Loading...
Minutes-PC 1995/01/23 (2)ACTION AGENDA REGUIJ'ifI MEBTMONDAY, JANUARY 3 1995G COMMISSION 11: A.M. - PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1~0 p,M, _ piJBLIC HEARINGS BEGIN (PUBLIC TES'l7MONY) COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: MESSE, PERAZA, TAIT BOypSTUN, CALDWELL, IiENNINGER, MAYER, COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE STAFF PRESENT: Greg Hastings Selma Mann Jonathan Borrego Melanie Adams Greg M~Caii~~:; Bruce Freeman Alfred Yalda Edith Harris Margarita Solorio Zoning Division Manager Deputy City Attorney Senior Planner Associate Civil Engineer Associate Planner Code Enforcement Supervisor Principal Transportation Piaort Supervisor Planning Commission Supp Sr. Word Processing Operator PROCEDURE TO ptpEDRE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS J t, The proponents in applications which are not contested will have five minutes to present their evidence. Additional time will be granted upon request if, in the opinion of the Commission, such additional time will product evidence Important to the Commission's cons(deration. p, In contested applications, the Proponents and opponent will each be given ten minutes to present their case unless additio~.al time is requested and the complexity of the matter warrants. The Commissions considerations are not determined by the length of time a participant speaks, but rather by what is said. tes are available to 3. the pubOc p or to the meetingidence deemed received by the Commission in each hearing. Cop q, The Commission will withhold questions until the public hearing is closed. 5, The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing if, in its opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned will be served. 5, All documents presentod to the Planning Commission for review in connection with any hear ng, hoto ra hs or other acceptable visual representations or nontJocumentary evidence, shall be Including p 9 P retained by the Commission for the public record and shall be available for public inspections. ~ ntterest hich a e whhidn to a Jur sdiction of the Planning Commlilss onaland/or agenda itemse Each speaker will be allotted .maximum of five (5) minutes to speak. AC012395.wp 01/23/95 Page 1 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: ~_~ A. ~O 'DITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3217 REOiIEST FOR ONE YEAR Approved EXTENSION F TIME TO COMPLY WITH COPLDI'I'IONS OF (to expire 1-23-96) APPROVAL: Frank Vandenberg, American Realty Advisors, 700 North Brand Boulevard, Glendale, Ca 91203 requests a one year extension of time to comply with conditions of approval of Condftional Use Permit No. 3217 (to construct a 750-room hotel) to expire January 23, 1996. Property is located at 2061 S. Harbor Blvd. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS 487 1122 1238.3241 AND Terminated 3255 AND VAl IANCE NOS 555 AND 3290 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Tarsadia In%., 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1910, Costa Mesa CA 92626, requests ten:dnation of Condftional Use Permit No. 487 (to establish a clubhouse, br.; restaurant, beer-garden, and dancing with continuous use of office space), Condftional Use Permit No.1122 (to permft a car rental agency in an existing building), Condftional Use Permit No. 1238 (to permit an office use wfth waiver of minimum required building height), Condftional Use Permit No. 3241 (to permit a 12-story, 384 unit hotel), Condftional Use Permit No. 3255 (to permit a 130-room, 6-story hotel), Variance No. 555 (to establish California Highway Patrol Headquarters) and Variance No. 3290 (waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to expand an existing motel). Subject property is located at 1742, and 1754 S. Clementine Street, 1730, 1733, 1743 and 1755 S. Zeyn Street, 1733 and 1745 S. Anaheim Blvd., and 201 W. Katella Avenue. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC95.6 C. CODE AMENDMENT NO 95-02 -CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING Requested by the City cf S AND PHRASES Recommended adoption to the City . TO "L" WORDS TERM Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA atopublic hearingftl~ 92805. A I N: Commissioner Henninger offered a Motion seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim Ciry Planning Commission does hereby recommend adoption to the City Council wfth the specffication that the parcels of land referred to in " ftems (2) and (3) of the "Lot" definftion shall be specffied as "legal parcels as defined in the Subdivision Map Act. 01/23/95 Page 2 Ta h::RONMENT" '"ADAPT REPORT N0.281 _(PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED) Approved 2a. READVERTISED) Approved 2b. TENTATIVE TRAL-(~ MAP NO 15074 ( OWNER: THE BALDWIN CO., Attn: Ron Freeman, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714 AGENT: HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES, Three Hughes Road, Irvine, CA 92718 