The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 2002/10/07• CITY OF ANAHElM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2002 Councii Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California ~ • CHAIRPERS~~F~At..l~B~~STWICK COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: PHYl~LlS BO~S~U~1~=~TEI~~~N~BRISTOL, GAIL EASTMAN, ~1C~H'N~KOC3~,~~A~ll ~ N~~'F20~J~M,ES VANDERBILT COMMISSIONERS STAFF PRESENT: e' ~ -. Selma Mann, Assistant ~=~f~r ~ Greg Hastings, ZonmgF .~vi~ic ~ Judy Dadant, Senior P#~n~,ner Terese Oliver, Depu ~ ~t~~A~ AI Brady, Senior Cod~~Enfor~ ~~ ~ AGENDA POSTING~ ,A corriK Friday, October 4, 2QQ2~"ir~""s~~ outside display kiosk~`' ~_ S ~ .} ~. PUBLISHED: Anaheim ~~I ~~ H CALL TO ORDER ~~ ~. PLANNING G~~MM • STAFF UPi~~T DEVELOPMEN PLANNING CO • PRELIMINARY ~ ~ n.~ ~~ ~ .. ~ ~ =~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ y ,, Y~`~__ ' ~' ~ ~,. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ '" •p~~ Alfred Yalda~ . riric~~~~~ranspo ation Planner Melanie Adams, P~~~ci~~d, C~ya i~qmeer Elly Fernandes, S~~i~r~~c~~ ary ~ h~ ~- ,~ ~ ~ ~~ ,,,F E~ ~~~~ ON 1'~Ot~A~M sf „~~~,~~,~~ ,~„-;~, 9:30 a.m. on ~s, and also in the ~ ~° ~ ~~~:-.. ~~R~1€ ~E~IIS,QN~~~L~OCTOBER 7, 2002 AGENDA RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, p/ease complete a speaker card and submit it to fhe secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Bristol PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H:\DOCS\CLERICAL\MINUTESWC100702.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net P ~ OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. CONSENT CALENDAR: item 1-A through 1-C 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 Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun abstained on Item 1-C), for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-A through 1-C) as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • • A. (a) GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY NO. 2002-00020 - REQUEST TO Determined to be in DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM GENERAL conformance with the PLAN FOR A METROPOLITAN MEDICAL RESPONSE SYSTEM Anaheim General Plan EMERGENCY SITE.: County of Orange Health Care Agency, Attn: John Beck, 405 West 5th Street, Room 610, Santa Ana, CA 92701, (Vote: 7-0) requests to determine conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the proposed licensing of approximately 10,000 square feet in the Edison Field parking lot for a Metropolitan Medical Response System emergency site. Property is located at 2000 S. State College Boulevard (Edison International Field of Anaheim) ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the County's proposal to enter into a License Agreement to utilize approximately 10,000 square feet at 2000 South State College Boulevard (Edison International Field of Anaheim) for an emergency site for the Metropolitan Medical Response System is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. General Plan Conformity items have a statutory guideline limitation of 40-days from the date the application is submitted, therefore it is given accelerated processing and provided to the City Council at an early time. (The 40-day time limitation as required by Section 65402(b) of the Government Code requires the City to act on this item by October 15, 2002, as the application was submitted on September 5, 2002 for the subject request.) SR1137TW.DOC 10-07-02 Page 2 OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • B. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04427 (TRACKING NO. Approved retroactive CUP2002-046171- RETROACTIVE TIME EXTENSION TO COMPLY extension of time for WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Gary Frazier, Tyrol Plaza LP, 1 year (to expire on 6445 Joshua Tree Avenue, Orange, CA 92867, requests a retroactive August 27, 2003) time extension to comply with conditions of approval (originally approved August 27, 2001, to expire August 27, 2002) to construct a (Vote: 7-0) new 3-story, 60-unit "affordable" senior citizen's apartment complex with a density bonus with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces, minimum building site area per dwelling unit, maximum structural height and minimum setback abutting one-family residential developments. Property is located at 891 South State College Boulevard. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, 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 Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04427 (Tracking No. CUP 2002-04617) for a period of one (1) year, to expire on August 27, • 2003, based on the following: (i) That the proposed use remains in conformance with the current Zoning Code and General Plan land use designation, and that there have been no code amendments that directly affect the requested extension, that would cause the original approval to be inconsistent with the zoning code. (ii) That since the original approval in August of 2001, the petitioner has been working closely with various public agencies and financial institutions to complete the project financing and to comply with conditions of approval and complete the necessary on- and off-site improvements. (iii) That this is the first request for an extension of time for this permit, and the extension does not exceed the two permitted extensions of time permitted by Code Section 18.03.090.0301. (iv) That this vacant property is maintained in a clean and safe condition and there are no Code violations on the property at this time. (v) That there are no additional information or changed circumstances which contradict the facts necessary to support the required findings for the approval of the project. SR2110DS.DOC r ~ ~~ 10-07-02 Page 3 OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • u ~ C. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meetings of September 23, 2002. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun abstained), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of September 23, 2002. Approved (Vote 6-0, Commissioner Boydstun abstained since she was absent for the meeting) 10-07-02 Page 4 OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: • 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04590 (READVERTISED) OWNER: Efren Gutierrez, 1750 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 Continued to October 21, 2002 AGENT: Micaela Munez, 1816 North Broadway, Santa Ana, CA 92706 LOCATION: 1750 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximatefy 0.6-acre having a frontage of 140 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue located 640 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street (EI Conejo Feliz Restaurant). Request to permit a public dance hall with a cover charge as an accessory use to a previously approved restaurant with on-premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces Continued from the September 9, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. r~ ~J • SR8449AV.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the October 21, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to conduct a park+ng study and to submit revised plans. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 10-07-02 Page 5 OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. CLASS 11 3b. