The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 2001/12/17~ CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2001 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California u CHAIRPERSON PRQ~EMP~RE: P~+UL BOSTWICK COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: PHYL~~IIS~BQYa~7~11~1, S;TEP~E~I,BRISTOL, COMMISSIONERS ABSE~~V~":~~ ~O~t~~;~~2NOL[~ ~~ ~~ ~ e~ ~ ~ _ ~E„ ~ ~ ' ~ ~~ STAFF PRESENT: ~~ ~ ~ ~ "E ~ ~ ~ ~ j~'~ ~ ~,~ Selma Mann, Assistant f Attosrte ~`~~ David Gottlieb; ~ted~ve o~ ,8~ Pro ert Services M r ~Y ~ P Y 9• Greg Hastings, Zoning ~ivisi~r~~l~an~~e'r Elly Fernandes, Senior~~cr~t~~~, Mary McCloskey, Dep~ty Plan~t~~tg~Dir~ector Pat Chandler, SenEOr Se~r~etary ~ Greg McCafferty, Prir~a~p~l'Planri~-' ~ `~~ ,~.... .; ~ -, , ,, ~ ~~ ~`` ~. Ted White, Associate ~'I~er~ ~ ~ ~ `° ~~ ~ , `~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-_ ~,,~ . a „~ ~ ; ` " ~ ~ ."d ~ ~. ...:. \, ., s : ,~a,~~ ~~ i ~ AGENDA POSTING' ~A cdrrs~i ~te ~o~iy ~f #k~e RP~r~~g~fCarr~rxirss~r~r~ Age~da ~nra~~os~ed~~~t 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, Decembe~~3~~OQ9, insideht~ef.d~spl~ay~cas~:~Ic~cat~,~n~he fo~r o~the`~Gounc~l~hambers, and also ~., ~~ ,~ : ~~ ~ ~ ~~ _ ~ x ~ ~ ~. in the outside displa ,.~~iosk ~ ~ ~ " ~ .~ ~ ~°~~ ~ "° °. ~ .. _,,... ~._ . ~. ~ ~ «r _ a ~ ~ PUBLISHED: Anahe~rr~ BuU~~r~.=N~wspap~~`~,~hu~~a~~~Nc~v~;m~erh22; 2f~Ell: ~" ~~~ ~~'~ ~ ~ ""~ a~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ , a ~ a ~ . '~, ~~z ~~ ~~ ~ ~~' - ~ E. CALL TO ORDER ~ ~, ~ n~ ~ : , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ,,, PLANNING COMMIvSIQAi~MQRNING~SE~SION 10 3f~ ~k'M ~ ~ L • UPDATE FF~~1Vl Tt~E~~Q(VI1l~1tJNIT~C,D~V~[.~C?~~~' D~F'A~'fMENT ON CALTRANS REMNANT FREE~AY~P~ARC~LS ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~° • PRESENTATION ~~}~A~~`Ti4N~l~~/l ~~ION .~^~.~~,T~~MENT PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH°C~~~~AL:~P~N/ZOI~~~V~` ~~ODE UPDATE PROGRAM • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSI~I~~~I~ARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW i RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statemenf regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card and submit it fo the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Koos PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT - - - - - - - - ------------------------------p ------g ---------------C~------------------------------1 H:\DOCS\CLERICAL\MINUTESWC121701.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net ~ DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSlON MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M PUBLIC COMMENTS: 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. Statement: . Marne Ryan, 532 S. Ohio Street (the Historic Colony of Anaheim), stated she is seeking a resolution to the incessant noise pollution from the barrage of police patrolled helicopters that constantly fly over their homes from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. (almost 20 hours a day). After contacting the Police Department she was informed to file a report with the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). The FAA informed her that the historic colony is a designated restricted residential zone, which means that absolutely no flights are allowed after 10:30 p.m. unless it is a life threatening situation, flights are not supposed to cross the residential areas that follow the freeway and/or business streets, and must fly a minimum of 800-1000 feet above the residences. Ms. Ryan states the helicopters barely fly over 200 feet in the air. She states the police told her they have been performing helicopter patrol in the area for 20 years so why change now? Ms. Ryan feels there are three major reasons: The health and well being of the community, the quality of life from financial considerations of air time for the helicopters and when she moved to Anaheim, Pearson Park was in the process of being reclaimed by the community from a drug infested, criminal area and an unsafe place to walk. The people coming together with the police, walking the streets and reclaiming the neighborhood revitalized Pearson Park. She states the amount it cost to have the helicopters patrol the neighborhood is probably far more affordable the old-fashioned ground- coverage-way and certainly a lot easier on the ears. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, responded Ms. Ryan's comments are outside purview of Planning Commission's jurisdiction but would be referred to the City Manager's office. CONSENT CALENDAR: Items 1-A through 1-F on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Bristol ofFered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Arnold and Commissioner Vanderbilt were absent), for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-B, 1-C, 1-D and 1-F) as recommended by staff. Consent Calendar Items (1-A and 1 E) were removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. Vote: 5-0 (Chairperson Arnold and Commissioner Vanderbilt were absent) 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS r~ ~J A. a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTfON SECTtON 15061 (b)(3) b) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00399 AND RECLASS(FICATION NO. 2001-00063 - REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION INITITATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND RECLASSIFtCATION PROCEEDINGS: City of Anaheim, Redevelopment Agency, Attn: Lisa Stipkovich, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, No.1003, Anaheim, CA 92805, City-initiated (Community Development Department) request to consider initiation of a General Plan amendment from the General Commercial and Medium Density Residential land use designations to the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation and a reclassification from the CL (Commercial, Concurred with staff Approved initiation for Genera! Plan Amendment proceedings Approved initiation for Reclassification proceedings (Vote: 5-0, Chairperson Arnold and Commissioner Vanderbilt were absent) 12-17-01 Page 2 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Limited) Zone to the RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone. Property is located at 2330-2340 West Lincoln Avenue. Continued from the November 19 and December 3, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion). ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Arnold and Commissioner Vanderbilt were absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of CEQA Exemption Section 15061(b)(3), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Arnold and Commissioner Vanderbilt were absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve initiation of General Plan Amendment proceedings to redesignate Area 1 from the General Commercial and Medium Density Residential land use designations to the Low-Medium Density Residential or a less intense residential land use designation. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman • and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Arnold and Commissioner Vanderbilt were absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve initiation of reclassification proceedings for Area 2 from the CL Zone to the RM-3000 or a less intense Zone. DISCUSStON: 9 minutes (1:45-1:54) Chairperson Pro-Tempore Bostwick called for discussion of Item 1-A. ApplicanYs Statement: SR2104DS.DOC David Gottlieb, Community Development Redevelopment Manager, informed Item 1-A is a continuation from the December 3, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting and a City-initiated request fo do a General Plan Amendment and Reclassification. The General Plan Amendment affects two properties, one commonly known today as the Daniel Furniture Site, Lincoln Avenue and the Redevelopment Agency parcel formerly designated as the parking lot for the former Home Depot Store. The General Plan Amendment affects both of those parcels and the Reclassification affects only the agency owned parcels. Mr. Gottlieb acknowledged questions asked of Commissioners during the December 3, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting regarding the nature of the request in regards to the proposed site: • "Why is there a need to develop housing in West Anaheim?" (Redevelopment Agency, Community Development Department supplied Planning Commission a memo on December 17, 2001 along with a colored map that depicted the subject site and the adjacent areas on Lincoln Avenue and Brookhurst and Euclid Streets.) Development of housing • in West Anaheim is needed because a number of responsibilities to the state of California must be fulfilled; SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) numbers have to be met, and fulfillment of the West Anaheim Vision Plan with development (in some percentage) of new 12-17-01 Page 3 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • affordable housing for the West Anaheim community. Redevelopmenf identified a 4.4-acre site in which they believe to be a perfect site for the development of ownership housing. • "Why is the property to the east and west of our site not included in this action?" The site to the east is included (known as the Daniel's Furniture Site in the General Plan Amendment) and will provide a greater continuity of general plan uses along the Lincoln Avenue corridor. The property to the west is not included (Sav-on property). The Sav-on Drug/ Ralph's Grocery property has been identified in the West Anaheim vision (used as a guidepost for the development of West Anaheim) as a continued commercial use. Regarding Commissioners' indication that there is a small finger of land or a dog leg on the Sav-on Drug property (containing trees) that could possibly be incorporated into the proposed development, the purpose of the property is unknown and appears to be some type of landscape buffer befinreen Sav-on Drug Center and the single-family residences to the south. It is not anticipated to be incorporated into the ownership of the Redevelopment Agency for this site. • "Could any other land be included into fhis?" Redevelopment has included as much land into this action as possible and anticipates coming before Commission in the succeeding months with additional land identified in the West Anaheim Vision Plan. The area commonly known as the Presidential Tract has been redeveloped with a General Plan Amendment and a rezone. The proposed action is solely for the 4.4 acre piece of land currently owned by Redevelopment. • Chairperson Pro-Tempore Bostwick referred to Mr. Gottlieb's statement of it being only for the 4.4-acre site but yet discussing area 1, which is the entire 8.8-acre area, specifically the 4.4 area owned by the City and asked if Redevelopment intended to rezone the entire 8.8 acres? Mr. Gottlieb responded Redevelopment is only rezoning the portion of land owned by the City. It is inappropriate at this point and time to rezone land from a commercial use to a residential use and make it legal nonconforming for land that the City does not control. However, the City is applying for a General Plan Amendment for both parcels of land. C ~ 12-17-01 Page 4 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r • • B. a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4168 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001- 04478) - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: American National Properties and Erik A. Tweedt, 1422 South Allec Street, Anaheim, CA 92805, request termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 4168. Property is located at 1516 West Embassy Street. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-172 Terminated (Vote: 5-0, Chairperson Arnold and Commissioner Vanderbilt were absent) SR8173AN.DOC 12-17-01 Page 5 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • C. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04453 (TRACKING NO. Approved Final Plans CUP 2001-04492)-REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS: Comstock Homes, Attn: Andy Burns, 321 12 Street, (Vote: 5-0, Chairperson Suite 200, Manhatten Beach, CA 90266, requests review and Arnold and Commissioner approval of final building elevations for an 18-unit condominium Vanderbilt were absent) complex. Property is located at 832 South Knott Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTlON CARRIED (Chairperson Arnold and Commissioner Vanderbilt were absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Arnold and Commissioner Vanderbilt were absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final elevation plans (Final Elevation Plan Nos. 1 through 6) for Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04453 (Tracking No. CUP 2001-04492) based on Commission's concurrence with staff that the final plans are substantially in compliance with Condition No. 5 of Resolution No. PC2001-154. Staff further recommends that the petitioner submit color boards to the Zoning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Any decision by the Zoning Division regarding said color SR8178KB.DOC • palette may be appealed to the Planning Commission. • 12-17-01 Page 6 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r D. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION b) VARIANCE NO. 2001-04433 (TRA( REVIEW OF FINAL PLANS: Mickelson Consulting, Attn: Robert D. Mickelson, P. O. Box 932, Orange, CA 92856, requests review and approval of final building elevations for 11 detached single-family residences. (No address). -04476 Approved Approved Final Plans ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Arnold and Commissioner Vanderbilt were absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. • ~ Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Arnold and Commissioner Vanderbilt were absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final site, floor and building elevation plans (Final Plan Nos. 1 through 12b) for Variance No. 2001-04433 (Tracking No. VAR 2001-04476 based on Commission's concurrence with staff that the final plans are substantially in compliance with Condition No. 5 of Resolution No. 2001 R-165. Staff recommends that fhe plans submitted for building permits indicate that code required vines in a minimum five (5) gallon size be planted on maximum three (3) foot centers adjacent to the new block walls to prevent graffiti opportunities (Vote: 5-0, Chairperson Arnold and Commissioner Va»derbilt were absent) SR8133KB.DOC 12-17-01 Page 7 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • E. a) DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM Determined not to be in GENERAL PLAN - GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY NO. 2001- conformance with the 00011: County of Orange, Probation Department, 909 North Main Anaheim General Plan Street, Suite I, Santa Ana, CA 92701-3511, request to determine conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the proposed lease of a 33,000 square foot office building to the County of Orange Probation (Vote: 5-0, Chairperson Department. Property is located at 1535 East Orangewood Avenue. Arnold and Commissioner Vanderbilt were absent) (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion). ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Arnold and Commissioner Vanderbilt were absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the County Probation Department's proposal to lease the 33,000-square foot office building at 1535 West Orangewood Avenue for its North County Field Service Office is not in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. DISCUSSION: 12 minutes (1:55-2:07) SR1116TW1.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principai Planner, informed item 1-E is a request by the County Probation Office to determine conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the proposed lease of office space at 1535 East Orangewood Avenue. ~ Ted White, Planning Associate Planner, stated the County is proposing to establish the North County Field Service Office at 1535 East Orangewood Avenue. Staff recommends Commission find it not in conformance with the City's general plan. The proposed use is not considered consistent with the general plan of the business office and mixed use industrial designation which is intended to provide for a range of fand uses including professional office, hotel, retail, restaurant and entertainment uses. StafF considers the proposed use more of a client-driven service office; more than what would be considered traditionaf office. Anaheim Stadium is a vital component of the City's tourist convention and recreation area. The proposed use does not meet the general plan goal to maintain and encourage Anaheim's position as a nationally recognized tourist convention and recreation area and is not considered consistent with the stadium area and Master Land Use Plan, which was adopted in 1999. The City Master Use P(an includes creating a unique, integrated, pedestrian oriented, sports entertainment area and economic development opportunities on surrounding properties. Over $4 billion of public and private investments have been committed within this and surrounding areas in recent years. This area is home to Edison International Field, Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim, Disneyland Resort and the Anaheim Resort including the Anaheim Convention Center, which is in close proximity. These tourist and guest areas are important not only to Anaheim, but are also landmark venues for Orange County and the State of California. Pubfic Testimony: Linda Barry, Probation Officer for The County of Orange Probation Department, 909 N. Main Street, Santa Ana, submitted a letter to Commission prior to the meeting expressing why she believes the use is in conformance with the general plan. Also with her were Mr. John Powater, Chief Deputy Probation Officer of Gill Services and Mr. Rick Gill of Palm Commercial, representing the proposed future owner. Ms. Barry stated they were present to answer any questions Commission might have. ~ Chairperson Pro-Tempore Bostwick stated the proposed area is the City's entertainment and support zone. It is not upon a major bus route where transportation is accessible and a number of people would need transportation. He suggested Commission move in favor of staffs position. 12-17-01 Page 8 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Koos concurred with Chairperson Bosfinrick. Commissioner Boydstun feels transportation is going to be one of the major problems in that location and if any portion of parking were lost there would be tremendous congestion. Ms. Barry responded they work with CPA's to dig out bus routes as needed to accommodate their office use. With regard to parking, the prospective property owner would enter into a parking agreement to ensure that there would always be adequate parking at that site. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify that the office is being moved to North Anaheim Boulevard. Ms. Barry responded, "correcP'. Commissioner Boydstun stated it looks like transportation and access from the prior site, all directions north would be easier. Ms. Barry responded they have looked throughout the City of Anaheim, Orange and Fullerton, to refocate The Skill Service Office and one of the problems is parking as is the parking ratio access to public transportation corridors, and trying to find a building they can occupy alone. She feels the proposed site is the best location they have found. She states they have given up previous locations at the request of City staff and is running out of time. Their current lease expires at the end of January at which time they will again be in a month to month hold over. They have tried to work with staff to identify areas where they could locate The Skill Service Office. West Anaheim was a Community Development area in which they were looking. She feels if this proposal is not approved then fully everything to the west of Euclid Street in the Redevelopment areas and everything in the 807 acre area of the Stadium Master Plan is off limits. Therefore, it does not leave them a lot of space to look for a new office. • Ms. McCloskey stated staff performed a recent survey of County facilities in Anaheim and currently Anaheim has 14 County of Orange facilities within limits, including 3 Probation Department locations. In comparison to some of the surrounding cities, Fullerton and Cypress have one, Garden Grove has 3, Buena Park, Yorba Linda, Placentia and Stanton do not have any. Anaheim, Orange and Santa Ana basicaAy are carrying the load for North Orange County. While Community Development staff has tried to give criteria to the probation department, it is felt Anaheim is carrying more than its fair share of these type facilities. Staff is not saying that nothing will work in Anaheim but that there are quite a few of these facilities already located within the Anaheim City limits. Of the North County actual caseloads 46% comes from the City of Anaheim; Buena Park, Fullerton and Orange combined only comes to 35°/a. Anaheim makes up the large majority of the caseloads. Ms. Barry states they have looked in other cities and have not tried to target the City of Anaheim but it is the largest city in North Orange County and has preponderates of space that will work for their needs. Commissioner Koos concurs with staff. He states just a few years ago Commission passed the Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan and is looking for specific land uses that complement the stadium area. He is not opposed to something in the City of Anaheim but the statisfics speak for themselves. He is in favor of the Skills Center somewhere in the City of Anaheim but the proposed area is not the highest and best use. Following the action: Chairperson Pro-Tempore Bostwick stated concern about similar areas on Magnolia Avenue and La Palma Avenue where there is a considerable amount of office space. Ms. McCloskey stated the Probation Deparfinent staff has been working with Community Development • and the criteria they have offered is that they try to stay out of the Redevelopment Project Areas. Planning Department has encouraged them not to try and locate within the Resort or stadium areas for obvious reasons; it is the City's visitors' and tourists' community, the need to stay away from schools and residential areas and locations that are not visible on the arterial highway. However, everything west of 12-17-01 Page 9 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Euclid Street is within the project area along the corridors. There are still areas within the City and there are areas outside of the City that hopefully the petitioners would continue to look at as well. Ms. Barry responded that Ms. McCloskey mentioned a good area but, to no avail, that is exactly where they tried to locate their previous o~ce. She states they are looking for an appropriate space> it has been difficult and they respect the City's decision. ~ ~ 12-17-01 Page 10 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i F. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Approved Meeting of November 19, 2001. (MOTION) (Vote: 5-0, Chairperson Continued from the December 3, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. Arnold and Commissioner Vanderbilt were absent) - - - - - ----------------------------- - ------ . F2eceiv'ing and app'roving the Minutes from the Planning Commission ~ Approved ~ Meeting of December 3, 2001. (MOTION) (Vote: 5-0, Chairperson Arnold and Commissioner Vanderbilt were absent) • • 12-17-01 Page 11 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Continued to 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 14, 2002 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1424 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04446) (READVERTISED) OWNER: Corky Robert Smith Trust, P. O. Box 5440, Los Angeles, CA 90054 AGENT: Excel Auto Body, Attn: Jon Thompson, 554 South Atchison Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 2223 East Katella Avenue, Unit C. Property is approximately 5.48 acres located north and west of the northwesterly corner of Kateila Avenue and Howell Avenue. Request to permit an automotive center with three independent automotive businesses, including an automotive sales dealership with accessory auto finance services, and an automotive repair facility with a modular office building. Continued from the October 8, November 19 and December 3, 2001 ~ Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8174KB.