LOCATION: Th~a$3i mmit of Anaheim Hilts Specific Plan (SP~~21. Property is approximately 7.9 acres located at the northwest comer of Oak Canyon Drive and Running Springs Road and further described as Tentative Tract Map No. 15074 within Development Area 203 and 204 of The Summit of Anaheim Hills Specffic Plan (SP88-2). Petitioner requests approval of TentatNe Tract Map No. 15074 to establish a 7.9 acre, 41-iot single-family subdivision including 40 residential lots and one open space lat. ^antinued from the December 12, 1994 and January 9, 1995 Planning Commission meetings. y FOLLOWING iS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Ron Freeman, Vice President, Baldwin Compsuy, was Present to answer any questions. THE PUIBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Found previously-approved EIR 281 adequate to serve as environmental documentation for this request. (Findings in Paragraph No. 12 of the staff report.) Approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15074 Commissloner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposed subdNision, together with fts design and Improvement, is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5; and does, therefore, approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 15074 fora 41-lot, single-family subdivision subject to the following conditions: (Findings in Paragraph No. 16 and 17) 1 specific planvboundary, shaol beasubmitted torithe PublicVWorks Department fo sview and 01/23/95 Page 3 approval. Bonds for said improvements shall be posted in an amount approved by the City Engineer and a form approved by the City Attomoe~ oTf the final trac tmapent plans ~. ' must be approved by the City Engineer prior to app 2. That prior to final tract map approval, the petitioner shall submit additional information on exterior building materials for review and approval by the Zoning DNision. 3. That prior to final tract map approval, Condition Nos.1 and 2,above-mentioned, shall be romplied with. 4 OrdinanceeNoo4977 pertainingto developmenmwithin the Summitlof Anaheim Hiolls Specific Plan. 5. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extont 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 Malcolm Slaughter presented the 10 day right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. 01/23/95 Page 4 3a. CEOA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUREgDVEROSED) ~_•' 36. c'ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.37Q4 ( OWNER: SavARanch PaEkway, SDufte G, Yorba Anda~CALL~26822755 LOCATION: sect c~~~rh DoLelass Road. Property is approximately 7.3 acres located on the west side of Douglass Road approximately 690 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue. To amend or delete condftions of approval pertaining to required landscaping. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC95-7 FOLLOWING iS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Wayne Allen, Agent, was present to answer any questions. The Public Hearing was Closed. Approved Approved amendment to conditions of approval Commissioner Henninger asked if this parking lot Is being parked using event parking procedures and if those procedures require that they have an unimpeded flat area in which to direct the cars. He was concerned that others might see this as the Commission waiving the normal landscaping requirements for just any parking lot. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated he would agree that is the reason based on staff's observations and the observations of others. Commissioner Messe pointed out there was assurance that the west side of the lot would be landscaped as shown on the plans. Mr. Allen responded they ultimately developed the lot pursuant to plans acquired from the C;ty and those plans did not Indf~ate a tree line across the western boundary; however, when they came forward with a short version of the plan, staff required the tree line. He added they would like to not have to put that tree line on the western boundary, particularly due to the fact that twhich comgletiel~nbltock she h area in the Caltrans right of way along the northern half of the property P Y slope and the freeway. edge if the property and that t might have been arere uctant agreemenY9 buttlhey did ag e8 Western Mr. Allen responded that they do agree and added the reason they originally agreed --- 01/23/95 Page 5 Commissioner Henninger asked ff they still agree to plant the trees on the western boundary and Mr. Alien responded they do agree to do ft. ~~ Commissloner Henninger stated the Commission would like to havo that landscaping and ff the applicant is agreeable, then the Commission can go forward with the approval of this request today, but ff he still wants to discuss it, then the Commission cannot go forward. Mr. Allen stated again they will agree to plant the trees, but wanted the reason under5t~~od and that is that the City's original plans did not provide for it, but ff the Commission requires it, they