is not 100°/a occupancy time of season, the lot was 25% full. People arrive and leave. He has gone to the McDonalds across from Disneyland to figure parking there, at 1:00 p.m. there were 18 stalls used, 68 stalls vacant, and a charter tour bus in back using a number of stalls, and the police sub-station occupying 5 stalls. He has been there a number of times to study pedestrian capacity and the restaurant is always full, the parking lot is generally empty, and • he feels this is symptomatic of having a restaurant near Disneyland. Millie's and Acapulco were very empty at noon today. He has done surveys in that area, would it be possible from what he and the C know and what the industry knows, to come up with a set of parking standards that might work for developments in the area? There are the City Codes, which were intended to work for Anaheim Hills downtown and older areas of the City which are not applicabie to this development. The project will h more than adequate parking for a development of this type. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ity , the ave Commissioner Bostwick asked if the study Mr. Miller did based on square footage, how many persons can you seat in a restaurant when finished? What is the seating? Mr. Miller stated 130 seats approximately. That would amount to 30 to 35 tables, 4 people per table. Commissioner Bostwick stated this does not figure in tables of 2 or 6 people, or the counter where each person drives a car. On the list provided in the traffic study, what is the seating capacity of each restaurant? Mr. Miller stated he did not know. Normally they do parking by the number of seats, and cars present, and this is divided by the square footage of the restaurant since you cannot control the number of seats. This is a fairly reliable measure of seating capacity. ~ 05-07-01 Page 11 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMM1SSlON MINUTES • Commissioner Bostwick stated the Carrow's at 100 North State College, the peak demand is 36 spaces. On Sunday morning they are parked on the street, Saturday morning they are parking on State College Boulevard, and the side street. If the lot is full they park in the alley. There is not enough parking for the number of patrons there. Commission mentioned in the morning session that Denny's on Harbor Boulevard and the IHOP both do not have enough parking and demand would show that, but they are with hotels and the hotels do not have enough parking. Mr. Nim from TraveLodge indicated there is no way to have extra parking from them. Some of these are together, the Denny's that is on Katella at West Street is tied with another motel, so there is motel parking to go with it, there is no way to do that on this site. To make the study and come up with some kind of viability, they need to know how many tables are in each of these restaurants in comparison to these number of parking spaces, and what kind of occupancy is taking place, rather than counting cars in the lot. They do not know if that is a full lot. If they have a peak of 37 was the restaurant full with a waiting list or is this half full? There is no parking on Harbor or Orangewood, if the 43 spots are it, he does not see how this will be done. Mr. Miller stated that his properties do share parking with hotels. He does not know the formula applied in every case to establish the parking, but he knows that there are formulas that should be applied to restaurants sharing their parking with hotels. One source he mentioned was the Shared-Parking Guide which was referenced a number of times in the past in studies. Alfred Yalda stated they required 93 and provided 41. Commissioner Bostwick stated that this location has a shared parking with the hotel. Alfred Yalda said that was not taken into consideration • Mr. Miller stated that at the Baker's Square restaurant in that vicinity, a couple of properties south of Orangewood, there are 27 stalls used around noon which is peak time at that restaurant, there were 54 stalls vacant. He feels that that was fairly representative. That is one lot south of Orangewood. Commissioner Vanderbilt noted that a lot of the time periods quoted in the study show "N/A" does it mean not available or not applicable? Mr. Milfer indicated that this was near Disney on Katella (still referring to Baker's Square) and it was so close to the hotel that they felt during other hours it was not possible to identify the demand for the restaurant versus the demand for the hotel. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that he was talking about the Baker's Square restaurant he referred to at noon today. Mr. Miller indicated there is data for every hour surveyed on that property and there are other parking lots that were to provide spaces and do not have the required amount. He stated that Commissioner Vanderbilt brought up a valid issue of why certain coffee shop restaurants have a problem on Saturdays and Sundays. This relates to the market they are intended for and to the Resort area setting. The Anaheim Resort area is a very different situation, there are more coffee shops and restaurants of that type than the surrounding residential neighborhood would ever need. Commissioner Arnold asked Alfred Yalda to clarify the observation made by Commissioner Bostwick and the applicant, that Saturday and Sunday mornings do tend to be over-peak times for certain types of restaurants that serve breakfast. Does he have any sense of what other cities do in this regard? 1s there any evidence, studies, any patterns of how other cities deal with this? ~~ ~J 05-07-01 Page 12 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Alfred Yalda said he does not think there is any particular city that would have a different requirement for their parking on Saturday and Sunday, he said that some might be next to office buildings or some type of commercial buildings that could be unoccupied and use their parking spaces, but generally speaking, they look at the parking for the majority of days, not only Saturday and Sunday because you may have a demand for Sunday morning of 50 people, but six days of the week for breakfast, lunch and dinner your demand might be half of that. When designing they try to look at the parking supply for the majority of the time. Commissioner Bostwick is correct, sometimes on Saturday and Sunday, occasionally some of these sites for example the Carrow's on State College Boulevard, may have more demand and that is reasonable because there is no tourist area there. As Mr. Miller mentioned, there are people going to that restaurant on Saturday and Sunday for breakfast. Commissioner Bostwick said that he is cancerned, although he can appreciate Millie's or Denny's on Katella, and that restaurants like these are attached with a hotel seem to always have some parking when you go there. When it is a standalone, and this is a standalone facility, it does not have that ability to have any extra parking, it concerns him that we are less than 50% of the standard. Mr. Noble stated the new Carrow's that is being built down the street that Alfred Yalda referenced, the requirement was 90 or 93 and they have 41. There is a hotel next door but you have to go through their lot. He feels that a person that is going to a restaurant is not going to park in the hotel to go to the restaurant when it is this situation. If their parking lots are shared then yes they would park there. 