Loading...
Minutes-PC 2007/10/01~ ~~o~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~1 E I ]~j e~ ~ ~o~~ ~ \ DED c,y _ ~ f~ ~ ~ _ ~ %~ ~ ~'% City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Mondav, October 1, 2007 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California Chairman: Kelly Buffa • n U Commissioners Present: Peter Agarwal, Gail Eastman, Stephen Faessel, Joseph Karaki, Panky Romero, Pat Velasquez Commissioners Absent: None StafF Present: Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney Kimberly Wong, Planner Judy Dadant, Acting Principal Planner Sandip Budhia, Associate Engineer Della Herrick, Associate Planner Ossie Edmundson, PC Support Supervisor Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner Grace Medina, Senior Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 27, 2007, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, September 6, 2007 • Call To Order • Preliminary Plan Review 1:00 P.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE OCTOBER 1, 2007 AGENDA • Recess To Public Hearing • Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 20 • Pledge Of Allegiance: Commissioner Agarwal • Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items • Adjournment You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following e-mail address: plannins~commissionCa~anaheim.net H:\TOOLS\PCADMIN\PCACTIONAGENDA\2007MINUTESWC100107. DOC OCTOBER 1, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES n ~J Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None Consent Calendar: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commission Velasquez and MOTION CARRIED, for approval of Consent Calendar Items 1A and 1 B as recommended by staff and to continue Item 1C. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. • 1A. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Approved Commission Meeting of August 20, 2007. (Motion) Continued from the September 5, and the September 17, Consent Calendar 2007 Planning Commission Meeting. approval VOTE: 6-0 Buffa abstained since she was not present for the meeting. ~s. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Approved Commission Meeting of September 5, 2007. Continued from the September 17, 2007 Planning Consent Calendar Commission Meeting. (Motion) approval VOTE: 7-0 ~c. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Continued to October Commission Meeting of September 17, 2007. 15, 2007 (Motion) Consent Calendar approval VOTE: 7-0 . 10-01-07 Page 2 of 22 OCTOBER 1, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ublic Hearina Items: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AgarwaUF'aessel Approved 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Agarwal/Faessel Approved, in part 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3124* Agarwal Granted, in part 2d. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2007-00063 AgarwaUBuffa Denied (Tracking No. CUP2007-05209) Owner: Brandon Rainone wAIVERS Outer Spring Volcano LP Approved waivers (a) 3364 East La Palma Avenue &(b), and approved in Anaheim, CA 92806-2814 part waiver (c) maximum number and Agent: Brandon Rainone size of freeway oriented 3364 East La Palma Avenue signs. Anaheim, CA 92806 CUP Modifications to Location: 3364 East La Palma Avenue: Property is approximately 2.8 Condition 1vos. 11, 16 acres, having a frontage of 252 feet on the north side of the and 17 Riverside (SR-91) Freeway, a maximum depth of 524 feet, and is accessed via a 652 foot long, 32 foot wide ingress/egress VOTE ON WAIVERS easement on the south side of La Palma Avenue, 1,240 feet ~ CUP: 5-2 east of the centerline of Shepard Street. Commissioner Velasquez voted no. ~ Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05209 - Request to remodel an Commissioner Romero voted no at the hearing existing bowling facility including an expansion for a management office, but indicated after the four telecommunications towers and two electronic reader board signs with meeting, that he waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) floor area ratio and intended to vote yes. (c) maximum number and size of freeway-oriented signs. (Denied electronic readerboard signs) Zoning Code Amendment No. 2007-00063 - Request to amend the sign code to permit marquee or electronic reader board signs in conjunction ZCA: S-2 with bowling and billiards facilities with other uses subject to a conditional Commissioners Faessel use pe1'mit. & Velasquez voted no Continued from the May 30, June 25, July 23, and the September 5, 2007 Planning Commission meetings. *Advertised as Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05209 Project Planner. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-112 (ethienQanaheim.net) Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner presented the staff report. She also read a modification to Condition No. 11 of the draft resolution. The language would • remain the same except for changing "four licensed uniformed security guards" to "two" based on recommendations by the Police Department. 10-01-07 Page 3 of 22 OCTOBER 1, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Michele Irwin, Vice Detail, Police Department indicated that the Police Department requests finro, uniformed security guards in the outside parking lot befinreen the hours of 8 p.m. and closing time to ensure safety in the parking lots. They feel the visual of uniform security guards will deter some of the problems they've been having. They can keep their current security staff because the Police Department feels they are doing a good job. They currently have a DJ on Friday and Saturday nights so the applicant needs to apply for an entertainment permit. Chairman Buffa wanted to clarify that they have 2 security guards inside and 2 outside. She asked if the 2 outside guards were adequate. Ms. Irwin stated yes. Commissioner Faessel stated condition 16 states no live entertainment/dancing on the premises at any time. Condition 17 that says they have to obtain permits for any entertainment such as a DJ. He asked if the DJ and live entertainment are in conflict. Ms. Irwin stated no because live entertainment is a band. DJ is a different form of entertainment. Commissioner Faessel stated he hopes the applicant understands the significance of both of those. • Ms. Irwin assured they have been in close communication with the owners who know the Police will be monitoring this situation and they do understand the distinction. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Brandon Rainone, 3364 East La Palma, Anaheim, 92806, stated their facility blends in with the industrial complexes around them. With the planned addition of Kaiser Permanente and the PacifiCenter Development they could be an iconic entrance to the City of Anaheim. They have had multiple continuances, and have repeatedly amended their project to suit concerns and preferences of staff. He described the physical changes that will be made to the facility under this proposal. Staff is agreeable to the changes except for the reader board sign. He feels the sign fuels the rest of the expansion plans. He explained that code refers to bowling/billiards as indoor commercial entertainment, separate from other entertainment venues. In the past, bowling/billiards was adult oriented, but today's modern bowling facilities are multi-entertainment, family destinations. This facility has bowling, video games, restaurant, a bar and gift shop. The classification should reflect the innovation and diversity of how it has evolved. The very nature of the types of entertainment offered here for kids and adult birthday parties, corporate events, traditional league bowling, dining and arcade is what was contemplated by code for reader boards. Facilities need an electronic reader board to advertise the numerous diverse offerings. The purpose for their request for an on-site reader board is to advertise only goods and services that are offered at their facility. They plan on spending $3 million to update their facility and will not be able to do this if they don't have the • advertising on the 91 corridor to attract new traffic to their facility. The sign would allow them to convey special events that they host and it will be imperative for the continued success of their business, especially after the eminent competition that will be presented by 300, the new bowling center that will be in the Anaheim Garden Walk in 2009. The changing reader 10-01-07 Page 4 of 22 OCTOBER 1, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • board will allow them to show the public that they don't just provide adult bowling leagues, they provide other options such as child/adult parties, grad night, company parties, fundraisers and other uses. They also extensively host events for YMCA and Boys and Girls Clubs, and numerous charitable organizations. They assist in raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for community based charities in Anaheim, as well as on a national level. Promoting local fundraisers and charities will generate increased awareness for these events by driving up attendance and revenue for donations to the charities. He would also offer the reader board for City events, City branding such as the Canyon Business Area and Anaheim 150 and all non-profit organizations that the City supports. He asked the Commission to consider four facts when considering approval. They have a unique and challenging topography and propose to rotate displays more slowly than Caltrans allows, showing their sensitivity to the driver distraction issue. They also propose to incorporate public service announcements, branding opportunities, City charitable and non-profit messaging into the rotations of the board. Their site is one that is designated by Caltrans as being available for a commercial billboard. Allowing them to have this on-site advertising would carve out the potential for future bill boards and clutter of the freeway. Because of their indirect accessibility off of La Palma, they are deprived a frontage on La Palma due to blockage of neighboring businesses. Their sole frontage is the 91 Freeway and that frontage is obstructed by the median wall and the building to the southeast which stands 10 feet above his facility. They have no pedestrian traffic and rely solely on the 91 Freeway. They also have justification for both reader boards since a single sign would not be visible from both directions. He feels his request will not set precedence because other properties under identical zoning classifications in the vicinity cannot qualify because of this property's unusual • topography, location and surroundings. He will address the distraction issue by extending the rotation time from a four second display to six seconds. Even though the facility is at least a half mile radius from any residential development, the sign will also have automatic dimming at dusk to avoid intrusive lighting. He is also integrating the reader board into the structure of the facility which will appear more attractive than any other freestanding billboards or reader boards. The addition of the reader board also provides an opportunity for the City to reduce one of only six Caltrans spots approved for freeway-oriented billboard sites. The board size is in excess of 250 square feet, however it is less than 10% of his building's east wall, which code identifies as a reasonable proportion. The other CUP request to allow architectural integration of the existing telecommunications facility into the building will increase the availability of wireless infrastructure in the neighborhood which is consistent with the City's wireless initiative. It will allow the removal of the existing monopole that has been an eyesore for years. The request for the outdoor patio is to segregate the tobacco smokers from the family oriented patrons because right now they stand outside at the entrances. He asked the Commission to approve the plan in its totality. The reader board allows them to recoup their investment by obtaining more traffic. Jeff Flint advised he is assisting Brandon and available for questions. • Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing. Commissioner Velasquez stated she loves the design and doesn't recommend any changes. She asked if staff checked how other cities classify bowling alleys. 