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04469 (TRACKING NO. VAR 2002-04526) OWNER: City of Anaheim, Attn: Clare Fletcher, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, 10th floor, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Alexander Development, Attn: Jon Veregge, 2766 Pomona Boulevard, Pomona, CA 91768 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). Request waivers of a) permitted commercial center identification sign and b) maximum number of wall signs to construct a new monument sign and one additional wall sign for an existing automotive dealership (Weir Canyon Acura) in addition to the previously-approved seven wall signs for two automotive dealerships. Continued from the September 9, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-149 Concurred with staff Approved modification SR8448KB.DOC • Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 3 as Variance No. 2001-04469, 8375 East La Palma Avenue - Weir Canyon Acura, a request to construct a new monument sign and one additional wall sign for an existing automotive dealership (Weir Canyon Acura) in addition to the previously-approved seven wall signs for two automotive dealerships with waivers of: a) permitted commercial center identification sign and b) maximum number of wall signs. ApplicanYs Testimony: Craig Whetter, 1400 No. Tustin Avenue, Orange, CA, representing David Wilson Automotive Group, Weir Canyon Acura, states they are in the process of a million dollar project contingent on the Acura Division image program. They are down to one item, which regards an Acura logo and the word, "Acura" on the building itself required by Acura to meet the image standard of the million-dollar expansion. Acura is going to contribute $200,000 contingent upon the Acura logo specifications. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, 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 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. ~ Approved modification to Variance No. 2001-04469 (Tracking No. VAR2002-04526) approving waivers pertaining to (a) permitted commercial center identification signage 10-07-02 Page 6 OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • and (b) maximum number of wall signs (to construct a new monument sign and one additional wall sign for an existing automotive dealership [Weir Canyon Acura] in conjunction with the previously approved seven wall signs for two automotive dealerships). Incorporated conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. PC2001-176 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition No. 3 has been modified, and was further modified at today's meeting): 1. That signage for subject facility shall be limited to that shown on the exhibits submitted by the petitioner and approved by the Planning Commission. Any additional signage shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing. 2. That no sign shall be lighted between the hours of midnight and 6:30 a.m. 3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1, Revision 1 of Exhibit No. 2, and Exhibit Nos. 3 through 12, s~ and as conditioned herein. 4. That approved signage shall be maintained in a"like-new" condition and refurbished as necessary. 5. That within 30 days of the date of this resolution, the property owner shall submit a letter requesting termination of Variance No. 3544 (waiver of maximum number and ~ type of signs, maximum area and display surfaces, and limitations on sign lighting to construct three (3) freestanding signs and three (3) wall signs) to the Zoning Division. 6. That within one (1) year from the date of this resolution or prior to final building and zoning inspections, whichever occurs first, Condition No. 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 7. 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: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (1:37-1:42) i 10-07-02 Page 7 OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. RECLASSIFICATlON NO. 2002-00078 4c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 4d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04573 OWNER: Commercial L. P., 202 North Curry Street, Suite 100, Carson City, NV 89703-4121 AGENT: Coorg Cooperation, P. O. Box 1266, Anaheim, CA 92815 LOCATION: ~No address). Property is approximately 4.3 acres having a frontage of 70 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue located 255 feet east of the centerline of Pauline Avenue. RECLASSIFICATION 2002-00078 - Requests reclassification from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone to the ML (Limited Industrial), or a less intense zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04573 - Request to permit indoor self-storage and an outdoor storage yard including RV, boat, tractor trailer, automobile/truck and construction vehicles with waiver of minimum side yard setback adjacent to a residential zone. • Continued from the July 29, August 12 and August 26, 2002, Planning Commission meetings. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-150 Approved Granted Approved Granted CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-151 ~ SR8369VN.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 4 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04573, a request to permit indoor self-storage and an outdoor storage yard including RV, boat, tractor-trailer, automobile/truck and construction vehicles with waiver of minimum side yard setback adjacent to a residential zone. He noted that Commission received a letter from the Coorg Corporation specifying corrections to the staff report, and also a draft letter from the Anaheim Public Utilities Department specifying items dealing with utilities on the property. ApplicanYs Testimony: Glenn Mondo, 18881 Von Karman #1225, Irvine, CA, representing Coorg Corporation, states after having continuous discussions with staff and carefully reviewing the proposed conditions both for the reclassifications and rezoning of the property as well as the conditions for the CUP, they are prepared to accept the conditions with exceptions to Nos. 3 and 10. Condition No. 3 would limit storage on site to RVs, boats, or travel trailers, motorcycles, golf cart, state truck or commercial truck, etc., and they feel it should not be an issue because it is going to be fully screened. Condition No. 10 would require further negotiation with the railroad to obtain a document from them indicating that the proposed development would not restrict the use of the active railroad spur. The applicant proposes an alternative to the condition of the easement agreement as it relates to that spur. An easement provides that the applicant cannot interfere with the railroad use of the spur and similarly the railroad would not interfere with the applicanYs use of the property. They would accept a condition indicating that the easements are to be complied with and there would be no interference. Chairperson Bostwick asked Ms. Oliver to repeat the testimony she made at the morning session. 