will comply. ACTION: Found the previously-approved Negative Declaration adequate to serve as the required environmental dozcumentation for this request. (Findings in Paragraph No. 9 of the staff report.) Commissioner Henninger offered Resolution No. PC95-7. modffyin,g ~Conditlonal Use Permit No. 3700, as readvertised, deleting Condition No. t of Resolution No. PC94-97 and adding the follow(ng condition: That the west edge of the property shall be landscaped according to plans. VOTE: 7-0 Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented written right to appeal Commission's decision within 22 days. 01/23/95 Page 6 No action 4a, rFOA EREMPTiON 15061 (bl(31 Approved 46. PE i N TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO.24_-02 OWNER: SANDRA L. VANSOYE AND DARKEN J. VANSOYE, 555 S. Avenida Faro, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: X55 Soatb Avenida Faro. Property is approximately 0.3 acre located on the west side of Avenida Faro and approximately 680 feet south of the centerline of Nohl Ranch Road. To permit the removal of one sycamore tree. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY' OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Sandra Vansoye, owner, explained the tree was existing when they purchased tha home and was really overgrown arrd had not been property cared for. They have tried to get it trimmed but it is out of control and has broken the brick planter where h is planted and Is doing a lot of damage. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. She also explained they will pant two replacement trees on the property. ACTION: Commissioner Caldw ,;; ufferod a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and Motion Carried approving Specimen Tree Removal Pormit No. 94-02, on the basis that regard for the safety of person or property requires the removal and that tho specimen tree removed shall be replaced with the planting of two trees from the specified list contained within the Scenic Corridor Ovariay Zone. VOTE: 7-0 Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented written right to appeal Commission's decision within 22 days. 01/23/95 Page 7 Sa. (`EOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) 715 (READVERTISED) Approved Approved Sb. rnNDITiONAL USE PERMIT N0.3 amendment to OWNER: SNOYMAN DEVELOPMENT, INC., 801 S. Anaheim Blvd., conditions of ro~~al Anaheim, CA 92805 app AGENT: J. R. Haxton, INC., P. 0. BOX 2815, Orange, CA 92669 LOCATION: 801 Sotrth Anaheim B I v r .Property is approximately located at the southwest comer of South Street and 1.79 acres Anaheim Boulevard. Petftioner requests modification or deletion of conditions or approval draulic lifts ana working outdoors in an d h l y ose pertaining to the use of unenc approved automotive complex. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC95-8 FOLLOWING iS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Mark Snoyman, owner, explained they would Ilke to add the use of two outside hydraulic lifts in an automotive-related complex. The lifts have been there since they purchased the property 13 months ago and for at least 5 or 6 years prior to that. The outside Iffts are used on a limited basis ~~nd the people who use them do have Indoor facilities but certain vehicles are too large to go Inside. 'T'hat is the reason they want to be able to use these lifts which are not really within public view. There are four lifts on the property and two are on South Street and those will not be used and they would be visible from the street ff they were used. The two in the middle of ttie complex are the ones they want to be able to utilize. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Messe asked the height of the lifts and also the height of the vehicles which would be worked on at these lifts. Mr. Snoyman responded he believed the maximum on the lifts is six feet and the trucks would be at least 12 feet high bocause that is the ceiling heicF' of the indoor facilities. He added unfortunately they have a large customer who has a plumbing buss. ass and some of his vehicles have large bodies. Commissioner Messe clarified that the top of the truck would bo 18 feet from the ground but the line of sight prohibits that from being seen from any public street. Mr. Snoyman stated there is a high wall around the building. 01/23/95 Page 8 ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTIQN CARRIED that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for this request. (Findings in Parage No. 9 of the staff report.) Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC 95- 8 granting Condftional Use Permit No. 3715, as readvertised, on the basis that these lifts will not be seen from any public street or alley, amending Condition Nos. 8 and 9 of Resolution No. PC94123 to read as follows: "8. That no outdoor storage of, display of, or work on vehicles or vehicular parts shall be permitted, except on the existing!ananclosed Iffts. 