10-01-07 Page 5 of 22 OCTOBER 1, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Judy Dadant, Acting Principal Planner advised they have not conducted any surveys from other cities. Commissioner Velasquez asked if any other locations have a sign that is larger than 500 square feet, and what is the size of the Honda Center sign. Ms. Dadant advised they would have to look up that information. Mr. Rainone advised the reader board at the Pond is 980 square feet. Commissioner Faessel clarified the two reader boards are the same size of 544 feet. Chairman Buffa stated that is what the plans show. Commissioner Romero asked how many billiard tables will be in the facility. Mr. Rainone stated finro, and that won't change. Commissioner Faessel commented that the applicant made a very compelling case for the reader board and he proposes to make a motion to approve the proposal as presented. Commissioner Karaki asked what the allowable square footage was on the Toyota building • sign that came to Commission a couple of weeks ago and how much did they reduce the size of the sign. Ms. Dadant advised the maximum square footage on the building wall sign is 250 square feet, and it is the same for this building. Chairman Buffa stated the Commission asked Toyota to cut their sign in half. Ms. Dadant stated Toyota proposed a sign over 600 square feet and Commission gave the general direction to provide something that is approximately half the size and in scale with the site so that it looked proportional. Commissioner Karaki asked if the reader board was eliminated. Chairman Buffa stated it was eliminated, it is not a reader board. Stated she had strong opinions about this. She toured the facility and agrees it is a great facility. At the time, she told Mr. Rainone that he had softened her up about the reader board issue, but today, she can't quite make the turn. After driving the 5 Freeway several times where there are several reader boards, she believes they are an enormous distraction. Mr. Rainone's facility is very visible from the 91 Freeway and has the perfect opportunity to have on-building signage. The new building design is wonderFul and will add a great iconic element for the City. The building design and the ability to change the colored illumination inside the cell towers will • draw a lot of attention from the freeway. She feels the conventional on-building signage will get them all the attention they need for people to know they are there. She doesn't think it is the purpose of the Code or it is the intent of the City of Anaheim to provide people with freeway oriented advertising devices to advertise a party or event there. Reader boards are 10-01-07 Page 6 of 22 OCTOBER 1, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • allowed for changing activities or changing special events, and this circumstance doesn't apply to this operation. Mr. Rainone advised this is what they do. Chairman Buffa agreed they are advertising particular services and encouraging people to purchase his services, but it isn't like a Christmas pageant or a special school event. She does not support the reader board, but does support the on-building signage request at the square footage he is asking for. The sign could be raised higher on the building and be more visible. Commissioner Agarwal asked if his building will be taller than the blue and yellow building next door to him. Mr. Rainone stated it is, the blue and yellow building is 30 feet and they are proposing 60 feet. They are going to 60 feet per the cell phone company's request to go as high as they can and staff indicated they can only go up to 60 feet. Commissioner Agarwal clarified it will be finrice as tall as the building next door. Commissioner Karaki stated he met with the applicant in his office. He likes the design and wished he could have shown more of an iconic look. He concurs with Chairman Buffa on this issue. He indicated they denied a reader board a couple of weeks ago too. He is fine with • his current sign proposal and maybe the code will change in the future and will allow a reader board. The Commission doesn't want to set a precedent because there are a lot of businesses along the freeway with more to come. He believes they will be very visible with the 60 foot building even without the reader board. Mr. Rainone stated going from 30 to 60 feet is not the problem, it is to portray to the general public that they are not just a bowling alley, but offer other services besides bowling. The Garden Walk and the 300 have the right to foot traffic, he doesn't have that foot traffic. The general public isn't necessarily aware that they are more than just a bowling alley. They offer a private chef, cosmic bowling, and restaurant and have open lanes available every night. Commissioner Karaki stated they don't have changing events, they have services and he isn't comfortable approving the large reader board at this time. He feels it will set a precedent along the freeway. Mr. Rainone disagreed. Chairman Buffa indicated that the public hearing is closed and he cannot re-make the point. She stated she is comfortable with the two, 156 square foot freeway-oriented signs and asked staff how the Commission can approve the signage without the reader board. Ms. Thienprasiddhi advised it would be approval of a waiver for the maximum number of . freeway-oriented signs. Staff recommends that the two channel letter signs be approved, so the waiver would be granted. Commissioner Eastman asked Chairman Buffa if she wanted the channel lettering higher. 