10-07-02 Page 8 OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Terese Oliver, Deputy City Attorney II - Prosecution states that at the morning session it was stated that their position is consistent with the recommendations on the staff report. However, they wanted the Commission to be aware that there is an identical property located above the subject property and above the 91-Freeway where they had similar issues of outdoor storage. One of the major problems being that it was extremely unsightly and as a result had been prevented from doing any outdoor storage on their property. Mr. Mondo responded the distinction between what they propose and the referenced property is a Conditional Use Permit that is before Commission and through many of the conditions being proposed by staff the City would not have the issue of unsightly storage. It would be screened and not visible. Commissioner Koos referred to Assistant City Attorney Selma Mann and stated generally any statements made at the morning sessions that are of opinion in nature are asked to be repeated in the afternoon session because the Planning Commissioners and Planning staff are generally the only two participants in the morning session. Therefore, he wished to know if she felt what the City Attorney's Office stated characterizes what happened in the morning session with respect to statements made regarding the subject property as well as adjacent properties. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney responded the Planning Commission was at the morning session and if additional testimony is suggested by Ms. Oliver to expand on what was testified at the morning session she would leave it to Ms. Oliver's discretion. Ms. Oliver responded that she testified in the morning session that before the Commission considered the subject piece of property she felt the Commission should be aware that there was an identical piece of property that had come to her attention at Code Enforcement where there was outdoor storage being utilized in a manner that was inconsistent with the zone, which is RS-A-43,000. The outdoor storage was • very unsightly and there had been major complaints on it. She states she was making no recommendations on the subject property but wanted the Commission to be aware that there was another property that Code Enforcement had prevented from doing any outdoor storage. A meeting took place with the referenced property owners in which herself, Planning Department and Code Enforcement were present with the Bushala's and their attorney in which they were told there would be a staff recommendation for indoor storage only. She wished only to bring that to the Commission's attention and that there was no recommendation on her behalf, nor was there an opinion. Commissioner Koos asked if she thought it was fair to associate the subject project with the actions of another property owner having a similar size parcel, relating something that they have not done to something someone else has done or could do. Ms. Oliver responded that was not her intention, Commissioner Koos states he has never heard of a land use item on the Planning Commission Agenda being compared to something someone else has done or could do based on Planning Commission's approval or based on someone else's previous actions, and is not sure it is fair to bring it up as it is part of the public record to potentially sway the condition whether or not she recommends it or not, and he is not sure if there is any nexus to even talk about it. Ms. Oliver responded maybe there is not. Commissioner Koos stated he was just concerned about it. Elona Yonda, P.O. Box 1266 Anaheim, CA, states the two properties are not identical because the subject property is not visible from the 91-Freeway. There is a block wall on the 91-Freeway which screens the facility entirely. The referenced property does not have a block wall, is completely visible • from the freeway, did not have a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and were in violation of many City Codes. 10-07-02 Page 9 OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Judy Dadant, Senior Planner, states in terms of the information provided at the morning session, staff realizes that the two properties are completely separate properties. Some of the concerns raised for the referenced property are applicable to the subject site because of the way the site is designed and the visibility off the 91-Freeway. Staff felt additional information should be provided and therefore recommended continuation of the item. Since the writing of the staff report, additional information has been presented to staff and there are conditions of approval incorporated with the request that would satisfy any concerns. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, states the subject property is not visible from the freeway, and staff worked with the applicant to ensure there is proper landscaping and that it is setback far enough so that outdoor storage cannot be seen. There are sufficient conditions in place to screen from public view. Chairperson Bostwick states he met with the applicant and reviewed their plans the week of September 29, 2002, and Commission had a long discussion in the morning session about where to store commercial vehicles in the City. He asked Mr. Hastings if he felt the list submitted by the applicant was sufficient. Mr. Hastings responded the concerns that have occurred on adjacent properties to the south as well as some other areas in the City have generally been related to commercial type vehicles being stored outdoors. Tf~e subject site would have contractor vehicles where there are possible activities as repair of the vehicles or product stored in the back of a truck, which would sit there for quite awhile and produce a nuisance. Therefore, staff recommends that it only be used for RVs, boats, and other personal household type vehicles rather than commercial vehicles. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney responded that the applicant indicated having to get written documentation from the railroad may significantly delay their project. Existing easement agreements are in place that indicates there would be no interference with the railroad spurs and additionally to have a • condition of approval that indicates that the property owner would operate in compliance with the easement applicable to the property and would not interfere with the railroad spurs. Violation of that condition would subject the Conditional Use Permit for modification/termination. Commissioner Koos states he also met with the applicant and does not have a problem with the application. Commission denied the referenced project approximately 4 years ago with concerns to how it was adjacent to residential, and ultimately it was approved by City Council. The subject site is adjacent to largely industrial as well as the railroad right-of-way. He asked if staff feels Condition No. 32 is tight enough on the types of landscaping desired on the La Palma frontage. Mr. Hastings responded the condition should specify that a final landscaping plan, especially for purposes of screening from view any on site storage, should be submitted in the Zoning Division. Staff recommends 36-inch box for the tree size. The purpose is to have full screening as quickly as possible. Staff would work with the applicant regarding shrubs and the ground cover to make sure they are sustainable and properly p(anted. Commissioner Eastman states she met with the applicant and would like to see conditions state that construction, landscaping materials or debris should not be allowed in order to prevent someone from coming onto the property after hours with a truck full of construction and demolition type materials, but instead would have to take it to the dump. Commissioner Bristol states he met with the applicant and does not feel the subject site would impact the residents. He feels the City is in desperate need of the proposed type storage, and the site is appropriate for the use. He is concerned about working on vehicles before certain times and after certain times where there could be a conceivable amount of noise in inappropriate times. Chairperson Bostwick referred to Condition No. 8, which states, "That there shall be no on-site ~ maintenance or repair of recreational vehicles, boats, personal water craft, motorcycles or trailers" and stated Commission could also add, "no on-site maintenance of any kind". 