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed Item No. 2 continued from the December 3, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting in order to meet with the applicant and go over the conditions of approval recommended in the staff report. Staff's recommendations remain the same. Applicant's Statement: David Swerdlin, 31125 Via Cristal, San Juan Capistrano, Governmental Relations & Entitlements, representing the owner, thanks staff, in particular, Kevin Bass, for helping them find very good solutions for the proposed parcel. He also commends the Planning Commission for serving the community very well and making the City of Anaheim a pleasure to live in and visit. He states the proposed site used to be the home of Lincoln Mercury for many years and they vacated it approximately 8 years ago and an automotive business, owned by his client, Mr. Roof, was opened there six years ago. It was a full service auto business in that it sold, repaired and financed automobiles as a business unit. Recently instead of one business unit it is now 3 businesses. The auto sales and auto repair have been subleased off but it is still in essence the same particular business; there have been no changes or increases in intensity of the use. The applicant is in agreement with all 18 conditions with 3 exceptions; staff recommends a 1- year term for the condition of approval and the applicant is requesting 5 years based on the cost involved with meeting 18 conditions, there is basicaffy no opposition from adjacent neighbors, and the office market is over saturated. The latest data indicates the office market probably will not revitalize between 4-6 years. It is also worthy to note that Caliber Motors, which has taken the part fronting Katella Avenue has a 10-year term on their CUP. Therefore, the applicant hopes Commission finds 5 years a reasonable • request. 12-17-01 Page 12 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ The second item is Condition No. 2, the storage area. The applicant is in agreement that it should not be identifiable from the adjacent streets or highways and requests no screening is required unless visibie. He states the trash storage area is not visible from the street. The third item is Condition No. 9; staff has requested no outdoor work or storage be permitted. The applicant is in agreement that no outdoor work on vehicles or vehicle parts be permitted. Although it is not the intent of this operation, in painting and repairing automobiles they have to be moved out of the base at times and parked. The applicant asks this be permitted as long as it is screened from the streets or highways. Commissioner Bristol compared Mr. Swerdlin's comments to a recent letter submitted by him where he refers to visual impacts, streets, etc., and the staff report refers to visual impacts from surrounding neighbors. He asked Mr. Swerdlin for a response. Mr. Swerdlin responded the surrounding office buildings are somewhere between 2 and 3 football field lengths away making it difficult to tell what is on the property. Adjacent north to one of the properties is a RV storage and repairs area. On the corner is a Shell station and in the near future Caliber Motors Repair and Auto Painting will be taking the other part of the parcel. He feels it is really too far away to make a difference. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify if the finance office of a business unit listed as 3 businesses, is anymore than what is in a normal car sales business where there are a couple of desk on the car premises. Mr. Swerdlin responded the finance office basically handles financing of auto sales and it handles financing for the direct dealer sales of the wholesale operation. There is no traffic that is brought in from • the outside. Commissioner Boydstun clarified so it really is a part of the car sales as it is in every car sales office. Mr. Swerdlin responded the business is as it has been for the last 6 years but instead of being under 1 umbrella now it is under 3 umbrellas. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Bostwick asked if the office trailer could be moved so that it is not visible from the street. Wilfred Roof, the owner, 2223 East Katella Avenue, responded there is no place it could be located conveniently. It is stationed behind a chain-linked fence that is screened from the street and only the very top of the office structure is visible. He states if anyone was in one of the high-rise buildings that is quite a distance away, only the top of it and part of the building could be seen. He affirms his business is not located on Katella Avenue at all. The only entrance is on Howell Avenue and not any of the repair operations can be seen from Katella Avenue. The retail automobile company has frontage on Howell Avenue. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Bostwick wished to clarify what the portable office trailer is used for. Mr. Roof responded it is used for additional office space. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Bostwick asked which part of the business. Mr. Roof responded the Excel Auto Body. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Bostwick wished to clarify if the portable trailer could be moved to the back of • the property. 12-17-01 Page 13 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Roof responded no because the property is divided into 3 areas. The first frontage is automobile sales; all of the bays and facilities are leased to Excel Auto Body. The parking area and storage area is a part of SLS and occupies the remaining aerial on the north part of the property. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Bostwick asked Mr. Roof if he runs the auto sales portion. Mr. Roof responded, "No, I am the master leaseholder on this particular piece of property." He informs the business operated for almost 6 years as a retail automobile facility which incorporated storage, lease returns, repossessions of automobiles, auto-body, a paint business and an auto repair facility. He explains the retail automobile business did not promise a decent living and it was leased out to Gillette Auto Sales. Subsequently the same thing transpired with the body and paint shop and it was leased out to Excel Auto Body. Currently SLS is a liquidation company where repossessions and lease returns are stored in preparation for wholesale and auction sales. Mr. McCafferty pointed out that the yellow highlighted area on the site is the area under consideration and the remaining area of the site is the CUP Commission approved for Caliber Motors. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Bostwick feels there is nothing that prevents the applicant from moving the modular trailer towards the paint booth, setting it where the cars are parked and use the area where it is currently located as parking. He explains it would still be the same number of parking spaces but would not be visible from the street. Mr. Roof responded that one would actually have to be there to understand that it could not be done. He informed that it is Excel's office and unfortunately he could not speak for them at this point. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Bostwick poinfed out that in the back bay of the property there is a space at ~ the end of the building and there is room at the paint booth where the trailer could be placed and would be out of the street visibility. Mr. Swerdlin responded if the mobile modular unit were moved back there would be an inappropriate amount of space for the automobiles to be placed into the repair base because of the width of the modular unit and the parcel itself. The part that is used for storage restricts the space. He feels the only appropriate location for the modular unit is where it is currently located because the other locations narrow down towards the back bay. He states if the modular unit were moved to the bay area it would inhibit entry of the trash truck and its ability to turn around and it would also prevent automobiles in and out of the repair base efficiently. Mr. McCafferty pointed out the fact that this conversation is taking pface uphold staff's recommendation that there are too many businesses on too small a site. There are 3 separate businesses, each with its own office and parking lot needs. Mr. Swerdlin stated while they appreciate the comments of staff, it is appropriate to note that this was, until very recently, all one full service business and it does not lend the proper perspective to make it 3 separate businesses. Commissioner Bristol pointed out that in 1996, page 1 of Resolution No. PC96-122, states specifically, "Any significant repairs or painting will be contracted to offsite automotive repair paint facilities", and yet the applicant is asking for another retail outlet for 5 years. He asked the applicant if that is not correct? Mr. Roof responded, he did not believe that was correct, he is looking at a use permit next door to them which was not in 1996". They were operating under a use permit dating back to 1973. Mr. McCafferty explained that it actually applies to Price Auto Outlet on Katella Avenue. ~ Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify that the one on Katella Avenue is the one Planning Commission gave approval for repair use. 12-17-01 Page 14 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. McCafferty clarified it is the one Commission recently granted a CUP for auto body at that site. Commissioner Bristol asked if Commission at anytime granted a repair and paint facility at the retail automobile company on Howell Avenue. Mr. McCafferty responded when it was split into two independent businesses the accessory repair and servicing associated with the second dealership that fronts Howell Avenue was granted repair and paint facility ability as part of the dealership. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if the repair for dealership also includes paint. Mr. McCafferty feels that the resolution, specifically to SLS, did not prohibit spray painting the cars. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if the other use referred to is where they actually take the vehicles in wholesale and finance them. Mr. Roof responded no that is not correct. Retail is only performed on the front end in the retail automobile facility. SLS, which is the remainder of the original tenants, operates strictly a storage and liquidation business. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify what Excel does. Mr. Roof responded Excel is an auto body paint shop. Commissioner Bristoi wished to clarify if Excel has a completely different market than SLS. ~ Mr. Roof responded yes. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if currently there are 3 different distinct operations marketwise on the subject property. Mr. Roof responded that is correct. Mr. Swerdlin responded it is a master leaseholder that is one business which is sublet to different portions of that particular parcel to two other enterprises, Gillette Sales and Excel Body Paints. He states they were all previously under one master lease umbrella and that is why it is not really, in a sense, 3 separate businesses as staff is giving a perspective, it is still in essence, one big business with two subleases performing independent functions. Commissioner Bristol did not agree with that at all, there are 3 distinct businesses impacting 3 different market places held in 3 different ways. Mr. Swerdlin responded the current impact of the 3 businesses is no greater than the previous impact of one business doing all 3 things. It is confusing because part of the entire parcel was given to Caliber Motors at one time, which went through a CUP, and now the applicant is dealing with the other part and is not looking for a real change in the intensity of use. Mr. McCafferty agreed Commissioner Bristol is correct because currently there are two dealerships that were originally permitted, Price, and the original one in 1973. It was structured to have the second dealership but everything was accessory to that dealership. Now there is an auto-body business that, if approved, would not necessarily have to rely on cars that come in, it could be any car that would come in off the street deeming the necessity of repair. ~ Commissioner Bristol understands that any automobile dealership is going to have repair and paint work, etc., but currently feels the proposed business is two businesses adjacent to each other primarily doing the same thing in the same amount of business. 