10-01-07 Page 7 of 22 OCTOBER 1, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairman Buffa stated the applicant could put it higher if he wanted to. Commissioner Eastman stated she can see some of their dilemma and sees some justification for the reader board, but she struggles with understanding the change in the Zoning Code. She doesn't understand if the change includes this type of facility, and would the applicant be able to come back in the future and ask for a reader board. Ms. Dadant advised that staff anticipates in the upcoming code amendment, a refinement of the types of uses that can come forward to request a reader board versus the broad category of commercial recreation facilities. At this time a haunted house or go-cart facility can apply for a reader board. Staff doesn't feel that the whole gamut of land uses that would fall under that umbrella would be the most appropriate land use for a reader board. Because staff is currently recommending denial of this code amendment, they are not anticipating creating a provision in the upcoming code amendment to allow bowling facilities to apply for a conditional use permit for an electronic reader board. This is because they don't feel the land use necessarily warrants the changing message opportunity. That part will not change, it will just be more details as to which entertainment facilities would be eligible to apply for an electronic reader board by conditional use permit. Chairman Buffa stated she understands the list of uses that could apply will be a shorter list and be more restrictive. • Ms. Dadant confirmed yes, it will be more restrictive. Commissioner Eastman stated it seems like the applicant is trying to change their image with the emphasis of family entertainment and not on bowling. Being a family entertainment center, she wonders if they can fit into a category that allows the board. Ms. Dadant advised they are also looking at the size of the site in addition to the land use. The original intent of the code provision that allowed for amusement facilities to apply for a conditional use permit was meant for larger amusement type facilities like theme parks. It wasn't intended to apply to land uses on smaller sites like this one. Staff is looking to create criteria to put acreage limitations, similar to auto dealers, for facilities on a larger scale and not necessarily for a facility of this size. Commissioner Velasquez asked what the minimum acreage is for a reader board. Ms. Dadant advised there is no minimum acreage except for 3 acres for auto dealers. This parcel is 2.7 acres. Commissioner Velasquez asked if there has been any discussion on changing the minimum acreage in the code. Chairman Buffa stated Commission is asking staff to speculate. Even if they are considering • acreage, she isn't sure that would be closely related to this site. In this case, because they don't qualify, they've asked for a code amendment that would enable them to have a reader board. She feels they don't need a code amendment because she doesn't support the reader board. It may be time to go ahead and have someone make a motion. 10-01-07 Page 8 of 22 OCTOBER 1, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Velasquez stated she thought they approved a reader board for a shopping center in the past. She asked staff what restrictions are placed on reader boards. Ms. Dadant stated the electronic reader board provision doesn't regulate the content other than it should be used for on-site advertising because then it becomes a billboard. Once an electronic reader board is granted, they can advertise anything they want for the business that is on-site whether it is an event or service. The only regulation is it has to be for on-site services. Commissioner Karaki asked if there is a difference between a reader board that has a text message verses images. Ms. Dadant stated there is no distinction in the code. Whether it is changing text, electronic or the old marquee where you change out the plexi-glass faces, it falls under the same category and it doesn't make a distinction whether it is a changing symbol, figure, picture or just text. She offered to have Ms. Theinprasiddhi go over a list of land uses that are eligible to apply for an electronic reader board. Commissioner Velasquez stated she thought when the applicant originally came in it was going to be changed four times a year and qualify as a marquee sign and not a reader board. Ms. Thienprasiddhi explained the original request that came to the Planning Department was • for finro signs on each side of the office addition which were stationary wall signs. They needed waivers for the maximum quantity and size, but prior to coming to the hearing she found out they intended to change out the face of the cabinet sign to advertise different activities such as rock and bowl up to two or four times a year. They were going to propose a limitation, but being able to change the sign face in such a manner qualified it as a marquee sign which is in the same category as an electronic reader board sign and would have also required a code amendment. Commissioner Faessel asked what the general size limitations are for reader board signs. Ms. Thienprasiddhi stated reader board signs follow the sign regulations under the general sign code for monument signs. If it's along an arterial, it is 8-10 feet tall, 8-10 feet wide and would need to comply with the requirements under the freeway oriented sign