10-07-02 Page 10 OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • AI Brady, Sr. Code Enforcement Officer, states there was automotive repair occurring on the referenced property and it was taken care of by the tenant being evicted by the landlord. Commissioner Bristol referred to staff's recommendation to continue due to circulation on the site. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, states he met with the applicant and suggested there were poles in the middle of the roadway that are very close to the center. Traffic Engineering would provide a striping plan so that they are visible in order to avoid striking them when driving in that area. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 2002-00078 (to reclassify this property from the RS-A- 43,000 [Residential/Agricultural] zone to the ML [Limited Industrial] zone or a less intense zone) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated October 7, 2002. Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04573 (to permit indoor self-storage and an outdoor storage yard including RV, boat, tractor traiter, automobile/truck and construction vehicles) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated October 7, 2002, with the following modifications: • Modified Condition Nos. 3, 8, 11, 19, 24, 32 and 44 to read as follows: 3. That outdoor storage shall be limited to the list of vehicles supplied and specified by the applicant at the October 7, 2002, Commission meeting (Allowed/Not Allowed list submitted to the Commission on October 7, 2002), with the addition of "Construction or landscaping materials or debris" to be added to the "Not Allowed" list. No parking or storage of wrecked or inoperable cars or vehicles or parts sha11 be permitted. Said storage shall be completely screened from surrounding properties, public right-of-way and SR-91 Freeway. 8. That there shall be no on-site maintenance or repair of , , , vehicles of any kind. 11. That an easement or agreement, which instrument to be determined by the City Attorney, shall be obtained from CALTRANS in order to provide adequate fire truck turn-around and to allow the proposed buildings near the north property line. This document shall be in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. 19. That the developer shall construct a 5-foot wide sidewalk adjacent to the right-of- way line on La Palma Avenue, in conformance to Public Works standard detail no. 110-E, and install landscape and irrigation between the sidewalk and curb, as approved by the Parks Division. The developer shall obtain a Right of Way Construction Permit from the Public Works Department. The improvements shall be constructed prior to final zoning inspection. ~ 24. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses. That the required parking shall be clearly shown on plans submitted to the Planning Department. 10-07-02 Page 11 OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 32. That a final landscape plan providing fandscaping materials that shall fully screen all proposed storage as quickly as possible, shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval indicating minimum of four (4), 36-inch box sized trees, adjacent to La Palma Avenue and three (3), 36-inch box sized trees adjacent to Commercial Street within the landscape setback areas. Said plan shall also indicate shrubs and groundcover in all planter areas and required parking lot landscaping and shall be served by permanent irrigation facilities. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 44. That prior to issuance of a building permit or prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, a-9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 39 and 40, above- mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Deleted Condition No. 10. Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That the items listed in the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department "drafY' letter dated October 7, 2002, shall be incorporated as conditions of approval. VOTE: 7-0 ~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 42 minutes (1:43-2:25) r ~ L 10-07-02 Page 12 OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04601 Approved Approved, in part Granted OWNER: Ball Road Corporation, 10701 Wilshire Boulevard, # 2204, Los Angeles, CA 90024 AGENT: Botich Architects, 2140 South State College Boulevard, Suite 110, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 2823 West Ball Road. Property is approximately 0.57- acre having a frontage of 110 feet on the north side of Ball Road located 328 feet west of the centerline of Dale Avenue. Request to permit a 30-unit affordable senior citizen's apartment complex with a density bonus with waivers of: a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, b) minimum building setback, c) maximum structural height adjacent to a single-family residential zone and d) maximum density bonus. Continued from the September 23, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-152 i SR1097CW.DOC Chairperson Bosfinrick introduced Item No. 5 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04601, 2823 West Ball Road, a request to permit a 30-unit, affordable senior citizen's apartment complex with a density bonus. Applicant's Testimony: Phil Schwartze, 31682 EI Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano, CA, states he has been working with the neighborhood and WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council) to find a satisfactory project for the site and would like to discuss the waivers to show they have been thought through. He feels Waiver No. 1 is a self-inflicting waiver in that if you do the normal and ask for the density bonus, the waiver would be automatic. On the high waiver, they are encroaching within 150 feet but believe it is just by several feet, if that. He feels he could make the waiver go away, but would end up with shaved off architecture along the backside. His preference is to keep the architecture as it is since the encroachment is so small. The setback along the easter{y site abuts the shopping center and there is a strip center located at Dale Avenue and Ball Road. They will be negotiating with Housing on affordability requirements. He submitted a letter from a neighbor immediately adjacent to the subject site to the north in favor of the project and has talked to the neighbors one door down from the referenced neighbor who are also supportive of the project. Public Testimony: Dr. Milton Nakano, 2795 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA, representing the Orange County Buddhist Church, states he has been practicing optometry in Anaheim for over 25 years and has seen lots of changes, good and bad. He opposed for the following reasons: ^ West Anaheim already has very high density. ^ There is no parking along Ball Road from Dale Avenue to Beach Boulevard. ~ ^ The subject unit would be located adjacent to a liquor store. ^ Across the street is another liquor store and bar. ^ He cannot see how it would be a very good site for a senior housing complex. 