9. That the outdoor lifts shall only be utilized by existing tenants within the repair complex and shall not be leased out to a separate user." VOTE: 7-0 Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented written right to appeal Commission's decision within 22 days. 01/23/95 Page 9 6a- CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION ~, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.37~ OWNER: ROWNS LEASING, ONE ROWNS PLAZA, P.O. BOX 1791, Wilmington, DE 19'899 AGENT: JEFF ADAMS (Designers Collective), 1201 Park Avenue, #204, East Maryville, CA 94608 LOCATION: ~~'° Sout6 State olleee Boulevard. Property Is approximately 6.97 acres located on the west side of State College Boulevard and approximately 250 feet south of the centerline of Babbitt Avenue ?o establish a truck rental leasing and maintenance facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC95-9 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. IN FAVOR: 1 person spoke OPPOSITION: None Approved Granted Jeff Adams, agent, was present to answer any questions. He explained they are relocating Rollln's ~,,, current facilty on Ball Road to this new sfte. Paul Seltzer, owner of property between that property and the railroad, stated he would welcome this use to that property. THE PIJBLIC HEARING WAS CLOScU. Commissioner t'aft stated he noticed there is a 20,000 gallon above-ground diesel tank and asked why lt is not below ground. Mr. Adams responded they are going below ground, and explained that was prior to having discussions with the Fin3 Department. ACTION: MOTION iCARR EGnlo 9approvao f the tNegative Dec aration~ (Findingsrin Paragraph No. 15 of the staff report.) Commissioner Henninger offered Resolution No. PC 95-9 granting Conditional Use Permit No. 3736 with the following changes to condftions: (Findngs in Paragraph No. 18 of the staff report). Modified Condftion No. 3 to read: 3. That the front landscaped setback shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet in wklth, 01/23/95 Page 10 shall indude a minimum 3-foot high landscaped earthen berm and shall be planted ( and irrigated with minimum fifteen (15) gallon sized trees located on maximum `-~' ManagerOma~modiry thispreq~uiredment to ensu et dequate vehiculaandnpedesttrian visibflfty. Added the following condftions: That the diesel storage tank shall be installed underground. Jonathan Borrego asked that Condition No. 3 be modified to read as shown above and that two new conditions be added as follows: That prior to the issuance of a building permft, the applicant shall submft a letter requesting termination of Variance No. 4077. That a rolling wrought Iron gate shall be installed adjacent to the S-foot high block wall. Mr. Adams responded to Commissioner Henninger that they agree with the proposed condtions as modified and added. VOTE: 7-0 Malcolw~ Slaughter, Deputy Cfty Attorney, presented wrftten right to appeal Commission's decision within 22 days. 09/23/95 Page 11 ~., Approved 7a ~EOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved ~, WAIVER OF CODE REni~REME~ Granted 7a COIv'DITiONAL USE PERMIT N0.3737 OWNER: GILBERT - LA PALMA PROPERTIES, Attn: Stephen Gaman, 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles, CA 90067 AaENT: JOEL COLOMBO, P. 0. BOX 1708, Wrightwood, CA 92397 LOCATION: 11 4 1136 and 1160 North Gilbert Stmt Property is approximately 6.9 acres located at the northeast comer of La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street. To permft the expansion of an existing non-industrial training center in conjunction with aradio/television broadcasting, and audio-video production studio including live studio audience participation with waives of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RE50LUTION NO. PCA.~2_- FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION' ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ~~ Joel Colombo, 1011 Twin Lakes Drive, Wrightwood, CA., explained their intentions for this site concur with the request which is consistent with the previous waiver. CUP 3223 is in effect today. He made he following comments: a _ Page 5 of the staff report - No. 10, they assigned the values of square footage and types of use for the building which they are presently using as being the highest, the assembly budding. There is not a parking ratio estahblished for the other buildings that were used in the ML Limited zone (industrial uses) for the recording studio, broadcasting facilities (radio and television). They did a traffic study because there was not a book value to assign and on which to assess the total number of 500 required parking spaces. Upon the assessment when they did the traffic study, the required use was 401 cars, and with the 7-day test, field observation was sufficient. He explained he did not want the Commission to rely on the 500 since, in fact, it was not a book value for the number of required spaces. Chairwoman Boydstun pointed out the City Traffic Engineer is recommending approval of the 401 spaces. Mr. Colombo responded he understood that but that he also understood the Commission has the right to override the Traffic Engineer's recommendation and ho wanted to reinforce that recommendation, so there is a good support of understanding how that number was determined. 