criteria, such as the Miller Toyota sign that came before Commission at the last meeting. Commissioner Faessel stated it sounds like it is around 100 square feet. Ms. Dadant included it depends on where the sign is proposed. On this particular building that faces the freeway, the code limitation is 250 square feet because the wall sign provision would the basis for the size. The basic wall sign provision says it is 10% of the elevation of • the building or 250 square feet whichever is less. There is a provision in the code specifically for freeway oriented wall signs that also caps the size at 250 square feet. 10-01-07 Page 9 of 22 OCTOBER 1, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Faessel asked if the code amendment would still be required if the applicant • presented finro 250 square foot reader board signs. Ms. Dadant stated yes because it is a reader board. Commissioner Faessel stated as applied to a bowling alley. Ms. Dadant said yes. Commissioner Agarwal asked if a CUP would still be required if the reader board was attached to the building. Ms. Dadant stated yes, it is because it is a reader board. Commissioner Velasquez stated it would be a code amendment, not just a CUP. Ms. Dadant stated a reader board for this land use requires a code amendment. The other types of land uses that are eligible to apply for a reader board include theaters, auto dealers that are 3 acres or larger, lodging facilities, school, commercial retail center with minimum of 25 acres and community and religious facilities. She wanted to clarify conditions 16 and 17 that were discussed earlier regarding live entertainment and DJ. If they combine conditions 16 and 17 to read "that there shall be no amusement and entertainment as defined in Section 4.18.010b of the Anaheim Municipal • Code permitted on the premises at any time. Notwithstanding the forgoing, a DJ or jukebox may be permitted within the premises as authorized and in accordance with the terms of a valid entertainment permit issued pursuant to Chapter 4.18 of Title 4 of the Anaheim Municipal Code." Commissioner Romero stated he is pleased with the design but is concerned about the distraction to the motorists going along the corridor. He said he also met with the applicant. Commissioner Agarwal stated the agenda is not to debate as to what staff will do with the code changes in the future. He indicated he is ready for a motion. Commissioner Agarwal offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel to approve the CEQA Negative Declaration. Motion passed with 7 ayes votes. Commissioner Agarwal offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel to approve the waiver of minimum number of parking spaces and maximum floor area ratio and approve in part the waivers of maximum size and quantitv of freewav orienfed siqns. Motion passed with 7 ayes votes. Commissioner Agarwal offered a resolution to approve modifications to CUP 3124 in part to approve the building expansion, outdoor patio, telecommunications towers, excluding the finro reader board signs and changes to conditions 16 and 17 read into the record by staff. • Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passed with 5 ayes votes and 2 no votes (Commissioners Romero and Faessel voting no). 10-01-07 Page 10 of 22 OCTOBER 1, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Agarwal offered a motion, seconded by Chairman Buffa to deny Zoning Code • amendment 2007-00063. Motion passed with 5 ayes votes and 2 no votes (Commissioners Faessel and Velasquez voting no). Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney summarized the last action which was a motion to deny Zoning Code amendment 2007-00063. Five votes affirmed the denial and Commissioner Faessel and Commissioner Velasquez opposed. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on October 23, 2007. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: 50 minutes (2:40-3:30) • • 10-01-07 Page 11 of 22 OCTOBER 1, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION vetasquez/Eastman Approved 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT velasquez/Agarwal Approved 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05243 Ve~asquez Approved (READVERTISED) Owner: The Zachary Taylor Pedicini Trust Modified Condition John Pedicini No.17 P.O. Box, 15033 VOTE: 7-0 Newport Beach, CA 92659-5033 Agent: John Pedicini 20051 Cypress Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: 1841 West Lincoln Avenue: Property is approximately 0.9-acre and is located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Crescent Way. Request to expand an existing commercial retail center and to establish land use conformity with waiver of (a) minimum landscape setback abutting a residential zone boundary, and (b) minimum required wall separating zones. ~ Continued from the September 5, 2007, Planning Commission Meeting. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-113 ProjectPlanner. (kwong2@anaheim. net) Kimberly Wong, Planner, presented the staff report. For the record, condition 17 will be reworded. The second sentence should read, "Said plan shall incorporate broad headed evergreen trees planted at 20' on center." John Pedicini, 20051 Cypress Street. Advised he changed the building per Commissioner Karaki's request. They are also removing the 8 foot wall and is requesting that the trees along the residential zone be smaller than the 24 inch box that staff is requiring. The residences probably won't be built for another finro years so he'd like to put in 15 gallon trees along the back wall because they will have time to grow, if that residential development is ever built. Chairman Buffa clarified it will go from 3 trees to 20 trees on each side. Ms. Wong, clarified it is a minimum code requirement and unless the waiver is requested, code requires the standard 24-inch box size for a minimum of 1 tree at maximum 20 foot centers. Upon the building plan check process, the landscape plan would have to be • modified in compliance with the code to reflect the proper number. 