12-17-01 Page 15 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol stated the applicant is pleading that the structure of business setups just sort of happened but it is in fact an impacted site with two uses on 1.9 acres of land. He feels it does not appear to be a problem other than it is an unattractive lot. He disagrees with the applicant that it is not unattractive visually north because he has visited neighboring buildings to look down on the proposed site and feels the area cannot be landscaped enough, internally or externally to make it more attractive. He agrees with the applicant as far as amortization, there is no better use for the site as long as all things are done according to staff's recommendations. Commissioner Boydstun does not feel the financial office is "not like a separate business" but it does take up space and is part of the car lot. She feels the business is operating much as it has operated all along and there has never been a problem there and traffic is minimum. Commissioner Koos feels it is not adding to traffic per se and he is concerned about how it looks visually. He concurs with Commissioner Bristol in that it is acceptable to have one consolidated business doing 3 things but when there are 3 separate businesses with different operations plus a modular located in front it becomes a great concern. He could go along with the location of the modular given the fact the applicant does not object to landscaping which would be a big improvement. He disagrees that the modular is an interim use as claimed by the applicant because Commission frequently witnesses modulars proposed under the interim use umbrella repeatedly come back for approval of the interim use for long periods of time. Commissioner Bristol suggested a continuation to allow the applicant an opportunity to submit landscape plans as stated in Condition No. 14. ! Chairperson Pro-Tempore Bostwick asked the petitioners if they would consider a continuance to atlow them the opportunity to return to Planning Commission with a plan of where they wished to locate the modular so that it is not as visible. Mr. Swerdlin responded they are in agreement with moving the trailer back if they can get at least 5 years on the term in order to amortize the business. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Bosfinrick responded Commission agrees to 5 years and the trailer moved to a visually acceptable location. He announced a 4-week continuance until January 14, 2002. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOT(ON CARRIED (Chairperson Arnold was absent and Commissioner Vanderbilt abstained), to continue the subject request to the January 14, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to submit plans to staff showing the relocation of the proposed modular unit and showing trees in the landscape setback adjacent to Howell Avenue (per discussion by Commission and staff at today's meeting indicating that the modular unit not be visible from the public street). VOTE: 5-0 (Chairperson Arnold was absent and Commissioner Vanderbilt abstained) r DISCUSSION TIME: 26 minutes (2:08-2:34) '12-17-Q1 Page 16 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • (Commissioner Vanderbilt arrived at the Planning Commission meeting at 2:23 p.m. He abstained from taking action on this item since he wasn'f present for the whole duration.) • ~ 12-17-01 Page 17 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNlNG COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Withdrawn 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04417 OWNER: Leedy Ying Trustee, 12550 Whittier Boulevard, Whittier, CA 90602 AGENT: GPA Architects, Inc., 1240 North Jefferson No. J, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 107 East Ball Road. Property is approximately 3.4 acres located at the northeast corner of Sal! Road and Anaheim Boulevard.* To establish a six-unit commercial retail center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. *Originally advertised as a three-unit commercial retail center. Continued from the August 27, September 24, October 22, November 5 and November 19, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8140KB.DOC ~ • • ~ ~- • ~ • ~ ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner 8oydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Arnold was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept applicanYs request for withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04417 per a letter dated December 13, 2001. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Arnold was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 12-17-01 Page 18 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MtNUTES r ~ ~~ ~ 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 4b. RECLASSIFlCATION NO. 2001-00061 January 14, 2002 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04455 OWNER: Camino Grande Villas, Attn: Steven Buttertield, 24422 Avenida De La Carlota, Laguna Hills, CA 92633-3636 AGENT: Tetra Tech Wireless/Whalen, Attn: Lorena Martinez, 357 Van Ness Way, Suite 150, Torrance, CA 90501 Southern California Edison, Attn: Robert Teran, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770 LOCATION: ~No addressl. Property is approximately 16.6 acres located at the northwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Stage Coach Road. Reclassification No. 2001-00061 - To reclassify subject property from RM-3000(SC) (Residential, Multiple-Family - Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to the RS-A-43,000{SC) (Residential/Agricultural - Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04455 - To permit a telecommunication antenna and microwave dish on an existing electrical transmission tower and accessory ground-mounted equipment. Continued from the November 5 and December 3, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. RECLASStFICATION RESOLUTION NO. COND(TIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8159VN.DOC OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Arnold was absent), to continue the subject request to the January 14, 2002 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant in order to allow additional time to revise the location and screening method for the equipment room enclosure. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Arnold was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 12-17-01 Page 19 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE ANAHEIM HILLS FESTIVAL SPECIFIC PLAN (SP90-1) (TRACKING NO. SPN 2001-00018) OWNER: State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, Attn: Karen Finke, 8020 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, CA 92808 AGENT: Coast Sign, Attn: Don Poole, 1345 South Allec Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 8182 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is approximately 85 acres located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Roosevelt Road (Anaheim Hills Festival Shopping Center). Request to amend the sign criteria contained in the Festival Specific Plan (SP 90-1) to allow additional wall signage for in-line tenants that rear onto Santa Ana Canyon Road (one wall sign per tenant permitted; two wall signs proposed). Continued from the December 3, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. \ J SPECIFIC PLAN RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-173 Approved Recommended City Council approval of Amendment No. 4 and directed City Attorney's Office to prepare required ordinances. SR8177VN.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed Item No. 5 is a proposed amendment to the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan and a request to amend the sign criteria to allow additional wall signage for in-line tenants that rear onto Santa Ana Canyon Road. Staff is supportive of the proposal as recommended. Applicant's Statement: Fred Sianoshi, 1345 S. Allec St., Anaheim, CA, of Coast Signs, Mexican Grill, stated the proposal to amend the program to have a second sign on back of the store facing Santa Ana Canyon is not a luxury but an absolute necessity for the survival of the store. He stated having only one sign on the storefront with limited visibility to traffic inside the shopping center and no exposure to heavy traffic on Santa Ana Canyon has been a detriment to the financial health of the store and after one year the Mexican Grill is doing half the standard volume of opposing stores the same size. Public Testimony: Stefanie O'Neill, 216 S. Mohler Dr., Anaheim, CA, representing The Concerned Citizens of the Canyon, asked for a continuance. She states normaiiy the Festival Center would have met with the residents allowing them an opportunity to view their plans but this time they did not. She requests a continuance to January 14, 2002 in order to meet with Coast Signs. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Bostwick wished to clarify if the proposal only effects 6 businesses. . Mr. McCafferty responded it effects a very limited amount of tenant spaces in the center, approximately a total of 6 tenants between the major corner tenants and the sign. The proposed sign would be clearly secondary to the sign on the main storefront and could not advertise anything different than what is displayed on the front of the store. 12-17-01 Page 20 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Bristol feels it is needed. Commissioner Boydstun stated the exposure is a necessity. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: NONE A person representing the Concerned Citizens of the Canyon spoke requesting a continuance. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Recommended City Council approval for Amendment No. 4 of The Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan (SP90-1) and directed the City Attorney's Office to prepare the required ordinances for City Council consideration to introduce and adopt the proposed amendment to the specific plan to allow additional wall signage for in-line tenants that rear onto Santa Ana Canyon Road based on the following: (i) That this property has unique site characteristics such as topography, location and surroundings which are enhanced by special land use and development standards and the amendment to the sign program would allow signage consistent with these existing characteristics; (ii) That the specific plan amendment would result in development of desirable ~ character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development and the surrounding neighborhood; (iii) That the amendment to the specific plan contributes to a balance of land uses and equitable allowance of signage for all tenants within the shopping center; (iv) That the amendment to the specific plan respects environmental and aesthetic resources consistent with economic realties. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Arnold was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney stated the subject item would be scheduled for City Council consideration. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (2:35-2:40) L ~ 12-17-01 Page 21 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r ~ ~. ~ 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2876 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04474): OWNER: David J. Chavez Trust, 4420 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Recreational Storage, Attn: David Chavez, 4420 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 4420 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 1.8 acres with a frontage of 188 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue located 300 feet west of the centerline of Lakeview Avenue. Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or de(etion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on February 4, 1992 to expire December 1, 2001) to retain an outdoor recreational vehicle storage yard with caretaker's residence. • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-174 Concurred with staff Approved reinstatement with deletion of time limitation SR1044CW.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 6 as a reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2876, located at 4420 East La Palma Avenue, a request to retain the outdoor recreational vehicle storage yard and caretakers residence. ApplicanYs Statement: David J. Chavez, 4420 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA, stated he has been in business at the subject site 31 years and asked for deletion of Conditional Use Permit No. 2876. He informed there have been businesses that have gone out of business in the area of surrounding cities and the proposed business is needed. There are approximately 100 people on a waiting list for a place to park their motor homes in their units. He has to come every 5 years for a renewal, excluding the last proposal where he was granted 10 years, and feels there is not a better use for the site; the customers are very happy, the prices are right and it is in a good location. He asked for more time in the span of proposal approvals. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Bostwick asked what specific items were in question. Mr. Chavez stated one is on-site maintenance and cleaning of vehicles. He assures he has never had a problem with Code Enforcement within 31 years of operation and cannot figure out why conditions are being placed on his property. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Bostwick informed they are standard conditions to assure his property is properly maintained. Mr. Chavez stated that the Commission approved the barbed wire during his last proposal and asked why they wished to eliminate it this time. He states his customers feel a little more secure with it being there. Chairperson Vanderbilt informed a new code has been adopted since he was last present. Barbed wire and razor wire are being looked at disfavorably when it is visible from the right-of-way. ~ Mr. Chavez is aware razor wire is not allowed but feels barbed wire makes it a little more difficult to get in. He informed he has had some break-ins as recent as a couple of months ago. 12-9 7-01 Page 22 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Chairperson Pro-Tempore 8ostwick wished to clarify with staff if having barbed wire is different if it is industrial. Mr. McCafferty clarified the only place in the City that ailows razor and barbed wire is industrial areas as long as it is not visible to any public right-of-way. The fact that there is an onsite caretakers unit would call for policing as part of management. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, informed there is a similar case in the City where the applicant put barbed wire at the top on the inside of the fence inhibiting visibility from the street. Mr. Chavez asked if it is okay to have the barbed wire placed on the inside. He stated the sign shown on the exhibits is the same sign he has always had. In regards to maintenance, he tries to keep it up but asked if it was not sufficient when Code Enforcement last visited. Commissioner Boydstun responded they are just standard conditions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion prior to Action: Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff if it is serious enough to change their recommendation enlight of the modification that no time limit is set. Mr. McCafferty responded staff feels all the findings that are necessary to reinstate the permit can be made. Staff recommended a more limited approval because the land uses in that area were changing over time and felt over the long term there could be a more permanent land use at that location. • Commissioner Koos stated for all practical purposes, if it came back in ten years and based on its track record, Commission would approve it again. He feels if the land use were to change it would be on the property owners behalf, therefore he feels confident in supporting Commissioner Bristol's motion. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated he did not have any issue with 10, 20 or 30 years but wanted to get a sense about whether Commission was removing any possibility of revisiting the CUP several decades from now. He supports Commissioner Bristol's recommendation. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Bostwick stated it is in the specific planned area, there is a resolution with intent for ML on it, and if anything Commission would see it return with a proposal for changed use. He supports Commissioner Bristol's recommendation. ~ • ~ - e ii~ie: • . e-- - ~~iii •- e •. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Arnold was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2876 (Tracking No. CUP 2001- 04474) to retain an outdoor recreational vehicle storage yard with caretaker's residence ~ without a time limitation. 12-17-01 Page 23 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES C ~ J Incorporated conditions of approval contained in Resolution Nos. 92R-23, PC91-207 and PC87-17, into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition No. 1 was de/efed and Condifion No. 9 was modi~ed at today's meeting): 2. That no barbed wire shall be visible to the public right of way. 3. That the on-site landscaping and irrigation system shall be refurbished and maintained in compliance with City standards. 4. That no on-site maintenance of vehicles, including cleaning and detailing, or storage of vehicle lubricants or vehicle parts, shall be permitted. 5. That a valid business license shall be maintained with the City of Anaheim, Business License Division of the Finance Department. 6. That flags, banners, pennants, balloons, and other outdoor displays shall not be permitted in conjunction with the business authorized by this conditional use permit. 7. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. ~ 8. That signage for subject facility shall be limited to that shown on the exhibits submitted by the petitioner. Any additiona! signage shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 9. That within 68 90 days from the date of this resolution Condition Nos. 2 and 3, aforementioned, shall be camplied with. 10. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation, or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Arnold was absenf) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 12 minutes (2:41-2:53) . 12-17-01 Page 24 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.- APPROVED) Approved 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMiT NO. 3464 Approved reinstatement (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04479) (to expire on April 17, 2008) OWNER: Anaheim Hills Enterprises, 5100 East La Palma Avenue, No.202, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Community Christian Church, Attn: Mark Strecker, 5100 East La Palma Avenue, No.119, Anaheim, 92807 LOCATION: 5100 East La Palma Avenue. Suites 111 and 112. Property is approximately 6.3 acres with a frontage of 402 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue located 3,560 feet east of the centerline of Lakeview Avenue (Community Christian Church.) Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on December 22, 1997 to expire on October 31, 2001) to retain a 3,900 square foot church within a 138,350 square foot industrial complex. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-175 SR8168VN.DOC • Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 7 as a reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3464 for property located at 5100 East La Palma Avenue, Suites 111 and 112, a reinstatement to retain an existing church within an industrial complex. The applicant was not present and there were no opposing speakers. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • ~ ~ ~- • ~ ~ • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTtON CARRIED (Chairperson Arnold was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3464 (Tracking No. CUP 2001- 04479) to retain a 3,900 square foot church within a 138,350 square foot industrial complex, to expire on April 17, 2008. Incorporated conditions of approval contained in Resolution Nos. PC97-183, PC94-164 and PC91-166, into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: 1. That this conditional use permit shall expire on April 17, 2008, concurrent with the current lease agreement. • 2. That signage for subject facility shall be limited to that shown on the exhibits submitted by the petitioner. Any additional signage shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 12-17-01 Page 25 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISStON MINUTES ~ 3. That the hours of o eration for the church shall b limite t the f i• p e d o ollow ng. Sunday Services - 9 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. and 6 p.m. - 8: 30 p.m. Wednesday - 7 p.m. - 9 p.m. Thursday Service - 7 p.m. - 9 p.m. Monday - Friday - 8 a.m. - 6 p.m. (office hours) 4. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor uses other than parking. 5. That no portable signage shall be utilized to advertise the church. 6. That no outdoor events shall be permitted. 7. That the only accessory school activity shall be Sunday school and this facility shall not be used as a private daycare, nursery, elementary, junior and/or senior high school. 8. That no compact parking spaces shall be permitted. 9. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. • 10. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection and a plan for recycling shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division for review and approval. 11. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderfy fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 12. That 3-foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the view of the street or adjacent and nearby properties. Said information shall be specifica!!y shown on plans submitted for building permits. 13. That any roof-mounted equipment shafl be subject to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.84.062.032 pertaining to the "SC" Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. Such information shall be specifically shown on the plans and is subject to Zoning Division review and approval prior to submittal for building permits. 14. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 15. That the on-site landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained in compliance with City standards. 16. That subject property shall be maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are • on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as approved for Conditional Use Permit No. 3464 and as conditioned herein. 12-17-01 Page 26 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 17. That within 60 days from the date of this resolution, Conditions Nos. 10 and 12, above mentioned, shall be complied with. 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: 6-0 (Chairperson Arnold was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (2:54-2:56) ~ • 12-17-01 Page 27 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNWG COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 11 Concurred with staff 8b. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04469 Granted OWNER: City of Anaheim, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, 10tn Floor, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Plasti-Line, Attn: Jeff Holmes, 13489 Slover Avenue, Unit B, Fontana, CA 92337 LOCATION: 8375 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 9.3 acres located at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Weir Canyon Road (Weir Canyon Acura and Weir Canyon Honda). Request for waiver of maximum number of wall signs (one wall sign per dealership permitted; seven wall signs total for both dealerships proposed). VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-176 SR8170KB.