7he hotel patrons will park in a restaurant parking lot if they are spending the night. A person trying to eat dinner is not going to park at a hotel. Commissioner Bristol questioned Mr. Miller about the survey along Harbor Boulevard and people either going to Disneyland or going to eat. This is at the extreme southern part of Anaheim, it is not easily • walkable to Disneyland so how would he argue pedestrian traffic there? Mr. Miller stated they did survey further south and the farther you go from Disneyland, the traffic is actually higher, they are going to places such as restaurants. It is far from zero, you can go out there anytime and see visible traffic on the sidewalks walking from the extreme southern projects, even properties beyond the City limits walking to the Convention Center or Disneyland. They had estimated in the study they did for the City that there is as much as .1 trip per room, per hour, on the streets and sidewalks of the City of Anaheim walking to someplace, within what was deemed to be walking distance at any time. This was actually multiplied by the hotel room forecast to decide if they thought the sidewalks were going to be overcrowded. Commissioner Bristol asked about Baker's Square where he had "N/A" on the study, what was the rationale for not having any statistics on that? Mr. Miller stated that N/A was at 10:00 p.m., the survey ended at 9:00 p.m. they normally continue surveys into the night until the number starts turning down and the number went from 27 at 7:00 p.m. to 16 at 8:00 p.m. to 15 at 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Bristol stated the one he is looking at, on page six is 7:00, 8:00; 9:00 a.m. He asked if they have breakfast at 7:00 a.m. at Baker's Square. Mr. Miller stated there are two versions of this report, an older one and his. His report has data in the column, Commission's copy does not. There were two tables, weekday and weekend, survey was not taken on the weekend during the earlier hours. They felt that the data taken during the hours that they took it did not show any order of magnitude different than from the hours it was taken. • Commissioner Vanderbilt asked what are the expected hours of operation? 05-07-01 Page 13 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Noble stated 24 hours. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked about outdoor seating, earlier it was mentioned that it is expected to be 130 seats, does this include the outdoor seating? Mr. Noble confirmed it did. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that this parcel is adjacent to an apartment structure behind it, and then another one. Mr. Noble indicated this is now a time-share. There also are a lot of pedestrians walking by through that now. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if the one across street south side of Orangewood, are regular apartments. Mr. Noble said that behind it is the time-share, across the street by Circle K are apartments. Commissioner VanderbilYs concern is that when it comes to large apartment complexes, those generally tend to have overFlow parking and they utilize any other source nearby, there is a small surface street that runs on one side, that whole row will have very little parking available in the evenings because of the apartments influence on it. Mr. Noble asked Commissioner Vanderbilt if he would go out of his way to go to cheaper restaurants if he thought he would be waiting in line, unless he is a tourist? If he lived here, would he go out of this way to • park his car in some hotel or down the street and walk over to eat at Denny's? Outback Steakhouse down the street possibly he might. , Commissioner Vanderbi{t stated if he wanted to eat at midnight and Denny's is open, yes he would go out of his way. Mr. Noble said that he feefs that Planning Commission would probably not go out of their way to find a parking space at these restaurants, at midnight there is parking at Denny's. He felt that that was what Commission was implying was that everyone would go out of their way to park down the nearest street and he does not agree. Commissioner Vanderbilt disagreed with the applicanYs statement stating if it was a Sunday morning he wanted to go to a Carrow's or have breakfast, referring to Carrow's as discussed about the one on State College, he would park on the surface street in order to eat there. Mr. Noble felt if someone was going to Denny's they would walk. The average person that lives in Anaheim would not go out of their way to eat at these places. Commissioner Bristol agreed with the applicant. He has gone out of his way to park at Carrow's at night. If you look at this study and Baker's Square south of this, everytime he goes by this site there is foot traffic, weekend, weekday, there is activity there. When you look at these numbers and assume they are 10% off, you are going to impact parking at that site in the peak hours. It is interesting they get busier during the weekend where you have people come in from out of town versus the people coming from the hotels, and he assumes a lot of the foot traffic comes from the hotels in Garden Grove, and down around the Convention Center. The reality is there is a lot of foot traffic and he agrees with what the applicant is saying. ~ 05-07-01 Page 14 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Arnold stated that he is convinced on the basis of the evidence that they have some concerns about the way parking studies are done and what goes on Saturdays, Sundays and mornings and in order to treat applicants consistently, the same standards need to be applied. If they want to do this differently, Commission then needs to have a workshop and look at peak times for this particular restaurant. Typical parking needs for six or seven days a week, they have to apply this standard to all. Chairperson Koos stated that a study was completed in the past, looking at other cities and Alfred Yalda presented different standards, it was all rolled into the conditional use permit, they require everyone to do a study. He thought perhaps Commission should look into a conditional use permit. Each study stands on its own merit. There are issues about the design of the Denny's on State College because it is different from what was originally proposed. He wants to see the original idea because the applicant knows what they are trying to accomplish and who they are trying to serve. Chairperson Koos stated he respects staff's opinion and they did a wonderful job in the Resort area, but he has seen some of the newer Denny's diner products and is hoping that the applicant is not being limited to be creative or unique just because it does not look homogeneous to the Resort area does not mean it looks bad. Linda Johnson, Principal Planner explained this was a retail building that is being converted into a restaurant, it had to do with conversion and existing walls, therefore there are certain constraints associated with that. There is a lot of vacant land across the street on the west side of Harbor and there are a number of hotels that are approved for those properties, there is potentiai for more foot traffic in the area. ! Commissioner Bristol wondered whether emissions from the facility would go by the pool area. Della Herrick said they have new vents and grease traps that will meet all the standards and wilf not impact neighbors. Commissioner Bristol asked if patrons who eat and smoke in the patio area will disturb the hotel to the north. Della Herrick stated there are only ten seats in the whole outdoor dining area and it faces Harbor with a block wall so it will not face hotel units. Chairperson Koos stated he had issues with the sign because he did not think it was a hardship. Staff made it clear that people coming down Orangewood will see it, yet the applicant is emphasizing a lot of the traffic is foot traffic so it is inconsistent with making sure that they are catering to automobile-using patrons also. Mr. Noble stated staff is reviewing that aspect and feels a corner lot should be entitled to two signs, a wall sign on each side of the street. Linda Johnson stated that property is a legal non-conforming building and, regarding the requested waiver, staff supports a waiver pertaining to signs to a4low the two wal{ signs. Code alfows one wall sign per business, additionally they can have a monument sign. Typically these properties are sandwiched inbetween others so there is one wall sign facing the street and one monument sign that is visible to north and south bound traffic. This property has two frontages and the monument sign is located perpendicular to Harbor which is the only location staff found to be feasible when they were working on the signage. ~ Placement of one wall sign on the building would result in one travel direction not having visibility of signage which is why staff supports the two wall signs. 