10-07-02 Page 13 OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ^ The Police Log shows there is a very high crime rate on Ball Road. ^ The church has existed in the location for over 25 years and has been a very good neighbor and a very good asset to the community. ^ The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of the church do a lot of community and social projects. ^ The church provides language classes, martial arts classes, etc., to the community. ^ They feel the proposed 30-unit project would negatively impact their church in the future. Jerome A. Jackson, 9922 Harvest Lane, Anaheim, CA, states he lives around the corner from three senior apartments and believes the Planning Code is for the safety of the community and the people living there. The site around the corner from them has inadequate parking, and the residents have ta park in the neighborhood. Therefore, all of their houses are getting filled up with cars and they have no place to park in front of their houses. Commissioner Bostwick responded none of the waivers is a parking waiver and the applicant does not have a problem having enough parking on the project. Mr. Jackson states he counted six senior citizen units between Brookhurst Street and Dale Avenue and Gilbert Street and Ball Road. It seems they are crowding the area in West Anaheim and should be spread out farther. Judithanne Gollette, representing WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council) Land Use and Business Development, states in the last two years WAND has put in over 250 afFordable senior units in West Anaheim. They feel it is time for alternate choices to rental senior units in West Anaheim unless a piece of land is an irregularly shaped lot or cannot be built for something else, but feel it is not the case for the subject piece of land. The unit, as well as the design, is everything a senior unit should have. It has full handicap accessibility in every single unit, lower counters, bathrooms with doorways wide enough for wheelchairs, laundry shoots, and access to gardens. The problem is that it is not the appropriate ~ place for it. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Mr. Schwartze states their intent is to gain the entitlement on the property and immediately proceed with the seniors' project. The landowner has indicated that he is not unwilling to sell the land to them but is not going to do it with a gun to his head. He concurs with Ms. Gollette; it is probably the best senior's project they have seen because they have carefully thought all of the issues through. They did not realize they were in such a high crime rate being next to a church and junior high school, but it is indicated that way. It works out as a senior's project because they are within walking distance of the services required, including bus services, and they have ample parking. Chairperson Bostwick feels seniors would reduce the crime rate in the neighborhood. Commissioner Koos states there is a tremendous need in the aging population for a senior housing complex, and he does not see any down side to it. It is a senior housing complex that has controls on it set within the affordable lease agreements with various agencies that fund them. It is a tough parcel to develop. Commissioner Bristol states to come back and say it is going to be a parking lot after all the activities done on the west side would be very difficult to get through Council. The land use fits the lot. Commissioner Eastman states it is a very nice looking project for a part of the population Commission definitely has identified as needing more housing. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. ~ OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke in opposition to the subject request (1 represented West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council - WAND). 10-07-02 Page 14 OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ IN SUPPORT: A letter was submitted in favor of the subject request. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows: Approved waivers pertaining to (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum structural height within 150 feet of a single-family zone and (c) minimum structural setback. Denied waiver (d) pertaining to maximum density bonus since it has been deleted. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2002- 04601 (to construct a 26-unit "affordable" senior citizen's apartment complex with a density bonus) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated October 7, 2002, with the following modification: Modified Condition No. 5 to read as follows: ~ 5. That the legal property owner shall enter into an unsubordinated recorded Affordable Housing Agreement with the City of Anaheim satisfactory in form and substance to the Executive Director of the Community Development Department pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915 to provide that a minimum of 49 percent (49%) of the total proposed number of residential units shall be rented as very low income housing as defined in California Government Code Section 65915 at or below 50% of the Adjusted Median Income and with appropriate rental controfs as approved by the City of Anaheim for a period of not less than thirty (30) years from the date of issuance of occupancy permits. In addition, the legal owner shall also include in the agreement a provision that a minimum twenty five percent (25%) of the total number of proposed units shall be rented as lower income housing (as described in Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.94.040 and 18.99.030.0203) with appropriate rental controls as approved by the City of Anaheim for a period of not less than thirty (30) years from the date of issuance of occupancy permits. A copy of the recorded covenant shall then be submitted to the Zoning Division. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 17 minutes (2:26-2:43) r~ ~~ 10-07-02 Page 15 OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04611 OWNER: Muller MacArthur LLC, 23521 Paseo De Valencia, Ste 200, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 AGENT: The Muller Company, 23521 Paseo De Valencia, Ste. 200, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 LOCATION: 167 and 175 West Cerritos Avenue. Buildinq No. 2. Property is 12.3-acres located at the southwest corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard. Request to permit a church with a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-153 Concurred with staff Approved Granted for 3 years (to expire on October 7, 2005) SR8447AV.DOC Chairperson Bostwick abstained from the item as he has property within 500 feet of the proposed properties. Chairperson Pro-tem Vanderbilt introduced Item No. 6 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002- 04611, 167 and 175 West Cerritos Avenue - New Harvest Christian Fellowship, a request to permit a church with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Applicant's Testimony: ~ Pastor Tom Gutierrez, 920 Glencliff St., #151, La Habra, CA, representing New Harvest Christian Fellowship, states he is present to answer any questions concerning the Conditional Use Permit. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol referred to Condition No. 5 which states, "That no bells audible from the exterior of the building shall be permitted". He asked that since the proposed building is very close to the residence to the north and would have access to the alley, if when there are evening services, etc., would there be a problem keeping the back door closed so that noise would not penetrate to the northern residence. Mr. Gutierrez responded he would not have a problem with keeping the door closed and the noise to a limit. Commissioner Koos referred to Condition No. 2 which states, "The hours of operation are Sundays, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m:' but sometimes Commission finds the church may state they only want to stay open a certain amount of time and realize later they may want to have Sunday night bibte school, etc. So, given that it is a weekend operation and there are not going to be a lot of other businesses there on the weekends, he suggests 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None i ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick abstained), 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 10-07-02 Page 16 OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04611 (to permit a church) for a period of three (3) years, to expire on October 7, 2005, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated October 7, 2002, with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 2 and 5 to read as follows: 2. That the hours of operation for the church shall be limited to Sunday from ~e ~-~: 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., and Tuesday through Friday from 6:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. 5. That no bells audible from the exterior of the building shall be permitted and that the doors shall remain closed during activities in order to keep the noise within the building. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bosfinrick abstained) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (2:44-2:50) ~ i 10-07-02 Page 17 OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04610 OWNER: Muller-MacArthur, LLC, 23521 Paseo De Valencia, # 200, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 AGENT: The Muller Company, 23521 Paseo De Valencia # 200 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 LOCATION: 125-157 West Cerritos Avenue. Property is 12.3- acres located at the southwest corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard. Request to permit adult day care with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-154 Concurred with staff Approved Granted for 5 years (to expire on October 7, 2007) SR1096CW.DOC Chairperson Bostwick abstained from the item as he has property within 500 feet of the proposed properties. Chairperson Pro-tem Vanderbilt introduced Item No. 7 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002- 04610, 125-127 West Cerritos Avenue, a request to permit adult daycare with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. i Applicant's Testimony: Zohreh Shayan, 125 W. Cerritos, Administrator and Licensee for the senior daycare center, states the primary function of the program is to restore and maintain the optimum capacity of self-care and to delay or prevent the risk of institutional placement for the elderly. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick abstained), 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 Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04610 (to permit adult day care) for a period of five (5) years, to expire on October 7, 2007, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated October 7, 2002, with the following modification: Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That this permit shall expire on October 7, 2007. 10-07-02 Page 18 OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bosfinrick abstained) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22 day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (2:51-2:55) ~ s 10-07-02 Page 19 OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~J 8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 11 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04608 OWNER: Jerome Remick, MCT Investments LLC, 4616 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Shannon McDonald, Cingular Wireless, 1225 West 190th Street, Suite 250, Gardena, CA 90248 LOCATION: 4616 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 0.7-acre having a frontage of 125 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue located 365 feet west of the centerline of Hancock Street. Request to permit a flagpole telecommunication antenna facility and accessory roof-mounted equipment in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to October 21, 2002 SR8441VN.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None C~ ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the October 21, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to revise plans. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 10-07-02 Page 20 OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00083 OWNER: Neville Chemical, 2800 Neville Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15225 AGENT: Jeffrey Farano, 2300 E. Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 2110 East Winston Road. Property is 8.3-acres having a frontage of 670 feet on the south side of Winston Road located 650 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard. Request reciassification of the subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone to the ML (Limited Industrial) zone, or a less intense zone. ~ RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-155 Approved Granted SR8443KB.DOC Chairperson Bosfinrick introduced Item No. 9 as Reclassification No. 2002-00083, 2110 East Winston Road - Neville Chemical Company, a request for reclassification of the subject property from the RS-A- 43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone, to the ML (Limited, Industrial) zone or a less intense zone. ApplicanYs Testimony: Jeff Farano, representative for the applicant, states he has read the staff report, has no problems with it and is present to answer any questions of the Commissioners. ~ • ~ ~ - • ~ • • ~ ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 2002-00083 to reclassify this property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone to the ML (Limited Industrial) zone, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated October 7, 2002. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (2:56-2:58) ~ 10-07-02 Page 21 OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 10a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04466 (TRACKING NO. CUP2002-04607) OWNER: John Pedicini, P.O. Box 15033, Newport Beach, CA 92659 AGENT: Manuel Gomez, 1540 West Ball Road, #16E, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 1751 West La Palma Avenue. Property is 0.4-acre having a frontage of 125 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue located 650 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street (EI Rey Del Marisco). Request to amend hours of operation for a previously-approved restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-156 Concurred with staff Approved amendment, in part, for 1 year (to expire on October 7, 2003) SR8444KB.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 10 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04466, 1751 West La Pa1ma Avenue - EI Rey Del Marisco, a request to amend hours of operation for a previously-approved restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption. r~ ~ Applicant's Testimony: Manuel Gomez, 603 N. Leisure Court, representing EI Rey Del Marisco, states they are applying to extend the hours of operation to 1:30 a.m. They have been opened for 1 year, the food is fantastic and the customers wanted them to open later for better service. Commissioner Koos asked if there is any indication that the subject restaurant is not operating truly as a restaurant as was the case with EI Patio Restaurant, which is across the street. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, states EI Patio Restaurant converted over to a dancehall and the subject restaurant has not made that transitior-. Commissioner Koos states there are concerns about making the comparison but there have not been any complaints filed against the subject establishment. It is not a fair comparison. Chairperson Bostwick states the only reason for going later hours with EI Patio Restaurant was their request to conduct a dancehall but, EI Rey Del Marisco is operating a viable restaurant and the hours would be adequate for them as well. Mr. Gomez states EI Patio Restaurant has a complete buffet specializing in Mexican food, and EI Rey Del Marisco is a family restaurant specializing in seafood. Within the past year, there have not been any calls for the Police. It is a family restaurant ordering off the menu and the clientele is different from that of EI Patio Restaurant. Chairperson Bristol asked if it is necessary to serve beer and wine until 2:00 a.m. Mr. Gomez responded only beer because the clientele prefer beer with seafood and not wine. They come from other establishments after dancing and wish to eat. • Commissioner Vanderbilt states Norm's restaurant which is only %2 block away is opened 24 hours. Unlike the EI Patio Restaurant which is darker and more of a nightclub environment, the proposed 10-07-02 Page 22 OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • restaurant is laid out with large amounts of lighting and opened windows, appearing from the outside as the kind of place people would want to go to satisfy their appetite for seafood, which is difficult to find after 11 p.m. Commissioner Koos states Commissioner Vanderbilt brings up a great point regarding restaurants that are legitimate after hour eating establishments. They are all over the place, such as Bob Big Boy or Denny's Restaurants, which also serves beer and wine until approximately 2 a.m. The EI Rey Del Marisco has not had any complaints at all, and it does not seem possible to be able to convert it into a public dancehall. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Pfanning 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, in part, the request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04466 (Tracking No. CUP2002-04607) pertaining to hours of operation for a previously- approved restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption, for a period of one (1) year, to expire on October 7, 2003. i Incorporated conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. PC2001-178 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition Nos. 1 c and 1 j have been modified; 1 j was further modified and an additional condition of approvaf was added at today's meeting): Restaurant: 1. That subject restaurant shall continuously adhere to the following conditions, as required by the Police Department: a. That the establishment shall be operated as a"Bona Fide Public Eating Place" as defined by Section 23038 of the California Business and Professions Code. b. That there shall be no bar or lounge maintained on the property unless licensed by Alcoholic Beverage Control and approved by the City of Anaheim. c. That food service with a full meal shall be available from opening time until closing time, whichever occurs first, on each day of operation. d. That there shall be no pool tables maintained upon the premises at any time. e. That the sales of beer and wine shall not exceed 40% of the gross sales of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall ~ maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of beer and wine and other items. These records shall be made 10-07-02 Page 23 OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ available, subject to audit and, when requested, inspection by any City of Anaheim official during reasonable business hours. That there shall be no live entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted on the premises at any time without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. That the sales of beer and wine for consumption off the premises shall be prohibited. That there shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcohol beverages. That the activities occurring in conjunction with the operation of this establishment shall not cause noise disturbance to surrounding properties. That sales, service and consumption of beer and wine shall be permitted only between the hours of 10 a.m. to ~ 10 p.m., Sunday through ~AFe~es~ Thursday and 10 a.m. to +~ti~+~ 1 a.m., ~~j~ Friday and Saturday. k. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the windows of nearby residences. • I. That the business operator shall comply with Section 24200.5 of the Business and Professions Code so as not to employ or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. m. That no vending machines shall be visible from any public right-of-way. n. That all doors serving subject restaurant shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and shall be kept closed and unlocked at all times during hours of operation except for ingress/egress, to permit deliveries and in cases of emergency. o. That there sha11 be no pubfic telephones on the property that are located outside the building and within the control of the applicant. p. That the portion of this permit regarding the sales of alcohol shall expire one year from the date of approval unless a valid license has been issued by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. q. That condition of approval no. 1 j, above-mentioned, shall expire one- year from the date of this resolution, on October 7, 2003, after which the hours of operation shall return to those originally approved as follows: Sunday through Thursday: 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. • Friday and Saturday: 11 a.m. to 12 midnight 10-07-02 Page 24 OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commercial Retail Center: 2. That a landscape plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval for refurbishment of landscaped areas. Said installation and refurbishment shall be completed within sixty (60) days of approval of said plans. 3. That no outdoor storage, display or sales of inerchandise or fixtures shall be permitted. 4. That roof-mounted balloons or other inflated devices shall not be permitted. 5. That no video, electronic or other amusement devices or games shall be permitted anywhere on subject property. 6. That no vending machines shaii be permitted on the property which are visible from the public right-of-way. That 4-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 properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for review and approval by the Police Department, Community Services Division. That any existing or proposed roof-mounted equipment shall be subject to the screening requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Section No. 18.44.030.120 pertaining to the CL Zone. 9. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor ~ storage use. 10. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape mainter-ance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within finrenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 11. That the owner shall be responsible for maintaining the premises free of litter at all times. 12. That the number of tenant spaces shall be limited to five (5) units as reflected on the site plan (Exhibit No. 1). 