01/23/95 Page 12 He continued: ~_ ' b. There is mention on the parking on Page 6 (19e) that the use of off-street parking was not requlreu .ind edded ft was observed the off-sfte parking as being a sign of over-usage. This faciifty has not been required to use the off-site parking to maintain their densty In the buidings. They, in fact, could use all of the parking spaces an site to meet their needs without a problem. However, any observed off- sfte parking has been used strictly as a luxury and a convenience to the occupants. c. To reinforce the environmental impact analysis, page 5, No. 13, reassessing the density of users in more buildings is not going to impact the environment any greater than ft has been. The Flsh and Game Department has reviewed ft, as well as Planning, and they have determined that a Negative Declaration would be consistent wfth the previous Negatbe Declaration on Cup 3223. d_ Page 7, Item 20a, reads that the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code or that the said use is not listed therein as being a permitted use. He stated under the ML Limited industrial zone, those uses they are expanding are, in fact, permitted under the radio/ television broadcasting/recording studios, so they are, in fact, part of an already existing permtted use. e_ Item 20b - as a reinforcement, the propose ;use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and growth and development of the area in which ft is proposed to be located. During the Last five years, there has not been any negative impacts buildings, theyvaretnot creating any detrlmeintal effecrts for the adjo Wing landeustes.r `~ f general welfare of thesintemai and neighboring bod es.he peace, health, safety and g_ Page 9, No. 6 -referred to the condition that prior to commencement of activity, the owner shall offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim a corner cutoff at the northeastern comer of La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street. Other than an existing easement or dedication, they do not have any supplement that shows exactly the reason, or description for that corner cutoff and they would like some elaboration. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, stated the applicant was not able to attend the interdepartmental Committee Meeting where these matters are clarified. The corner cutoff (s needed for the new handicapped access ramp. It needs a larger flat area in the back of the ramp and the size of triang eoto'the other~side and that so s the d mensons ofthe ceomer cutoff needed.and then draw a Mr. Colombo asked H Engineering would provide a formal delineated description from the Public Works Department. Works Engineering ou deprepla a the description a d a sketch andithe owns pwlouldtrev ew ft beforeic signing on the dedication. 01/23/95 Page 13 Mr. Colombo continued: ~,} h. Page 9, No. 7 - prior to the issuance of the building permit, sewer capacity mitigation fees which total about $4,212 for expansion of the building area are required and that in this case, since they are not increasing the occupancy load ftom the original 400 and not adding any more bathrooms or any units to establish this kind of impact, this would be an unnecessary hardship. He asked the reason for this requirement. Ms. Adams stated the use of the property is going from what is really an industrial building to more of a commercial use and staff foresees a higher sewer loading for the expansion area and that is not the entire site or building. She added the sewers in that area are getting overloaded and the City has developed a Master Plan of that area and the City needs to have mitigation fees as the properties get n;ore intense uses. Mr. Colombo asked ff they could substantiate that requirement since the traffic study is not showing bringing in additional cars or bodies to the area and this is, in fact, not a commercial use but still consistent with the ML Iimfted industrial. Based on that, without adding any additional units or density, that fee st,~uld be waived for the expansion of the area. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, stated the study that was submitted was only analyzing the parking and usually this type of use generates more traffic than a regular industrial use, so they are intensffying the use of the property from industrial use. "guesstimateda commehe I/industr al figure so hat n i~rould be faieto his clientxand that would just be for what they use. ~°" i- Page 8, No. 5 -prior to the commencement of activity, sidewalks shall be installed along La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street in accordance with standard plans and specffication~ on file in the Office of the City Engineer. He stated when they did the traffic study, it did not mention an additional influx of pedestrian use. Where there is not a demand, he did not believe they should be required to install sidewalks. FNe years ago there was a temporary waiver of sidewalks on Gilbert based on the expansion of the overpass to I-5 and that overpass has not been installed. He read a letter from Gary Johnson, Director of Public Works, City of Anaheim dated February I, 1990, granting that sidewalk waiver. j- He added they would like to add that contingency to this project since the overpass has not been constructed. Commissioner Messe stated that may not bo under the Commission's Jurisdiction, but under the Public Works Director's jurisdiction. Mr. Colombo responded he would 11ke to work it out wffh them, but ff ft is wffhin the Commission's power to not require installation of the sidewalks when there has not been a need for the last five years. The expansion according to the traffic report is not increasing any pedestrian use. It would be a hardship to his client and could even stalemate the expansion and development of this project completely. It is an undue hardship and he understands the owner does not wish to provide any funds to these Improvements. Without the increased need for the sidewalks, he did not see why that has to be a mandatory requirement. 01/23/95 Page 14 Chairwoman Boydstun stated she did not think that is something the Commission can waive. ~.' Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated the Commission is In a position to impose the condition, requiring the installation of the sidewalks, but it is up to the City Engineer to grant waivers of that requirement. Commissioner Messe added ff the Commission doesn't impose that condition, City Engineering can rescind the letter. Mr. Slaughter stated obviously in this case, it may well be that pedestrian traffic in this area has Increased enough so that staff thinks sidewalks are warranted regardless of the lntensffication of use on site. He added they have had the benefit of a waiver for all these years, and ff the City now thinks the sidewalk is necessary, they have to provide it. Melanie Adams stated Condition No. 5 and be modified to delete the references to l-aPalma Avenue and that is because the sidewalk is on the south side of the current overcrossing over l.a Palma, so the person could cross over at Gilbert. She added they want to leave in the reference to Gilbert Street. The waiver on La Palma is temporary and when the I-5 is widened and the permanent overpass is constructed, the property owner will be expected to put in the sidewalks on LaPalma at that time. Concerning Gilbert Street, ff a person was walking to this facility or coming on the bus, they should be able to fully come on Gilbert on the sidewalk and not have to walk in the street or the parking lot. There may be persons with disabilities who are coming by bus and we would like them to be able to get to the facility on a sidewalk. The parking study does not address pedestrian movement at all and only addresses parking. Commissioner Messe noted Gilbert Street dead ends at that freeway and there is no plan for an overrrossing there. Ms. Adams responded that is correct, but staff is looking for file sidewalk to get them to this racility and back down to La Palma. Mr. Colombo stated there has been some indication that there has been some increase or influx of pedestrian traffic and the study did not point that out. He added there is a statement which could be made available which Indicates that there has not been any pedestrian traffic requiring the sidewalk. He added he did not have any problem ff there is going to be an implied requirement, such as a sidewalk, ff there is a need, but ff there really isn't a valid need, he thought it is unjustifiable. Also, concerning the environmental Impacts and CEQA req~.~irements, the strip available along the Gilbert is only wide enough for the trees and that is going to be a visible screening for the industrial park. It will not only be a loss of enhancement, but ft will have an environmental Impact to provide a sidewalk and there is not a need to justffy the use. Ms. Adams stated Gilbert Street is designated as an industrial street in the Circulation Element and according to Public Works standards, calls fora 5-1 /2 foot wide sidewalk with no provisions for trees. The trees are currently within the public right of way and actually should not be there. While they are beautiful, that is not the place they are supposed to be. The full Intent for that area is to have a public sidewalk. Mr. Colombo stated regardless ff there is no consideration for trees on that industrial street, he did not see a reason to take out the trees and Install a sidewalk unless there is proven to be a use for it at this time. If there is a condition stating that they Improve the property in the easement for the sidewalk, then so be it, but he thought them should be a Justifiable need before that condition is imposed. 