05-07-01 Page 15 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Koos asked why the wall sign says Denny's as opposed to Denny's Diner. Mr. Noble said it is because of the restriction of the square footage of the sign. The Denny's across from Disneyland is the same, it says Denny's on the building but Denny's Diner on the monument sign. Chairperson Koos feels it should say Denny's Diner not just Denny's. He asked staff if they agreed to allow people to drop off part of their names in the Resort area? Linda Johnson said the signage copy area is very specific in the Resort and the sign being proposed conforms with height dimensions and area of copy. Adding the word "diner" would exceed the copy area. In the Resort area, the name of a business on the wall or sign cannot exceed the letters or title that is set forth in the business license on record with the City. If this restaurant is called Denny's Diner, the sign can say just Denny's and be abbreviated, but it cannot be lengthened. Staff believes that the signage conforms to the Code. Chairperson Koos stated they could reduce the size of the letters. Mr. Noble stated two feet sounds large, but when you put it up in the air it is not so visible. Commissioner Arnold said this puts us into the problem of regulating content which gets into commercial speech areas. Commission cannot tell them what they can call their restaurants rather they regulate the land use impacts of the sign. Chairperson Koos stated he knows where he is going with this because they talked about this two weeks • ago. How far do you take the argument if you cannot regulate the content? Commissioner Arnold responded that they have dealt with this before, trying to tell people they could or could not use logos or names and they were advised that it is beyond the scope of Commission's authority. It is the applicants choice in how they want to identify themselves and as long as it is part of their identified name and log, it is fine. I FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, 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 the subject request. Approved Waiver of Code Requirement as follows: Approved waiver (a) pertaining to utility equipment screening and location requirements. (Vote: 7-0) Approved waiver (b) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces. (Vote: 5-2, Commissioners Bostwick and Vanderbilt voting no) Approved waiver (c) pertaining to the permitted number of wall signs and Sign Standard Matrix requirements based on the findings as stated in the staff report • dated May 7, 2001. (Vote: 5-2, Chairperson Koos and Commissioner Vanderbilt voting no.) 05-07-01 Page 16 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04351 subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated May 7, 2001. VOTE ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04351: 6-1 (Commissioner Vanderbilt voting no) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 47 minutes (1:57-2:44) • • 05-07-01 Page 17 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4163 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04348) OWNER: Southern California Alcohol and Drug Programs, 11500 South Paramount Boulevard, Downey, CA 90241 LOCATION: 321 North State Coilege Boulevard. Property is 0.69 acres, having a frontage of 91 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard located 310 feet south of the centerline of Redwood Avenue. Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification of a Condition of Approval pertaining to a time limitation (originally approved on December 6, 1999 to expire December 6, 2000) to retain a substance abuse recovery center for women and their dependent children. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-59 Approved Approved reinstatement for 3 years (to expire on May 7, 2004). (Vote: 6-1, Chairperson Koos voted no) SR1101TW.DOC Introduction by Staff: • Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request to reinstate a previously- approved permit for a substance abuse recovery center for women and dependent children. Staff recommends approval of a reinstatement for two years, applicant is requesting five. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Statement: Alan Golden, 2888 East Walnut Street, Pasadena stated that the current condition indicates 44 persons at the facility, and only 17 may be adults. The City Attorney previously stated there cannot be a distinction between children and adults. Secondly, they would like a five-year reinstatement because they have complied with all the requirements. This is a non-profit agency funded by County of Orange and it is too expensive to return before Commission. Linda Pal, Executive Director of Southern California Alcohol and Drug Programs, reiterated what Mr. Goldman has said, the exact number of women and children will change from week to week, but there will be no more than 44 people present, the Fire Department gave clearance for 21 adults. Public Testimony: Ann Phillips, Anaheim, stated there is a statute in California that requires if a person has died in or at a particular property that be made known. Applicant's Rebuttal: Alan Goldman stated that there have been no deaths at this facility, if there were, it woufd be recorded by law. L ~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 05-07-01 Page 18 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • Commissioner Arnold asked if the permit from the Fire Marshal limited this to 21 adults. Linda Pal stated they are licensed by the State of California Department of Alcohol and Drug programs which requires the Fire Department to put a delineation of number of adults on the license. Commissioner Arnold asked her what the basis is of that? Linda Pal stated they fimit the number of children that they deem acceptable for one adult woman to have in a facility at the same time because it is difficult for her to concentrate on her drug and alcohol program with too many children. It is a programmatic decision not a Fire Department decision. Commissioner Arnold stated he is confused as to how the Fire Department gets involved. Linda Pal replied that no one can have a licensed facility without the approval of the City Fire Department Commissioner Boydstun stated that in the December 6, 1999 meeting, it was written a maximum of 20 women and perhaps 44 individuals including children. Linda Pal replied 20 is acceptable. DURING THE ACTION: Commissioner Bristol asked if Commissioner Arnold was willing to go to 5 years. Commissioner Arnold stated he could go longer if Commission agreed. • Se1ma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated that last time, she recommended the deletion of the condition and it was modified to say it was limited to a maximum occupancy of 44 patrons. If the State is limiting it on it's own, then they should indicate that occupants will be in compliance with their State license, but in no event greater than 44 patrons, that way references are deleted with regard to the number of adults. Commissioner Arnold modified the resolution to say that this facility shall be limited to a maximum occupancy of 44 patrons and comply with applicable state permit requirements. Commissioner Bristol feels three years is sufficient Commissioner Boydstun asked what would happen if the State decided to become lenient. She feels it should be the way it was. Greg McCafferty advised that Condition No. 5 in the December 6, 1999 staff report stated "this facility shall be limited to a maximum occupancy of 44 patrons (including a maximum of 17 adult women)" but that during the meeting the Commission modified it to say 44 patrons. Chairperson Koos said he does not have a problem with the facility, but he does not want to leave the door open for the State. • 05-07-01 Page 19 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • • ~ ~- • ~ • ~ ~ • OPPOS1710N: 1 person spoke 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. 4163 (Tracking No. CUP 2001-04348) to retain a substance abuse recovery center for women and their dependent children. Amended Resolution No. PC99-213 in its entirety to be replaced with a new resolution with the following conditions of approval: That this permit shall expire three (3) years from the date of this resolution, on May 7, 2004. 2. That no signs shall be permitted for this facility. 3. That all existing and proposed landscaping shall be maintained and replaced in the event that it becomes diseased or dies. 4. That the existing playground equipment shall be maintained at least 15 feet from the southern and western property lines. • 5. That this facility shall be limited to a maximum occupancy of 44 patrons and comp(y with applicable State permit requirements. 