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 8 as Variance No. 2001-04469, for property located at 8375 East La Palma Avenue, Weir Canyon Acura and Weir Canyon Honda, a request to waive • the permitted maximum number of wall signs. Applicant's Statement: Craig Whetter, 1400 North Tustin Avenue, Anaheim, CA, of David Wilson Auto Group, informed the group purchased the two dealerships in January, 2001, took the signage down, painted the face and is now in the process of having Glass Accessories International, build the proper signs for Honda and Acura. They are in agreement with the staff report with 3 exceptions; the Acura Store sign has been approved and the way it sits on the property is at a 45 degree angle on Weir Canyon Road and La Palma Avenue. The top sign is the front signage seen when coming up Weir Canyon Road going north, the next sign runs along Weir Canyon Road going further north but south on Weir Canyon Road. The way it sits on the property at an angle does not allow visibility of the dealership. The third exception is significant traffic around the corner traveling up La Palma with no sign visibility only the side of the building. He gave a video presentation to show the significance of the signage. The video illustrates him driving around in his car video taping the significant building which determines signage cannot be seen until driven passed because of the way it is situated on the property at a 45 degree angle. He asks they be allowed to put the original signage back, and replace the bottom wall for approval. In an effort to prove the significance of traffic on La Palma Avenue, he videotaped the traffic at 7:30 a.m. This demonstrated the heavy flow of traffic up La Palma Avenue and turning left and right on Weir Canyon Road going to the schools and the 91 Freeway. Additionally, on the other side of the building Service and Parts services are offered and most dealerships display a directional sign as the service drive is approached which says, "Service and Parts" but these signs were not approved for them. They would like to make traffic flow easy for their customers to inform them when they are in the right area or direct where the services are located. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • Commissioner Bristol stated he visited the property and agrees with Mr. Whetter, if it were not for the sign allowed facing La Palma Avenue, one could not see the building. He walked up Weir Canyon Road and looked for the Service and Parts sign and because of the steep graded area he does not feel going the 12-17-01 Page 28 DECEMBER 17, 2001 P~ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ opposite direction of Weir Canyon Road the "Service and Parts" sign can be seen. He feels it would not be an aesthetic intrusion to anyone and would help drivers travelling northbound to find the Service and Parts area. He does not feel the applicant is asking for anything unreasonable. FOLLOWING (S A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNlNG COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Arnold was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11 (Accessory Structures), as defined in the California Environmenta! Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Variance No. 2001-04469 to allow seven wall signs total for both dealerships as proposed - signs "A" through "G", subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated December 17, 2001 and based on Commission's determination since the subject facilities are composed of different angles making it difficult to view signage, which was presented by the applicant at today's meeting. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Arnold was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. • DISCUSSION TIME: 14 minutes (2:57-3:11) • 12-17-01 Page 29 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 3 9b. . OWNER: Bernhard Lazare Family Trust, 4910 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 AGENT: Fairmont Private Schools, Attn: Richard Jackson, 4910 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660-2119 LOCATION: 1595 West Broadway. Property is approximately 0.47- acre oca e a e no heast corner of Broadway and Loara Street (Bus Storage Yard of Fairmont Private School). Request to permit a temporary modular office trailer in connection with a previously-approved bus storage yard for a private school. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-177 Concurred with staff Granted for 5 years SR1045CW.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 9 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04477, for property located at 1595 West Broadway, the existing bus storage lot for Fairmont Private School, a request for a temporary modular trailer in connection with the storage yard. ~J Applicant's Statement: Sam Sampson, of C 3 Construction, Construction Manager for Fairmont Schools, representing Fairmont School's, requests approval to place a modular unit on approximately six-tenths of an acre at the intersection of Laurel Place and West Broadway. He states the modular unit will be used as an office for the Director of Transportation and the assistant who are current employees and located in nearby buildings. Fairmont Schoofs would like to have these personnel moved onsite or close to the bus yard so they can better do their job. The school is asking for a 5-year approval because they are currently trying to decide how to approach providing them transportation service through the school system and they need that period of time to consider other options. There is space available on campus in other buildings but not in proximity to the bus yard that would be convenient for the two employees. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos asked Mr. Sampson if he had read the conditions of approval. Mr. Sampson responded yes. Discussion took place before the vote for Resolution on Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04477: Commissioner Bristol stated staff indicated on page 4 of Condition No. 16 that an overall facilities master plan should be provided in the future for the Mable Street campus. Commission has had a lot of new permits and similar requests on the site for a long time and discussion for the lasf 2-3 years regarded the future of the Fairmont School in this area. He states as a point of discussion not only does staff mention it but the applicant mentions it as well, eventually they may have to take a look at the entire master plan. • Commissioner Koos concurred and wondered if staff wished to be stronger in regards to specific time lines. 12-17-01 Page 30 DECEMBER 47, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. McCafferty responded staff did not have a specific time line but think it is ill advice to incrementally approach the facilities planning existing there. He states at some point staff would recommend to Commission, when Fairmont Schools come in for another permit, that they think through their entire facilities process. Commissioner Koos wished to c(arify if staff would suggest they do it within a year Commissioner Bristol pointed out that in the past there have been business owners very courteously discuss what was happening on their site especially when it impacted the traffic. He points out that there is no one present other than the applicant and that demonstrates less than impact. Mr. McCafferty informed that the site is on the extreme corner as opposed to being in the depths of Mable Street as the other requests were. • • 1 - ! II 11 d : • . d - - - • 11 11 ~ - ! • - OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Arnold was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3(New Construction), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. • Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04477 for 5 years, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated December 17, 2001. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Arnold was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (3:12-3:17) • 12-17-01 Page 31 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r 10a. CEQA NEGATiVE DECLARATION (PREV. - APPROVED) 10b. . OWNER: Elva M. West, 5201 East Crescent Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: George Staehling, 18200 Avenida Bosque, Murietta, CA 92562 LOCATION: 1500 East Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately .-acre wi a ron age o 165 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue located 1,480 feet west of the centerline of Cliffrose Street (Eastside Jewelry and Loan). Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on January 5, 1999 to expire January 5, 2002) to retain a pawn shop within an existing commercial center. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUT(ON NO. Continued to January 14, 2002 SR8175VN.DOC ~ Chairperson Pro-Tempore Bostwick introduced Item No. 10 as Conditional Use Permit No. 3802 for property located at 1500 East Lincoln Avenue, Eastside Jewelry and Loan. ApplicanYs Statement; George Staehling, 18200 Catalina, Mirada, CA, states on page 3, regarding the signs, it indicates a"legal non-conforming 35-foot high pole sign" and the height of the subject sign is only 25 feet. He points out the shrubbery has been approved twice the way it currently is, without the additional trees, and affirms basically everything is still the same. Elba M. West, 5201 East Crescent Drive, Anaheim, CA, the owner of the property, concurred with Mr. Staehling and stated the sign was approved before it was installed and it measures 25 feet, which meets the City's condition of approval. In regards to the vacant space that is not being used, there are two businesses on the property or two pieces in two buildings. College Hospital has the other building; it actually has 4 different units in it and they are utilizing the entire building but have not used the sign. Previously before the pawnshop moved in there was a real estate office, carpet store and a Magnavox Home Entertainment Center (4 businesses) and that was the reason for the current sign. Mr. West affirms every portion of the sign was approved before it was ever put up. He states when Mr. Staehling came to him several years ago, and wanted to rent the building for a pawnshop he was not too happy about the idea. He approved Mr. Staehling's request under the agreement that he would keep the place clean and run it in a proper manner. Mr. West feels Mr. Staehling has proven himself in that he has no complaints whatsoever from anyone about his operation. Therefore, he asks Commission to approve his request. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • Commissioner Vanderbilt stated enlight of the 15-foot high sign next to it, it does not appear to be 25 feet high, so he wonders if that changes staff's position. 12-17-01 Page 32 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. McCafferty responded staff believes all the tenants in the existing center could adequately utilize either sign, however staff believes it is too much signage at that location. He assures there is not a problem with the property, it is immaculately maintained, but given everything the City is trying to do along Lincoln Avenue, staff feels compelled to recommend that one of the signs come down. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify when the staff report reads "Code permits", is that by right or is that through conditional use. Mr. McCafferty responded the Planning Commission through the conditional use permit process has the authority to further limit and modify signage in connection with the CUP but the code allows, by right, a freestanding shopping center identification sign with the dimensions that are identified in paragraph 10 on the staff report. Commissioner Koos asked if the signs met the square footage limitations. Mr. McCafferty stated the existing 232-square feet of the larger sign would not comply with today's code. Code permits 165 square feet total. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Bostwick clarified there are really two signs; one that deals with the pawnshop and the photography, and the unused one, which obviously relates to the other property; the clinic. Mr. Staehling stated the sign actually belongs with the proposed property. Commissioner Boydstun asked if both signs had permits. Mr. McCafferty responded both signs have permits. • Commissioner Boydstun asked if the clinic was on a long lease. Mr. West responded no it is not. There are approximately 2%2 years left on the lease. Commissioner Boydstun stated she is in and out of the center approximately twice a month and it is always clean and neat. She feels the signs are not intrusive. Commissioner Bristol stated at the time the signs were erected, Lincoln Avenue had very tall utility lines which are now gone. So given the City's efforts to remove the visual clutter, it seems it would not be asking a lot to ask the property owner to reduce the signage since there is now more visibility and the signs would be consistent with efforts to beautify the City. Commissioner Boydstun asked if the sign for Ady's and the photographer could be put on the sign that the clinic is not using and just take the top portion off, especially since it was an add on. Mr. West responded that it was an original sign, which read Magnavox Home Entertainment Center and above that was his name, the very small portion at the bottom, the real estate office, went in afterwards but was approved. Commissioner Eastman asked if there would be any reason why the applicant would object to removing the sign that is not being used. Mr. West responded yes, because he is not sure how long the clinic is going to be there and it would be needed for new tenants. Commissioner Eastman asked the length of the lease. • Mr. West responded approximately 3%2 years. 12-17-01 Page 33 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. McCafferty stated Commission might want to consider in exchange for reducing some of the signage on site to eliminate the time limitation so it makes more financial sense for the sign to be removed. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Bostwick pointed out that when this issue came up before, the City Council decided the applicant could leave the signage as it was, but in this case, he would rather get the landscaping rather than mess with the sign at this point. He agrees with Commissioner Vanderbilt that with the removal of the utility lines there is a need for beautifying the street and to have trees, etc., across the front which would add to the beauty of the property. Commissioner Bristol referred to Condition No. 11, the landscape plan, and stated if what the applicant says about the police not wanting large plants in front of the facility is true, then he suggests it state, "That within 90 days of the date of this resolution a landscape plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Division and the Anaheim Police Department for review and approval". Chairperson Pro-Tempore Bostwick states if they do not want large plants, planting trees should be acceptable because the sight-line of the trees are going to be above their view and they would be able to see through them. Commissioner Bristol stated this is a use where obviously there has been some police activity so it would be proactive to have the condition as he stated. Commissioner Boydstun feels in the front, 8 trees would be a little heavy and would block the sight-line, so perhaps the trees could be positioned in some way so as not to block the pawnshop and then heavy landscape with something that is not over 3 feet tall below them. She recalls the police indicated, originally, prior to approval of the pawnshop that they needed to see in as they drove by. • Commissioner Koos agrees with staff s recommendation on the trade-off issue. He supports less landscaping in view of the time limitation to get rid of the sign. He points out Lincoln Avenue is one of the prime examples in the City of Anaheim where there is a lot of strip commercial that does not necessarily reflect the neighborhoods that are behind it in terms of visual appearance. He states it is not to say that this property is not clean, there is no disputing that, but there is a"hodgepodged" look on Lincoln Avenue and as these projects come forward it is Commission's opportunity to give the City a facelift. Under the definition of blight, in terms of land uses, it specifically mentions pawnshops as one of the land uses that would establish an area as blighted. Additionally it mentions signage in consistencies up and down commercial corridors. He feels Commission should really take this opportunity to implement the ultimafe goal of the City, because if this proposal were given another two years this issue would come up again and staff would recommend the same thing, the City Council would probably wish for something better but not get it, and the cycle would continue. He states he would be supportive of staff's recommendation regarding signage and more lenient on time limitation than landscaping. Commissioner Eastman concurs with Commissioner Koos and would like to see a long term change along the corridor. She does not feel it is going to happen without Commission stepping forward and making changes as they come along. Commissioner Koos stated the old school of thought was that higher is better, high signs are more visible, but with the number of monument signs throughout the region, cities have been forcing land owners to use them rather than pole signs. He does not feel there would be any drop off in business because driving down the street a 6 or 7-foot monument sign could advertise the business as adequately as a pole sign. He points out everyone may not agree with him but when monument signs are the only type signs allowed, then everybody is on an equal playing field. He feels that is the direction cities are moving in, including the City of Anaheim. He points out that if this proposal were presented to the Planning Commission with a vacant lot Commission would not approve a 25-foot pole sign with a 232 square foot face on it and that should be the standard for Commission to look at. • Mr. Staehling responded the Choc Store down the street has a sign which is probably 100 or more feet high, as well as the Sandman Motel, and The Pancake House. 12-17-01 Page 34 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Koos responded that he would recommend those be removed as well. Mr. Staehling asked why is it because they are a pawnshop they are being treated differently. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Bostwick explained that Commission is saying that all signs of similar measurements are antiquated and should be removed. Mr. Staehling responded that his livelihood depends on the sign. He states the last time this came up he collected almost 600 signatures in 30 days, where different people stopped by the store because of the sign, and already there are two trees planted out front which blocks the sign coming from the east. Commissioner Vanderbilt pointed out there was not an application for the Toy Store and there was a sign in front of it which was removed upon request. Mr. Staehling stated he has been in business at the current site for 6 years and has never had any problems with anybody and the sign is very important to his business; he has his whole life savings into the pawnshop. Commissioner Vanderbilt clarified that Commission is not saying that there should not be signage but given the developments in the area it would be more appropriate to have a smaller sign. He states there is more visibility as a result of removing the utility line and that is the theme Commission is looking for. Mr. Staehling responded the utility lines are on the other side of the street. Commissioner Boydstun concurred. • Commissioner Vanderbilt stated because of the fact that there is less visual clutter it allows the signage that does exist to stand out more prominent. Mr. Staehling responded it would cause him to go out of business. Commissioner Boydstun assured she liked the sign but asked hypothetically if the pawnshop closed within the next 3 years could a monument sign to code be placed on the other side of the driveway. Mr. West responded there is no way to put another sign on the other side of the driveway. In fact, it was discussed years ago when the property was built and the current location is the only place the City will allow a sign, and for that reason all of the signs were positioned as currently stated. Commissioner Boydstun asked with the changed code could there be a monument sign on the other side of the driveway. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, responded no, the property is only entitled to have one sign because of the frontage and because it is considered a commercial retail center. He states because there are more than two units on the property they are allowed to have a 25-foot high sign to identify the entire center and that would be the smaller square footage. The monument signs by code are restricted to businesses other than the retail center. Commissioner Boydstun asked if they could remove the 15-foot high sign and permit them to be more in code and if something came along different perhaps they would be able to hang something along the pawnshop sign listing the identity of the other business. Mr. Hastings responded they could not add on because it is legal non-conforming but they could take away. He indicated the pawnshop sign is really out of scale for the business and suggested to divide the • pawnshop sign to allow additional signage. He points out that it is obviously very visible from quite a distance, which is the reason the applicant would like to keep it. 12-17-01 Page 35 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . Commissioner Boydstun suggested they could split the panel to identify the pawnshop and the other end to identify the other building. Mr. Hastings responded that is what they have just above that as well. Commissioner Boydstun stated the suggested design allows the applicant to get rid of the 15-foot sign since it is not being used and perhaps this would satisfy everyone. Mr. West appreciates Commissioner Boydstun's consideration, and states if a copy is needed he would see that there is a copy put on the signs for the hospital, but is very hesitant about changing the sign and deleting it in anyway. He states if it is a condition for Mr. Staehling to have the pawnshop then he would reject the application and wait for a commercial business to come in and take the space. Commissioner Boydstun cautioned that eventually Code Enforcement would probably say the signs must be removed because they are not up to code. Mr. Hastings responded the signs are "grandfathered" in and there is no amortization so the sign can remain there as long as the owner wants to keep it. However in this case Commission has the opportunity to condition the modification. Commissioner Boydstun asked if the applicant puts letters on the sign so that it is not a blank sign would the City be happier with that. Mr. Hastings responded it would be a better situation if the sign panels were utilized. However staff would still stand with their recommendation. • Mr. West stated he could arrange that. Commissioner Boydstun stated it is not Commission's place to put anyone out of business. Mr. West asked the square footage of the pawnshop portion of the sign. Mr. Hastings responded staff would have to check previous records for the information. Commissioner Bristol stated there are 3 areas of concern; landscaping, the size of the signs and the length of time. He states when discussed previously staff gave a little on the property and landscaping, the applicant cleaned the property to look really nice and has done a good job with the pawnshop and all that concerns the police and Code. However Commission commends the applicant in doing a fantastic job regardless of the policies and code regulations in view of the fact that he just has a good track record. Therefore, he hesitates to approve the CUP for a long period of time in case the applicant moves elsewhere. He understands both staff and the applicant's views but do not like the sign. He feels it would be nice if one of the signs were eliminated. Commissioner Boydstun stated it would be nice but the signs are permitted. Commissioner Koos stated the signs are legal non-conforming. Mr. Staehling responded the signs are the life of the pawnshop. Commissioner Bristol assured he understands his beliefs and is not saying he should not have a sign but just one that is in conformance. Mr. Staehling responded he chose the location because of the signs. • Commissioner Boydstun asserted the applicant agreed to complete the sign so that it is not blank. Commissioner Koos retorted it does not address the mass of the tall sign. 12-17-01 Page 36 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Staehling assured they would use the entire si n. 9 Commissioner Bostwick suggested a compromise to bring it closer to conformance; the applicant could remove the top portion (Ady's Alterations and Andreli photography) and put that on the lower sign (that would reduce the mass of the sign), cut back on the trees and landscaping, and extend the years on the permit. Commissioners Bristol Koos concurred. Commissioner Boydstun asked if the applicant could bring Ady's Alterations and Andreli Photography down to the sign that is not being used since they have been there a long time and is well established. Mr. West responded he could not speak for them without first talking to them and their lease is good for 4 years. He feels they would want the sign where it is. He informed the main occupant is Andreli Photography and later Ady's was moved in to split the property. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. West if he were the landlord of all of the businesses. Mr. West responded yes. Commissioner Bristol requested a continuance to address the signage issue. He feels it is not the use of the pawnshop that has everyone concerned but rather the signage; it is a legal non-conforming sign, which virtually has 3 signs in one. He stated the applicant is arguing the signage is important to a tenant that is not yet in existence, and Commission is asking that he look at the signage to see what can be done to make it more attractive. He points out there are 3 to 4 issues: The applicant could remove the • one that is not being utilized but he argues that it may be utilized in the future; The applicant is asking not to have the landscaping as conditioned in the staff report because of the police request; The applicant could move the top sign from the pawnshop sign. He feels these issues might be better addressed if there were a continuance to provide the applicant time to talk to his tenants. Mr. West responded he did not know what it would cost to remove the top portion. Mr. Staehling wished to clarify if it is true that once the sign is touched it has to come down permanently. The Commission panel responded no. Commissioner Bristol assured Commission knows signage is important, but their concern is the aesthetics of the signage. Mr. Staehling responded he plans to change the color of the sign. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Bostwick clarified Commission is suggesting a 4-week continuance to give the owner time to discuss with his tenants and report back to staff with a compromise. He explained Commission would not want him to leave town but bring the property and sign into closer conformance with the present code. Mr. Staehling asked what Commission would require on the bottom portion. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Bostwick suggested he work with staff but basically he could take Ady's Alteration and Andreli Photography and put them on the lower sign. Mr. Staehling responded the top of the Ady sign is still only 25 feet. • Chairperson Pro-Tempore Bostwick responded Commission understands but the total square footage of the sign exceeds code. 12-17-01 Page 37 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Staehling asked the measurement required by Code. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Bostwick suggested he work with staff because otherwise Commission could go ahead and vote on it and he may not like the outcome, or he could take the 4-week continuance, work with staff and try to work out a compromise before returning to a future Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. West asked if that is the only condition for the permit and if they agreed to staff s suggestions would that take care of the problem. Mr. Hastings stated staff would like to take a look along with the Police Department regarding landscaping. He feels staff could achieve the aesthetic goals and meet the goals of the Police Department as well. Mr. Staehling stated he hesitates to put more bushes in front of the pawnshop because it would prohibit the pawnshop from being seen, especially coming from the west the pawnshop could not be seen unless close upon it. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Bostwick assured staff would work out something that would not prohibit the pawnshop from being seen. Mr. West responded pertaining to the planted area, the 4-foot planter did not belong to him but to the City. Mr. Hastings responded staff would verify with Engineering to determine where the property line is and report back to Commission about available landscape opportunities. • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Arnold was absent), to continue the subject request to the January 14, 2002, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the owner of the subject property to coordinate a meeting with his tenants to discuss the signage issue, and to meet with staff to work out a solution for the nonconforming freestanding signage. Further, to come back before the Commission with a proposed plan showing the signage to be in conformance with the City's code. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Arnold was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 35 minutes (3:18-3:53) -__J 12-17-01 Page 38 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 11a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 11b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04466 OWNER: John Pedicini, P.O. Box 15033, Newport Beach, CA 92659 AGENT: Manuel Gomez, 1540 West La Palma Avenue, No.16E, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 1751 West La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 0.4-acre with a frontage of approximately 125 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue located 650 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street (EI Rey Del Marisco). Requests to establish land use conformity with existing Zoning Code land use requirements for a commercial retail center and to permit the sale of beer and wine for on-premises consumption in conjunction with an existing restaurant. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-178 Concurred with staff Granted SR8164AN.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 11 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04466, . for property located at 1751 West La Palma Avenue. It is two requests; to establish land use conformity for the existing commercial retail center and also to allow the sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption in conjunction with the existing restaurant. ApplicanYs Statement: John Pedicini, representing the applicant and the owner of the property, apologizes that this was ever presented to the Planning Commission. He stated the building was originally built with the restaurant inside 30-40 years ago without a CUP. However, approvements to the building required a CUP under a change of ownership. Unfortunately he never received notification as the new owner and the property never received notification from the City so that is why they are in front of Commission again, going through the same motion of getting beer and wine sales for a location that has had it 30-40 years. He states the applicant approves of the staff report conditions. However he has one issue, Item No. 12, page 7, "the number of tenant spaces shall be limited to 4 units as reflected in the site plan". The restaurant over many years has expanded. At one time the restaurant was 3 separate units. He asks should the restaurant shrink that it be a less intensified use and return to retail. He explains that the number of tenant spaces shall be limited to 4 units as reflected in the site plan as long as square footage of the restaurant is not reduced. Meaning, if the restaurant is reduced in size, and one of those 3 units becomes black, he would not be able to rent it again. Commissioner Bristol asked if it were not 7 units at one time. Mr. Pedicini responded yes, so under these conditions if one of those restaurants became black he would have to come before Commission again and go through the entire motion again. He asked that Commission construct a condition that would conform to the staff report of keeping 4 units there as long as the restaurant is there. ~ Mr. Hastings stated that it appears from the numbering system of the address that it probably was 5 units at one time and there was another one that was split and that created the half. Originally it was 5 and 12-17-01 Page 39 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . then 6 and now it is 4. He feels as a compromise, 5 might be a number that would work well within the intended number of units that were built on the property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt referred to staff in regards to the satellite dish on top of the property and asked if there was a request to have it screened or taken down in the earlier CUP? Mr. Pedicini respectfully asked to respond and stated the satellite dish is going to be removed. Commissioner Vanderbilt pointed out that Condition No. 5 says, "no video devices shall be permitted anywhere on subject property". He asked if that included televisions. Mr. Pedicini responded there is a television there. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if there is a desire to have a television. Mr. Pedicini responded yes there is a desire to have a television. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked staff if Condition No. 5 is designed to exclude televisions. Mr. McCafferty responded Condition No. 5 is intended to deal with those that are permitted either through the Business License Division or Amusement Device Arcade Permit, which Planning Commission approves, so yes the television is fine. Commissioner Vanderbilt clarified so if they put up a smaller dish that is fine. ! Mr. McCafferty responded staff would like to work with them to try to screen it as much as possible. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked in regards to the banners if they had been taken down. Mr. Pedicini responded if they have not been removed they would be removed. Ms. Mann, Assistant City Attorney, requested that the condition be phrased to say, "delete obsolete equipment" rather than get into areas where the City may be preempted by Federal Law. Commissioner Bristol informed alcohol use in the reporting districts were high in the area, but he was told the police had very few calls for the location. Mr. McCafferty added as well as the fact that they did not oppose the request because it was in conjunction with the full service restaurant. I FOLLOWWG IS A SUMMARY OF THF PI_ANNIN[~ CnMMIS510N ACTION_ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Chairperson Arnold was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Cfass 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. • Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04466 subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated December 17, 2001 with the following modifications: 12-17-01 Page 40 DECEMBER 17, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Modified Condition No. 12 to read as follows: 12. That the number of tenant spaces shall be limited to five (5) units. Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That the obsolete satellite dish/equipment on the roof shall be removed within 30 days of the date of this resolution. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Arnold was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (3:54-4:04) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:05 P.M. TO MONDAY, JANUARY 14, 2002 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. ***~*******************~******* (DUE TO LACK OF A QUORUM THE JANUARY 2, 2002 MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELLED.) ~ u Respectfully submitted: ~°~`~~~~~'t--~ Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2001. 12-17-01 Page 41