01/23/95 Page 15 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~: ~ Commissioner Masse asked ff currently they are using the facility to house some 480 people on Thursday ~nlghts. Mr. Colombo responded, yes, there is a condftional use permft in place right now (No. 3223) and they are housing that many people. Commissioner Masse asked ff he felt there is no pedestrian traffic there at all and Mr. Colombo responded there has not been any for the last five years and that is why they did the formal study. C~mmissloner Masse pointed out that study really did not address that issue. Edward Perez Indicated he wished to speak In favor of this request. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED. Mr. Perez, representing Herftage International, stated together their team was very instrumental in putting together this actual use report to answer any questions. This operation has brought many good facets to the community and the type of operation and services they offer are community based, free service based, and the actual broadcasting or the radio programs are programs that are recorded on sfte but are taken to a studio. Therefore, they do not create any electrical interference wfth any type of satellite or dishes on site. They have been established for the last five years and have engaged in another three year commitment, along with the Cfty of Anaheim, the landlords, and have had a tremendous rapport wfth the City management and they have not had any difficulties in the past five years. He added they develop beneficial programs, humanitarian aide programs, and it is free to the community and any added costs Ifterally could affect the operation financially and the proceeds are directly for communty base. There is a children's program, whether ft be communty service on Easter Sunday, they provide goods and food for needy families, etc. They do not attract a large crowd of people to congregate around their operation. 8096 of their business in the day time is that of business administration. He added as one of the executive members of the operation, he would request that the Commission assist them in the process of ma(ntaining this goodwill effort for the communty. Ms. Adams stated the sidewalk installation cost is $2.50 to $3.00 per square foot along the frontage on Gilbert Street, and the total is $14,000 to $15,000 for 800 feet of 5-1 /2 to 6-foot sidewalk. She responded to Mr. Slaughter's question that that is the cost of construction, and does not include removal of any existing trees, etc. It was noted the expansion area is about 8000 sq. ft., so there is a total of about $25,000 for sewer capacity mitigation fees and sidewalk Improvements. Commissioner Mayer asked how the disabled currently access the site ff there is no disabled access with sidewalks. Mr. Colombo responded currently access to the property has been by vehicle and at this time there is no public transportation bringing people to the sfte. 01/23/95 Page 16 Commissioner Mayer asked what percentage of people coming to the facilities are Anaheim resklents. Mr. Colombo responded he did not have that information. ~,t Alfred Yalda stated their parking study indicates that there is a bus stop there. Mr. Perez stated approximately 5 to 7% of the people are ftom Anaheim and based on their tracking system, a large percentage come ftom Woodland Hills, Sylmar, Santa Fe Springs, Downey, Bellflower, Long Beach, etc. They do have one handicap employee who has his own transportation and there are handicap parking spaces allowing access for employees with no difficulties. They do provide a service, effher by commuter van, or by family membership, and those who are handicap come by family vehicle. They have never had a complaint or challenges in that area. Commissioner Taft asked about the temporary waiver for sidewalks and whether there was a time limit on it? Ms. Adams responded that was connected to the widening of the I-5 freeway and there will be a permanent overpass on LaPalma. Currently, the construction of that segment of I-5 is scheduled to start sometime in 1997 or 1998, but with the County crisis, things may be pushed back. Mr. Slaughter explained once the waiver is granted, ft may be rescinded as the City's needs dictate. Commissioner Taft clarified that the applicant does not expect any larger number of people to use this facility with this expansion than the current number using ft. Mr. Colombo stated according the study and the space they have allocated, this is the maximum space, other than to reallocate spaces for the internal use of each department to have their own spaces, they cannot expand any fur-har, per parking and seating requirements. He added he can get information from their study and he can provide that in writing, indicating that from unannounced observation, there ~' has not been any pedestrian use to that site requiring the sidewalk Commissioner Mayer stated