20-foot on center is because it is adjacent to residential property. Commissioner Romero asked what the cost difference is. 10-01-07 Page 12 of 22 OCTOBER 1, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Pedicini advised it is significant. In finro years, the 15 gallon will have the same growth • as a 24 inch box. Also, if a commercial development goes in instead of residential, will they want a hedge befinreen two commercial developments. Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing. She asked staff that seeing as how they didn't advertise a waiver if the Commission could take action on smaller trees. Judy Dadant, Acting Principal Planner stated no because it is a code requirement. Based on the length of the property line, code requires 11 trees on the north, and 9 trees on the west property line. Commissioner Eastman stated she thought the Commission was vague on what they wanted in the architectural enhancements. She feels the banding on the building looks top heavy and suggested modifications to maybe see more of the building face and less of the roof material. She'd be in favor of seeing the really wide fascia portion go away and use a hanging sign. Mr. Pedicini stated the existing building is structurally built with that width and they would have to change the structure of the overhang to remove it. Commissioner Eastman asked what type of material is being used. • Mr. Pedicini stated it is stucco and it stands out more because they changed the color per Commissioner Karaki's request. Commissioner Eastman stated thaYs what she is objecting to, she'd like to see the color changed because the building looks old and top heavy. She doesn't want him to spend a lot more but it would be nice to see it upgraded. Mr. Pedicini stated thaYs what the color was last time, and he changed it per Commissioner Karaki's request. They also added a terra cotta edge to make the building look higher, they could remove it if that is what makes it look top heavy. Commissioner Eastman stated she is okay with the top piece; it is just the big band that looks old style. Commissioner Karaki stated when he met with him, his intent was to give him a general direction and not design in the building. He wanted to give him ideas for the architect, but it seemed to be misunderstood. There is no reference to the tower anywhere in the building. He apologized for trying to give ideas, but it isn't what he intended to have. Mr. Pedicini addressed Commissioner Karaki and advised that is what Commissioner Karaki drew for him and offered to have him look at it again. • Commissioner Karaki apologized, it wasn't his intention to tell him how to design it. Mr. Pedicini's architect can speak before Commission. He repeated it wasn't his intention to design it for him. 10-01-07 Page 13 of 22 OCTOBER 1, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairman Buffa stated the architecture seems to be the problem. Maybe his architect could • talk to the City's architect to communicate the concerns. The new addition is replicating the 1970's architecture of the old building and it should be updating the old building into something more modern. She suggested meeting with the City's architect. The attached condition requires him to come back to Commission as a consent calendar item with the final plans. Commissioner Eastman asked if he wants a continuance to ask for the smaller trees. Chairman Buffa stated she'd rather see him spend money on architecture rather than 24- inch box trees. It seems like the Commission is willing to compromise on the trees if he is willing to take another continuance to advertise a waiver for the landscape. Mr. Pedicini asked if it possible to change the number of required trees. If the staff report is being changed from 10 foot center to 20 foot, why can't they change it to 40 foot. Chairman Buffa stated the staff report has an error. Code states 20 feet next to residential property, it is a waiver whether they negotiate over size or number. She prefers more trees in smaller size. She asked if he is willing to take a continuance to advertise the waiver over the landscape code issue. He has to understand the Commission's expectation is the money he is saving on trees will be spent on architecture. It would be another finro weeks to re-advertise with a waiver. • Mr. Pedicini stated he would like to proceed today. Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to approve the CEQA Negative Declaration. Motion passed with 7 ayes votes. Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Agarwal to approve waivers of minimum landscape setback and required block wall adjacent to residences. Motion passed with 7 ayes votes. Commissioner Velasquez offered a resolution to approve CUP 2007-05243 with changes to condition 17 read into the record. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passed with 7 ayes votes. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on October 23, 2007. OPPOSITION: None . DISCUSSION TIME: 23 minutes (3:34-3:57) 10-01-07 Page 14 of 22 OCTOBER 1, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Romero/Velasquez 4b. PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2007-00036 ~tomero Owner: Anaheim Garden Walk, LLC Attn: William Stone 17140 Bernardo Center Drive #310 San Diego, CA 92128 Agent: Mike Joher Royal Entertainment 933 S. Natalie Lane Anaheim, CA 92808 • Location: 321 West Katella Avenue: The property has approximate frontages of 1,500 feet on the south side of Disney Way between Harbor Boulevard and Clementine Street, 1,185 feet on the west side of Clementine Street befinreen Disney Way and Katella Avenue (excluding Fire Station No. 3 at 1713- 1717 South Clementine Street), 728 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue between Clementine Street and a point 771 feet west of the centerline of Clementine Street, and 585 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard between Disney Way and a point 615 feet south of the centerline of Disney Way. Request Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to permit sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption within a proposed bar/nightclub within Gardenwalk. Public Convenience or Necessity Resolution No. PC2007-114 Della Herrick, Associate Planner introduced staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Approved Approved VOTE: '1-0 Project P/anner.