13. That signage for subject facility shall be limited to all legal existing signage as of the date of this resolution. Any additional signage shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 14. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to iffuminate and make easily discernable the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the windows of nearby residences. 15. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as conditioned herein. ~ 16. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action 10-07-02 Page 25 OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other ~ applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 19 minutes (2:59-3:18) ~ ~ 10-07-02 Page 26 OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVEDI 11b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3070 (READVERTISED) (TRACKING NO. CUP2002-04605) Approved Approved for 10 years (to expire on October 7, 2012) OWNER: Paul Reynolds, Crescent Associates, P.O. Box 6028, Artesia, CA 90702 AGENT: Marty Zimmerman, AT&T Wireless, 424 Bellflower Boulevard, #218, Long Beach, CA 90814 LOCATION: 301 North Crescent Wav. Property is 1.3-acres having a frontage of 160 feet on the west side o.f Crescent Way located 110 feet north of the centerline of Penhall Way. Request to permit additional microwave antennas on an existing communications tower. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-157 ~ SR8442VN.DOC Commissioner Koos indicated he is abstaining on this item due to his close relationship with the wireless telecommunications industry, While he has previously conferred with the City Attorney and determined that he does not have any financial conflict of interest, he abstains to avoid any potential perceived conflict. Chairperson Bosfinrick introduced item No. 11 as Conditional Use Permit No. 3070, 301 North Crescent Way, a request to permit additional microwave antennas on an existing communications tower. Applicant's Testimony: Marty Zimmerman, 424 Bellflower Boulevard #218, Long Beach, CA, representing AT&T Wireless, states the photo simulations presented to the Commission may be misleading in that most of the antennas planned for installment on the tower are already permitted but are not yet up. The before photo presented is how the tower looks currently but does not show all of the antennas permitted that would be installed. This is a much bigger function. They are taking four down and proposing to put five up. In addition they seek to put up a very new kind of microwave dish; 1-foot by 1-foot plates put on the legs and cross members so that they can get a tremendous amount of traffic in and out of the tower without having big dishes. It would allow their main switching office to communicate with the network. Most cities would want to have it as it is very low intense use and has very good paying jobs. W hen local tax people get grasp of a switch, they are very big on having the cells occur inside the city limits. When you marry a city with a switch, you want to know that you are going to be able to grow your switch there. With the subject tower, the big visual impact has already happened. It is there, and it is not going anywhere. What they plan to attach to it incrementally, is going to be very difficult to everything that is going on. Two things they ask is 1) for the approval of the antenna additions and 2) the first condition is for the permit to expire in 5 years. If the antennas are installed, it is not the kind of thing where technology changes. It is something that is going to grow as the network grows. The switch would need to be able to communicate in 5 years. Therefore, they ask that Condition No. 1 be removed. Commissioner Romero states the simulated photos Commission saw were confusing and asked how hard it would be to put photos together that were a final product-type of thing. Mr. Zimmerman responded the simulations presented to the Commission is the final product being ~ proposed and what really is not quite the same is the before picture. If the before picture were given with everything permitted but not yet up, it would be very challenging to tell the difference. The tower has immense impact but the additions are very small. 10-07-02 Page 27 OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Judithanne Gollette, representing West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council (WAND), states THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. months ago they were all fighting clock towers and flagpoles, but when it was discovered they could go on existing stances, that became the loophole the City could allow that would not deter from the visual site as much as other objects. She feels the 5-year limitation is a God sent because technology changes daily, and in 5 years it might not be a viable use. She asks that Commission not open the door to anything more than 5 years. Commissioner Vanderbilt states Pacific Bell had a huge microwave tower and it came down in the last 3 years. He asked if staff feels within the next few years' technology would present alternatives or if there is some underlying belief that went into staff's recommendation. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manger states staff is looking for innovative ways to hide antennas but is concerned about the aesthetics of the proposed one, knowing full well that the structure was built to contain antennas. At the time it was built, technology was not available to fully occupy a tower the way it is currently proposed. Staff recognizes there are technological changes underway but do not have any clue as to what is going to happen in the next 5 years. Chairman Bostwick concurs the tower is cluttered but feels since a microwave is more than a cell tower, a 10-year period would be adequate because the size of the panels have changed and are difficult to see, and in ten more years they would probably be even less obvious. ~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ~ IN GENERAL: One person expressed opinion regarding the time limitation (representing the West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council - WAND). ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Koos abstained), 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 Conditional Use Permit No. 3070 (Tracking No. CUP2002-04605) to permit additional telecommunications microwave dishes on an existing communication tower for a period of ten (10) years, to expire on October 7, 2012, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated October 7, 2002, with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 1 and 18 to read as follows: That the entitlement for the 65 additional antennas t#~+s-yer~t+~ shall expire #i~e {5} ten (10) years from the date of this resolution on October 7, ~AA~~ 2012. 18. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4, ~6, 7, 11, 12, 14 and 16, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. ~ VOTE: 5-1 (Commissioner Vanderbilt voted no and Commissioner Koos abstained) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. 10-07-02 Page 28 OCTOBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 17 minutes (3:19-3:36) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:37 P.M. TO MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2002 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. ~ ~ Respectfully submitted: ~ Pat Chan er, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2002. 10-07-02 Page 29