6. That on-site supervision shall be provided 24-hours a day. 7. That existing trash storage areas shall be maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. The wa11s of the storage areas shall be maintained with plant materials such as minimum 1-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. 8. That an on-site trash truck turn-around area shall be maintained per Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. 9. That emergency vehicular access shall be maintained in accordance with Fire Department Specifications and Requirements. 10. That lockable pedestrian and/or vehicular access gates shall be maintained with Knox devices as required and approved by the Fire Department. 11. 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 ~ Nos. 1(Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No. 2), 3, and 4 and as conditioned herein. 05-07-01 Page 20 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 12. That Building No. 2 shall be limited to the existing floor plan of two (2), 2-bedroom units and two (2) 1-bedroom units. 13. That residents shall not be permitted to drive or store their automobiles while residing on site. 14. That this approval does not include the dispensing of inedical treatment to the residents. 15. That this facility shall be specifically limited to a six (6) month stay residential substance abuse treatment program facility for pregnant/parenting adult women and their dependent children. 16. That playground hours shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. from September 1 to March 31 and 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. from April 1 to August 31. 17. That should this facility cease to operate at this location, all residential structures shall be converted back to their original condition, including the number of bedrooms existing at the time of approval. 18. 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: 6-1 (Chairperson Koos voted no) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 17 minutes (2:45-3:03) ~ 05-07-01 Page 21 MAY 7, 2Q01 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION A roved pp 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04350 Granted OWNER: 935 South Gilbert Street Partners, L.P., 2600 (Vote: 6-0, Michelson Drive, Suite 1050, Irvine, CA 92612 Commissioner Boydstun voting no) AGENT: Meta Housing Corporation, Attn: Sean Clark, 4100 West Alameda Avenue, #205, Burbank, CA 91505 LOCATION: 935 South Gilbert Street. Property is 0.8 acres, having a frontage of 154 feet on the west side of Gilbert Street, located 203 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road. To construct a 34-unit "affordable" senior citizen's apartment complex with a density bonus, with waiver of (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, and (b) maximum structural height. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-60 SR2066DS.DOC Introduction by Staff: • Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated this is a request to construct a 34-unit aff ordable senior citizens apartment complex with two waivers and staff is in support of the request. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. ApplicanYs Statement: Shawn Clark, 4100 West Alameda Boulevard, Burbank, California. This project is a 34-unit affordable senior apartment complex which is two stories over structured parking. This has been before Planning Commission before and was approved, they are looking for the same approval as before. This project depends on an number of sources, such as federal low income housing tax credits and it is a competitive process. Redevelopment has provided a commitment to provide financial assistance. If they win an allocation of credits, (they will know by August), they hope to begin construction by the end of the year with 9 to 12 months of construction to complete and put the building in service. This project is 100% affordable. The requirements of the affordability agreement with the Redevelopment Agency and the Affordability Covenant that is obligated to them by virtue of app{ying for and taking a conditional use permit for this use, requires that they provide at least 25% of the units at levels of 35% of very median income and below, and the other 24% at 50% of very median and below, 25% at affordability rents of 60% or greater. • 05-07-01 Page 22 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Public Testimony: Norman Jefson, 913 South Gilbert, Anaheim. He is in the third house north of this project on same side of street. He has lived there 44 years and is the original owner. He has no problem with the project except for the design. Looking at the map Commission has, there is one driveway, a single driveway in and out of the building. It exits and enters off Gilbert. Gilbert is now a major thoroughfare. It is difficult even backing out to exit his driveway. Apply that with this place, where there are at lest 38 units, 40 to 50 cars. Why not have an opening into Bruce Street on the west side of the building, this creates two accesses, they can go north and south there, or take lateral streets and go any direction they want. Across the street there is another senior citizen building, there are always emergency vehicles there, if you want emergency vehicles in there, why not have several exits? Mr. See stated there is no engineering problem with opening up underground parking to exit west to Bruce Street. The east elevation of the building they show the perimeter walls around the building, except on Gilbert, are the homeowners going to look into their garages and cars? Why not have walls on the east side? He suggested a traffic study before this is approved. There has to be two accesses to that buifding. He went down Bruce Street at noon today, there were no cars, there are thousands of cars on Gilbert, north and south, he has seen the traffic from Ba11 Road past his house in southbound traffic. Ann Phillips, Anaheim, asked if this is in compliance with rules and regulations, as there are others in need as well besides owners and seniors. Applicant's Rebuttal: Mr. Clark noted that Mr. Jefson's concerns were discussed at the design phase. They actually spent a lot of time thinking about traffic and ingress/egress off of Bruce. Most concerns came from the • neighborhood. A couple of things specifically limit the kind of things that go on Bruce Street. There is a THE PUBLIC HEARIN WAS CLOSED. pedestrian gate on Bruce Street, and in the conditional use permit it is specific that the gate can only be used for service, and is not for normal resident activity on Bruce Street or on-street parking. A line-of-site study was done on cars exiting the project to ensure no conflict with traffic going down Gilbert. Radius' turning into the parking structure were carefully analyzed. Issues were addressed and thought through during the design and presented to Commission initially. Commissioner Boydstun agrees with Mr. Jefson about traffic on Gilbert Street. She feels it is a safety item and there should be another access. She stated it is much easier to get in off Gilbert, but there should be another way to get out. Traffic does back up. Commissioner Bostwick stated that if tenants pull into the garage they will come out face first, they are not backing out into traffic, they will pull out into traffic. Going out on Bruce Street and entering traffic on Ball Road is more difficult than trying to cross the one lane of traffic to go north on Gilbert, rather than crossing two lanes and a divider on Ball Road. He believes they went through this before and the project design is acceptable as is. Mr. Clark agreed, noting that when coming out of the garage that the slope of the garage is such that they are eye level with Gilbert to see up and down the street. Commissioner Bristol asked about going north on Gilbert, there was talk about the line-of-site, a right hand turn on Gilbert to go south and looking to the left, wasn't there a line-of-site regarding the cars? Is parking aflowed there? • 05-07-01 Page 23 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Alfred Yalda said that there was a study done, they made sure that is clear for the line-of-site distance and this has been done. Commissioner Bristol stated that a street light will be right there. Mr. Clark responded that one is being moved. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke with concerns. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement as fol{ows: Approved waiver (a) pertaining to minimum building site area per dwelling unit and (b) pertaining to maximum structural height based on the findings as listed in the staff report dated May 7, 2001. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04350 subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated May 7, 2001. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun voting no). Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. • DISCUSSION TIME: 15 minutes 3:04-3:19 ~ ) ~ 05-07-01 Page 24 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMlSSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00392 6c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00048 6d. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04433 6e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16036 (SUBTTM 16036) 6f. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 6c, 6d and 6e OWNER: Southridge Development, 22421 Gilberto, Suite A, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92856 AGENT: Robert D. Mickelson, PO Box 932, Orange, CA 92856 LOCATION; Property is located at the northeast corner of Imperial Highway and Via Escola (no address). General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00392: Requests approval of a General Plan Amendment to redesignate subject property from the General Open Space land use designation to the Hillside Low Density Residential land use designation. Reclassification No. 2001-00048: To reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (SC) (Residential/Agricultural; Scenic Corridor Overlay) • Zone to the RS-7200 (SC) (Residential, Single-Family; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone. Variance No. 2001-04433: Waiver of (a) minimum lot depth adjacent to an arterial highway, (b) maximum wall height (deleted), (c) minimum lot area (deleted}, (d) minimum lot width and (e) orientation of residential structures, to establish a 11-lot, RS-7200(SC) Zone single-family subdiv'ssion for 11 detached residences. Tentative Tract Map No. 16036: To establish a 11-Iot, RS-7200(SC) Zone subdivision for 11 single-family detached residences. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-61 RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-62 VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-63 • Approved Recommended adoption of Exhibit A to City Council Granted Granted, in part Approved Recommended City Council review (Vote: 7-0) SR7978KB.DOC 05-07-01 Page 25 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Introduction by Staff: Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item to Commission as General Plan Amendment No. 2001- 00392, Reclassification No. 2001-00048, Variance No. 2001-04433 and Tentative Tract Map No. 16036, to redesignate this property from General Open Space to Hillside Low Density Residential. A Reclassification from RSA-43000 (Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to RS-7200 Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. Waivers of minimum lot depth adjacent to an arterial highway and minimum lot width and orientation of residential structures with regard to Waivers B and C, those have been deleted and the last request is to establish an 11-lot RS-7200 Zone, single-family subdivision. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. ApplicanYs Statement: Bob Mickelson, PO Box 932, Orange, California, representing Southridge Development, the proposed developer. This is an irregularly-shaped triangular parcel that is rather elongated from east to west. They are proposing to put a single-family subdivision on this, as outlined in the staff report. A couple of historical statements were made to help Commission understand why they designed the track as they did. There have been many meetings with the property owners adjacent to the north and the homeowners association. They indicated that there were many projects that they would oppose but that they would support a high-quality residential project. One main concern expressed was having two-story homes near edge of the "pad" and looming over backyards. In discussions, Southridge Development agreed to a voluntary 25-foot setback from the edge of the "pad" along the north boundary. That led them to orient the lots in that direction. They are asking a • variance in width of lot as they are deeper to compensate for the 25-foot setback. They have indicated that this would be on the record map, in the CC&R's and on the deeds, so that each property owner that buys will know they have that setback. It is their intent to allow swimming pools, gazebos or the like, not habitable buildings. They buy and sell agreements on the access right-of-way that is being vacated from the old alignment of Imperial Highway, these facts are in writing to support this. Regarding the two variances dropped, the first one they felt an eight-foot wall would be desirable for sound attenuation. However, in evaluating it with staff they agree that six feet is adequate. He made an apology to the neighbors regarding lot size, it was always their intent to put minimum RS-7200, they did submit a map with drafting and clerical errors that indicated a few lots slightly under RS-7200, this has been corrected this variance is dropped. Other variance stafF agrees with, they have reviewed the conditions and find them acceptable. Specifics in staff report, on page 5, paragraph 18, plan shows six-foot wall would be constructed along north and west property lines, in the existing single family residences to north. Those lots that have the rear yard abutting the residences to the north, will be 40-50 feet higher in elevation. It would be their intent to have a low wall, with an open wrought iron or tubular steel fence above that to allow the view. This has been explained to the neighbors and they understand this. In looking at a plan there is an error where they intend to place the block wall, he presented an exhibit with the intended block wall noted. On Lot 9 there is a long skinny triangular portion of it which they felt was not suitable for the landowner to maintain, this is included in the right-of-way side, there will be a maintenance agreement that this area will be a softening effect of the wall along Imperial Highway, and this will be maintained by the homeowners along with five-foot set back along Imperial and Via Escola. Since this is a small project, 11 lots, the homes are not designed specifically forthis. ~ 05-07-01 Page 26 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • There are several top quality builders that are interested in either purchasing or joint venture building. One is, and the most likely is Sheffield Homes out of Riverside, they built Porto Firo in Orange, a very high-quality project. He brought examples of floor plans/elevations, and a brochure of latest project. They are in agreement with Condition No. 5 and will bring the final plans back for review before receiving building permits. They did not design an entry wall sign, if they do they will bring it to the Planning Department with the plans so that it can be reviewed at the same time. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt for the record, talked to applicant, viewed the location with him and the statements today are consistent with what he was shown at that time. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Recommended City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00392, Exhibit A(to redesignate this property from the General Open Space land use designation to the Hillside Low Density Residential land use designation). Granted Reclassification No. 2001-00048 (to reclassify this property from the • RS-A-43,000(SC) Zone to the RS-7200(SC) Zone based on the rezoning being consistent with the proposed General Plan land use designation of Hillside Low Density Residential. Granted Variance No. 2001-04433, in part, as follows, subject to the conditions as stated in the staff report dated May 7, 2001: Approved waivers (a) pertaining to minimum lot depth adjacent to an arterial highway, (d) pertaining to minimum lot width, and (e) pertaining to orientation of residential structures; and Denied waivers (b) pertaining to maximum wall height and (c) pertaining to minimum lot area, based on the following: That waivers (b) and (c) were denied since these requested waivers have been deleted and the project complies with these development standards. Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 16036 (to establish an 11-lot detached single-family subdivision). Recommended City Council consideration of the negative declaration, reclassification, variance and tentative tract map in conjunction with City Council's mandatory review of the general plan amendment. • 05-07-01 Page 27 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (3:20-3:30) • • 05-07-01 Page 28 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 7b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00047 May 21, 2001 7c. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04432 7d. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2000-211 (SUBTPM 2000-211) OWNER; Donald Skjerven, 1020 North Batavia Street, #Q, Orange, CA 92867 LOCATION: 1628 West Orangewood Avenue. Property is 0.43 acres having a frontage of 100 feet on the south side of Orangewood Avenue, located 100 feet east of the centeriine of Della Lane. Reclassification No. 2001-00047: Requests approval of Reclassification to reclassify this property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone to the RS-7200 (Residential, Single- Family) Zone. Variance No. 2001-04432: Waiver of (a) minimum lot depth, (b) minimum lot size, (c) minimum lot width, and (d) orientation of residential structures, to establish a 3-lot RS-7200 zoned single-family residential subdivision. • Tentative Parcel Map No. 2000-211: To establish a 3-lot, single-family residential subdivision. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. SR7981 KP.DOC OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the May 21, 2001 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 05-07-01 Page 29 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04349 OWNER: Pacific Media Property, Attn: Warren Owens, PO Box 2248, Orange, CA 92859 AGENT: Dumitru D. Popa, Jr., 11902 Brookhaven Street, Garden Grove, CA 92840 LOCATION: 1319 and 1325 South Euciid Street. Property is 0.66 acres located at the northwest corner of Euclid Street and Chalet Avenue. To permit a twenty-four (24) hour child care center for up to 90 chiidren. CONDITIONAL. USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to May 21, 2001 SR1006GK.DOC OPPOSITION: None • ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTiON CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the May 21, 2001 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 05-07-01 Page 30 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~~ ~__~ 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04347 OWNER: White Star Business Park, 1020 North Batavia, #B, Orange, CA 92867 AGENT: Richard Johnson, 2821 East White Star Avenue, #D, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 2821 East White Star Avenue. Property is 2.1 acres located at the northeast corner of Blue Gum Street and White Star Avenue. To permit a cooperative art museum, gallery and meeting hall with waiver of the minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-64 Approved Denied Denied (Vote: 7-0) SR1100TW.DOC Note: In the middle of the public hearing items Richard Johnson came into council stating to the overall chambers that his item was postponed, referring to Item No. 9. Chairperson Koos asked what item he was yelling about. Mr. Johnson indicated his item was cancelled and nobody had notified him. Commissioner Bostwick asked again what item number, with no response. • Introduction by Staff: Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item and stated this is a request to permit a cooperative arts museum, gallery and meeting hall with waiver of the minimum number of parking spaces. Staff recommends that Commission deny this request, staff feels it is not compatible with the industrial uses that surround this property. Commission should have a number of letters and correspondence on this item. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Statement: Richard Johnson, 2821 East Whitestar, Anaheim. He is proposing an open forum cooperative art museum and gallery. The main opponent is that this is an industrial area, he presented a copy of the yellow pages and stated it is the only art gallery in Anaheim. Two doors over is a bar and restaurant which does not go with the area. They are only open at night from 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., parking is a non-issue. He has submitted a petition signed by his neighbors saying there is no problem with this. He noticed that Item No. 23 on page 4 of the staff report indicates a call to the Newport Beach Police Department, asking about excessive noise complaints and that they were suspected of giving alcohol to minors. He called Newport Beach Police May 7, 2001 and spoke with Lt. Whitman the noise ordinance officer, who said their complaints were not extensive. He spoke with Glen Devereau of the Newport Beach City Manager who is a gallery volunteer, and his paper work that is being faxed over said there • 05-07-01 Page 31 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • were no extensive noise complaints.at the Campus location. The Newport Beach location is a commercial location. No drinking, but if you are 21 and a member you can bring your own alcohol. No sharing is allowed, if you share your membership is withdrawn and you are kicked out. They do not give out food, they charge $2.00 to come in and look at the art. No free wine and cheese, he does not want to be a nuisance to the City of Anaheim that is why he is in an industrial area. Mr. Johnson asked the audience to raise their hands showing their support of the subject item, approximately 10 people raised their hands. They are artists who pay a lease. They have joined and contributed $150 to the Arts Counsel Suare. He is on the Arts Counsel Election Board this year and is also judging the CHOC contest in Anaheim, but he cannot show his art in Anaheim. He called Business License before moving in and was told a business license and entertainment permit was needed. He met with Planning, and has paid $1100 to date. This is a memorial art gallery for a friend who was murdered in her home. A bar in 1982 received a conditional use permit that is still good, they have a three year parking permit, his art gallery conditional use permit is only good for a year. He questioned why a security guard was needed for poetry reading. They will have about 14 people at a reading. When people perform at Electra they are the security guards. He indicated he is suspected of contributing alcohol to minors. He will research this as Newport Beach Police Department said they did not say this. According to Anaheim Police Department's Sgt. Randy West, he contacted the Newport Beach Police Department and found out this business is disturbing the peace and furnishing alcohol to minors, yet they are still in business. Newport Beach Police Department never came by. James Todhunter, 36 Topeka, Irvine, Ca4ifornia, he produces business refated videos. He was Mr. Johnson's neighbor in Newport Beach for several years. When Mr. Johnson would hold an event the • place would be cleaner the next day. He is indeed strict about minors showing up, alcohol on the premises, trash, vandalism and he always provides security. The Campus {ocation was next to John Wayne Airport, the building is across from the maximum thrust area of the airliners reverse thrusters, there is no noise issue, this is all zoned for office and light industriaL Absolutely no alcohol is sold on the premises. Regarding zoning for industrial, they do have sculpting classes on the premises, which involves banging metal, pounding wood, and so forth, it is industrial. His main reason for being there is as a character reference for Mr. Johnson, whatever provisions Planning Commission puts down, he will stick by. He was very good about this with Newport Seach City which is perplexing