• (dherrick@anaheim. net) Mike Joher, Vice President of Royal Entertainment, 933 S. Natalie Lane, Anaheim, 92808 was present to answer questions. Commissioner Romero asked what the capacity is. Mr. Joher stated about 850. Commissioner Karaki asked if it had any special features compared to other clubs in the • area. Mr. Joher stated it is brand new and there is nothing like it in the area and it will be ready in May 2008. 10-01-07 Page 15 of 22 OCTOBER 1, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing. Commissioner Agarwal asked how many security guards are proposed for the inside. Mr. Joher stated it is a ratio, there will be a minimum of four with a maximum of 12 to 14. Commissioner Velasquez stated it is a great addition to the resort area. Commissioner Karaki asked if he is offering dining. Mr. Joher stated no, there are high end restaurants in the area for that. Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez to approve the CEQA Negative Declaration. Motion passed with 7 ayes votes. Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez to approve Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2007-00036. Motion passed with 7 ayes votes. Ms. Dadant stated the Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity needs to be a resolution.. Commissioner Romero offered resolution. • Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced the resolution passed with 7 ayes votes. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on October 23, 2007. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: 11 minutes (3:58-4:09) ~ 10-01-07 Page 16 of 22 OCTOBER 1, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3 Eastman/Faessel Approved • 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP2007-05249 Eastman Granted Owner: Sunny Investments, LLC + Potvin Investment Trust 190 Newport Center Drive Suite 210 VOTE: 7-0 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Added two Agent: Sequoia Deployment Service of approva Attn: Paul Gerst 1 Venture Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Location: 2790 East Lincoln Avenue: Property is approximately 0.46-acre, located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista Street. Request to construct a telecommunications facility disguised as a flag pole with accessory ground-mounted equipment. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC207-115 ProjectPlanne (kwong2@ana Della Herrick, Associate Planner, introduced the staff report. conditions 1 r. heim. net) , Kimberly Wong, Planner stated there was a discussion in the preliminary plan review about the lighting of the flag. The United States code requires the flag be properly illuminated during the hours of darkness. The applicant will illuminate the flag. Staff is also adding two conditions of approval. "That the flag pole shall be limited to displaying the United States flag or California State flag. No signs, banners or any other form of advertising or identification shall be attached to the proposed flag pole structure." Also, "That the flag proposed for the site shall be maintained in a like new condition. In the event that the flag fades, rips, frays or otherwise deteriorates, it shall be replaced immediately with a new flag." Commissioner Faessel asked what the flag size will be because the flag pole is substantial. He asked if the same communications provider operates the non-stealth telecommunication pole at the end of South Street that the surrounding neighborhood has been trying to have mitigated for the past few years. Ms. Wong stated there are no specifications for the flag size. Ms. Dadant stated they don't know who the carrier is on the tower on South Street. Commissioner Faessel asked if the pole is designed for more than one carrier. • Ms. Wong stated it is only for one carrier which is T-Mobile. She clarified that if a flag pole is 50 feet tall the flag should be befinreen 96 -150 square feet. 10-01-07 Page 17 of 22 OCTOBER 1, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Romero stated the photo in the staff report shows the pole seems to stick out and the building doesn't serve as an adequate backdrop. He asked if the cell coverage overrides the visual clutter. Ms. Dadant stated staff struggled with it and with all things being equal this isn't the most ideal way to provide cellular service. They have taken into account that the applicant has searched the vicinity to fill the gap and have not found other sites that are suitable. They also took into account the city-wide initiative to obtain cell service throughout the entire city and that given the constraints for the area and the lack of other suitable locations, this is the best scenario to achieve cellular service. Commissioner Romero stated that is one of the areas that will be undergrounded from the program that Utilities is implementing. Once that takes place, this will stick out like a sore thumb. Ms. Dadant stated they are aware of the plan. Ms. Wong stated the applicant and staff met with the Utilities Department to see if they could place the facility in a light in the public right-of-way. The applicant indicated they need a minimum of three lights to meet the coverage. The high flag pole gives them the coverage in this high density area. Commissioner Agarwal asked if staff had evidence of the applicant's search for alternate • sites. Ms. Wong stated staff worked with the applicant to locate the facility on this site and whether a palm or pine would work better and they discovered the flag pole is the best option. They thought the best option would be to go across the street to the commercial center with the Ralph's at Rio Vista and Lincoln, but that property has a number of different property owners and the CC&R's doesn't allow building in the common area. Staff also recommended locating in a common area in an adjacent apartment, but the applicant would have to evict tenants in order to make the structure structurally sound to accommodate a cell site. She has worked with the applicant for over a year. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Paul Gerst, One Venture, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92618 represents the applicant T-Mobile. They looked at other apartments sites in the area but couldn't find a location to put the equipment on the ground, the equipment would have to have been placed on roofs and it is large and too heavy. Commercial sites have CC&R restrictions. Setbacks couldn't be satisfied in the residential area. This parcel and a gas station to the north are the only workable sites and this was the best location. He briefly explained the type of equipment and its coverage area objectives. The flag will be 8' x 10' or 12' x 15' for that size pole. Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing. • Commissioner Faessel commented he is concerned with the neighborhood response and hopes they can address the tower at the end of South Street and the Santa Ana River property. 10-01-07 Page 18 of 22 OCTOBER 1, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel to approve the CEQA Negative Declaration. Motion passed with 7 ayes votes. Commissioner Eastman offered resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 2007-05349. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced the resolution passed with 7 yes votes. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on October 23, 2007. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: 20 minutes (4:10-4:30) • • 10-01-07 Page 19 of 22 OCTOBER 1, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to October (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) 15, 2007 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04816 (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05230) Motion: Eastman/Romero Owner: Southern California Edison 14799 Chestnut Street Westminster, CA 92683 VOTE: 7-0 Agent: Anaheim RV Storage 2719 West Lincoln Avenue Anaheim, CA 92801 Location: 2719 and 2724 West Lincoln Avenue*: Parcel 1: Property is approximately 4-acre, having a frontage of 265 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, and is located 210 feet west of the centerline of La Reina Circle (2719 West Lincoln Avenue). Parcel 2: Property is approximately 1.8 acre, having a frontage of 132 feet on the south side of Lincoln • Avenue, and is located 587 feet west of the centerline of Stinson Street (2724 West Lincoln Avenue). Request to delete a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation for a previously-approved recreational vehicle storage facility and an accessory modular office building approved with waivers of maximum fence height and minimum front yard setback. * Advertised as 2720 and 2721 West Lincoln Avenue. Project Planner.• Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. (djoeQanaheim.net OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 10-01-07 Page 20 of 22 OCTOBER 1, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 FaesseUKaraki • 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05250 Faessel Owner: Lederer-Anaheim LTD 9200 Sunset Boulevard 9th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90069 Agent: Pamela Castellanos 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard: Property is approximately 14.74-acre, and is located north and east of the northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard, having a frontage of 725 feet on the north side of Cerritos Avenue and 490 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard. Request to permit a tattoo and body piercing business within the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-116 • Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner introduced the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Approved Granted VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner.• (ethien~anaheim. nef) Phil Schwartze, 31872 San Juan Creek Road, San Juan Capistrano. He indicated that the hours of operation will be 11-7, closed Tuesdays. There is one employee who will be doing tattoos, permanent make-up, temporary tattoos, and piercing. Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Karaki to approve the CEQA Negative Declaration. Motion passed with 7 ayes votes. Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 2007-5250. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced the resolution passed with 7 yes votes. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on October 23, 2007. • OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (4:31-4:35) Ms. Dadant stated the Garden Walk timeshare asked for a continuance until October 2gtn 10-01-07 Page 21 of 22 OCTOBER 1, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:38 P.M. TO MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2007 AT 1:00 P.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: • . . ~ - f ~wy~.. imonne Fannin P/T Senior Office Specialist Received and approved by the Planning Commission on UG~ ~ Z~ , 2007. • 10-01-07 Page 22 of 22