about this noise item. 1f you go to the art gallery you will find that 80% are people that have no hope of making a future for themselves, of the remaining 20%, 15% is good, the remaining 5% are the ones you should issue the variance for. Chairperson Koos asked staff to provide the background. Greg McCafFerty stated that this use is without Planning Commission's review through a conditional use permit process. Mr. Johnson did come to Zoning and request a business license for the use he is requesting. He was informed at that time that the use he was proposing was not a permitted nor conditionally permitted use in the subject location. However, to give him the opportunity to be before Commission, they accepted his application. Staff continues to think that this use does not serve the industrial area, it is not compatible with the area, it is not compatible with the Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Johnson referred to the restaurant that serves the surrounding industrial tenants, it is not a bar, bars are • not permitted in that zone. 05-07-01 Page 32 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Sgt. Randy West responded to the applicanYs points. Investigator McKnight of the Vice Detail at the Newport Beach Police Department was contacted regarding this location. The applicant may not be aware of any undercover operations or investigations conducted by the Newport Beach Police Department inside his location. Any information provided in memo in the report was provided by the Newport Beach Vice Detail. Greg McCafferty stated there was the mention of an art gallery at that location, there is no art gallery at that location. An adjacent tenant space manufacturers statuary and things of this nature, at most this is probably wholesale art type products, not an art gallery. Chairperson Koos asked Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager if a conditional use permit is only because we do not grant use variances. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated the use as it is being portrayed does not fit into any categories under the permitted or the conditionally permitted uses for this development area of this specific plan. This was for convenience to get it before the Planning Commission at applicanYs request. The meeting hall was the way it was brought to Commission, however, as has been heard, it is more than that. David Myers and Tim Callan were each called as a speaker as they had filled out a speaker card but had left the hearing. Public Testimony: Jonathan Cook, 3321 East Quartz, #A261, Fullerton. He has been attending AAA Electra 99 and • supporting and sponsoring the gallery for three years. He submitted that this provides a place for artists to show their work who otherwise could not show at a more upscale gallery, it is also a place for artists to meet, feed off each other, poetry readings, other things to see that art can be a part of their everyday life. Steve Davis, 7726 Lilac Lane, Santa Susanna. He stated that as an artist who has performed there maybe 20 times in the last two years, he feels the community needs this outlet. Regarding the charges about alcohol, he has never seen underage people drinking, never seen any trouble there at all. Jeff Streed, 25126 Wilkes Place, Laguna Hills. He is a student at Orange Coast College studying art. He does not know too much about permits, his perspective/feelings as to why this would benefit City of Anaheim, is that artists need to have a community, a place to exchange ideas, a place in Orange County to feel welcome, this place is a good use of time for the youth of this County. He asked that they please support it supports Anaheim and their youth. Helen Charles, Long Beach. She is a singer, who came to AAA Electra by way of an artist exhibiting there. She met Mr. Johnson, learned of his vision for this gallery and she and her friends feel this is a good forum for them. An opportunity for her as singer, to develop and grow and advance. Her point about AAA Electra is the embracing of diversity, there is every type of art, every type of patron there. She feels that anything that promotes diversity and a free form of artistic expression on every level not with limitations or judgement, and not with any input as to what is or is not good, bad, otherwise art or form of expression, should always be promoted. That is what keeps our society free and reinforces the purpose of free speech. To shut down AAA Electra and cut them off would be a disservice to the City of Anaheim. ~~ ~_J 05-07-01 Page 33 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Applicant's Rebuttal: Richard Johnson, stated that they do not serve alcohol to minors, they not a threat to the community or surrounding services. They like us there, we are there at night, they are there during the day. THE PUBLICHEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun asked why or how people can bring alcohol in, which would be breaking ABC rules. Richard Johnson stated that most galleries hand out wine, champagne, cheese but they do not. They sold water and soda, but they stopped as they were losing money. No glasses, no sharing, no drunks, are allowed. Your membership privileges are revoked. Chairperson Koos asked for clarification that they do not allow drinking glasses? Do they drink it out of the bottles? Richard Johnson stated they take it away and use cups. If they come with alcoho{ and iYs in a bottle. They also check for identification. Chairperson Koos questioned Mr. Johnson in that he lets people in the establishment bringing alcohol in off the street. He then asked the Police Department to comment on the legalities of this. Sgt. West stated that regarding the legality, he believes they would have to get a one-day permit from ABC, then there are liability issues. He is allowing alcoholic beverages on the property and cannot furnish • them, the sales or furnishing of alcohol would be violating the law. Richard Johnson stated that they do not furnish alcohol just a cup. Commissioner Bristol and Commissioner Boydstun stated simultaneously that he is allowing this. Mr. Johnson stated that Santa Ana is full of art galleries and not one has a business license. Laguna Beach Art Galleries are not required to have a conditional use permit just a business license. In Newport Beach all they were required to have was a business license and entertainment permit. Greg McCafferty stated there was one other point with regard to the alcohol. From a land use perspective, there is no way for the City of Anaheim to control the number of times afcohol is brought to the premises. How the Code is constructed now, you cannot have a bar, or cocktail lounge, you can have a restaurant with or without a cocktail lounge in that zone, you just cannot have a bar in that zone, it is not permitted. Chairperson Koos indicated this is a good point, even bars, convenience bars can sell beer or wine. With a conditional use permit they often stipulate how much percentage of the sales can be alcohol. There are mechanisms the City of Anaheim has to control the flow. If the proposal is on any given Saturday have people come off the street, and you have a plastic cup that you give them, there is no way for us or the Police Department to get an idea of the operation on any given weekend or weekday. Richard Johnson said Commission could stipulate they do not have alcohol. Chairperson Koos indicated that generally alcohol is a"hoY' issue. • Mr. Johnson said he understood Commission's concern with that. 05-07-01 Page 34 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bristol questioned that in this area, regarding the applicanYs comment about the conditional use permit, this is in a specific plan, the Northeast Redevelopment Area is very specifically designed for fight industrial, industrial/commercial uses and your proposed use does not fit. It is not part of the objective of this area. Therefore, Mr. Johnson is required to have a conditional use permit. Commissioner Bristol asked to hear what Community Development said in their staff report. Robert Gorson, Anaheim Redevelopment Agency/Community Development Department. One thing that they identified in the memo from Carrie Kim is that there is a plan they have been working on for 18 months to re-brand the area currently, and in the specific plan, it is called the Anaheim Canyon Business Center. The idea of the new image for the area to focus on high technology. The idea is create a new image called the Canyon, with a tag line of Center for Advanced Technology. They are entering into the design phase and will be coming to Commission and City Council for approval. They do not feel that these kinds of land uses are consistent with the new image they are trying to create in the 2,645-acre project area. Greg McCafferty, mentioned in the morning working session about the direct compatibility of this use with surrounding land uses. Right across the street is a Regional Resource Recoveries Material facility which is basically a transfer site for residentiai refuse, that is a heavier industrial use which is across the street from where this establishment is now. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked to entertain in terms of what is currently permitted. The evaluation, on page 4 of the staff report Item 19, states the petitioner has requested that Commission consider this use as a private club, lodge, or meeting hall which is a conditional permitted use in the zone. In the next paragraph it states, exhibition halls are permitted in other zones, commercial, office. It seems based on the testimony that this is some sort of fusion of the two and then there is what is being talked about in • terms of what is visioned in the future. He asked Mr. Gorson if he anticipates that private clubs, lodges, or meeting halls would be permitted in this zone with this new vision for this area? Robert Gorson stated they are concentrating on heavy industrial or high tech R& D type technology firms in the area. This is a general industrial zoned area in the specific plan. What he was referring to is the new image or re-branding vision that they have for the area. Cammissioner Vanderbilt said that in the context of saying given this future use, this particular request would be further from what is envisioned. As for today, and as he reads in the staff report, it says private clubs, lodges or meeting halls are permitted with a conditional use permit. Mr. Gorson stated that the use as presented in the staff report is not permitted today. That is what stafF is trying to suggest to Commission and he was trying to add to that is this vision that they see in re-branding the area in the future. Commissioner Vanderbilt felt there may be some negotiation going on with regard to the use. The applicant is saying this is how he would like to operate, to be able to give alcohol out in cups and he would like to have meetings. In his hours of operation, they are open 32 hours a week, and from what he could tell, 14 of the 32 hours seem to be club, lodge or meeting hall type activities, and then perhaps the remaining 16 or 18 hours might be gallery or exhibition type activities. It is a combination. Are they saying this is an exhibition hall and it is therefore not permitted. Then they do not have to discuss anything further or whether there is some conditional leverage to be done in order to fit it more closely into what is permitted. • 05-07-01 Page 35 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Koos stated that an example would be if rock bands were playing there and that is a use being proposed before the Commission and that would be public dance hall use or similar. It is a chain reaction use, young bands, no alcohol, controlled environment, is that use even though it is conditionally permitted, would it be in use with that? Robert Gorson responded not necessarily. This could be considered under a conditional use permit. Chairperson Koos stated that the part that would fall under the conditional use permit would not be considered either. Greg Hastings stated not at this particular location. This development area covers northeast area and this use next to a commercial zone would be more appropriate. Robert Gorson stated there are 131 acres that are designated as a commercial zone, but this area referred to today is not one of those areas. Commissioner Boydstun asked if it is a possibility that they could get a business permit if they were in the business zone without alcohol. Would it fit if they had performances with nothing served. Greg Hastings stated it is possible in a commercial based zone, it depends on the operation, if it becomes a nightclub as opposed to an art gallery. Greg McCafferty stated that exhibition halls are permitted by conditional use permit in the commercial zones of the City. Because he is showcasing and exhibiting he needs a conditional use permit. If he was selling them it would be a retail situation. • Chairperson Koos asked the applicant how he applied to the Business License Division? Robert Gorson stated he told them it was an art museum/gallery/exhibition hall and they were very similar to Chain Reaction. Allowing people to drink inside became more controllable as far as littering and loitering. Commissioner Arnold disagreed with staff and felt this is a good idea. He has seen a warehouse style art space work well in an industrial area and they need places like this in Anaheim. Alcohol doesn't work well, but the diversity of art could be valuable. He does not see how it is allowed, even as a conditional use by the Zoning Code as described. He cannot see how it is a club, lodge or meeting hall. There is no legal basis at this point to approve the conditional use permit, it does not fit into what the Code allows. He would be in favor of amending the code to allow it. Commissioner Boydstun agreed with Commissioner Arnold if they would go into a commercial area, it just does not fit the zone that they are in. If it was in a commercial area with no alcohol she would support it. Commissioner Bostwick agreed with the idea, purpose and diversity but there are plenty of commercial areas in which it could be placed. He does not have a problem with alcohol if they do it as a gallery. Northeast Industrial Area was designed for industrial uses and they need to keep it that way. He is not in favor of this in an industrial area. Chairperson Koos concurred, he supports the arts but there are commercial areas for it and the applicant did not give him any comfort about the nature of the alcohol operation and he cannot support it. u Discussion after the Meeting: 05-07-01 Page 36 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Jeanine Auspie, member of Anaheim Art Association and Council on Arts thanked the Commission for considering the future of the arts. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None. 5 people spoke in favor, a petition with 13 signatures was submitted, and 21 correspondence were received. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04347 based on the folfowing: (i) That this property is located within the Northeast Area Specific Plan, Development Area 1 which does not permit museums, cooperative art galleries, and/or exhibition ha{Is as a permitted primary, accessory, or conditionally permitted use; and further, that this zone is intended for industrial and industrially-related land uses. (ii) That the proposed use is not consistent with the Northeast Area Redevelopment Plan. (iii) That information provided to the Anaheim Police Department from the City of Newport Beach Police Department indicates that the proposed use has operated in a fashion detrimental to surrounding land uses in that City and • as such, has an increased potential to be detrimental to the surrounding industrial area and to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Anaheim. Denied waiver pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces because said waiver cannot exist without approval of the land use. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 47 minutes (3:31-4:18) Discussion after the Meeting: Ann Phillips: Asked Commission to look at changing some wording on some of the resolutions that went through today because that wording would go into statute and become permanent. u 05-07-01 Page 37 MAY 7, 2001 PLANNING COMMISStON MINUTES ~ ADJOURNED AT 4:30 P.M. TO MAY 21, 2001 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: ~V ~ J nice O'Connor enior Secretary u ~ Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~~ ~- U~ 05-07-01 Page 38