the auditorium or assembly area which has the capacity for 400 people could have two or three different situations in one day, which means 1200 people coming and going from this site in one day. The parking spaces could be reused numerous times in one day. Mr. Colombo stated this is scheduled on a conditi;:nal use permit, so they are limited to only those hours for assemblies. Commissioner Messe asked ff there is a sidewalk on the Calcomp side of Gilbert Street. Chairwoman Boydstun asked ff the expansion is in the auditorium area? Mrdi ferent portions and in dffferein~radjacent buildings are expa dhng.ffi He also answered thatethoseeas facilities are equipped with restrooms. Commissioner Henninger stated he thought the applicant is not correct to speak of these sidewalks in terms of their need by this particular use. He thought the City of Anaheim has determined that sidewalks are a public safety Issue within the City generally and he thought it was a reasonable requirement, in general, to require property owners, as a condition of development, to install those sidewalks without regard to the exact connection between the specific use and the sidewalks. He did 01/23/95 Page 17 not think that was a reasonable argument. He thought it is a reasonable argument to consider whether ~~ now is the appropriate time to install a sidewalk along Gilbert, particularly since there is a line of trees there which might be nice to save for a little awhile longer. He suggested maybe leaving this condition in and suggest the applicant use the normal waiver procedures. Ms. Adams noted there are no sidewalks on the west skte of Gilbert Street (the Calcomp property). She added she will review the request for a waiver with the DNision Manager. Commissioner Henninger stated obviously the City is open to allowing a waiver; and that they have waNed this requirement in the past because h was not timely. request but she~felt becausei of the use they arse requestfng~sidewalks ontGilbertnSt eet wou d be m this appropriate at this time. Jonathan Borrego added ff the Commission is going to be taking action on this request, he would like to recommend modifications to Conditions 1, 5, 9, and 10 as shown below. Commissioner Henninger asked ff the sewer fee for a change in use was paid originally for the existing area. Ms. Adams explained the change in use fee was not paid with CUP No. 3223 because the area Master Plan had not been completed at that time. Commissioner Henninger ciarffied the sewer fee originally was based on an industrial use ;.: id there has never been a fee paid for this change in use. He added the argument that they are simply spreading the existing density out over a I~rger area really is not valid. He asked ff this was the appropriate fee request or ff there is another way to calculate it based on the number of people in the building, compared with the calculation used for Industrial. Ms. Adams stated the Master Plan is based on the type of use per thousand square feet and this is the figure they have calculations to support. explained thi Bisyfor news oe st uctionofor i tensi8ted utses Wltes considered additionaa loading to the system. Commissioner Messe noted the buildings are in place and a fee was paid for sewer and water originally and he thought only the differential should be charged now. Ms. Adams responded they could work out something in that regard. She d1d not have the figures with her to show the difference. Commissioner Henninger suggested mending the condition to indicate fhe fde is the dffference. Commissioner Messe referred to No. 6 of the conditions and asked ff that is acceptable. Mr. Colombo responded he will get the exact delineation from the CNiI Engineering Office. He referred to the suggestion for the fee to be the dffference from industrial to commercial and wanted to make sure that h is understood that the broadcasting studio facilities are, in fact, within the Industrial designation and there is not an additional surcharge. 01/23/95 Page 18 Commissioner Messe stated Mr. Perez testified earlier that this was a commercial project. ~~ Mr. Colombo stated Mr. Perez is his client and he is representing him and the correct terminology is according to the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Henninger asked staff if a broadcast studio is a primary use allowed in the ML zone. Jonathan Borrego responded a broadcasting studio (s a primary permitted use; however, that typically would not include a large seating or assembly area. Commissioner Henninger pointed out they could delete the assembly area, clarifying that they did not pay anything for that area. industrial and he thought itpwould be faU todgo ahead and correctly tftl thoseeand make thosele as adjustments. Comrnlssioner Henninger stated the Commission does not have the ability or desire right now to make they did not goi~o the Interdepartmiental Comm ee moeeting wheretthesetthings arehno malty resolved t Chairwoman Boydstun asked ff the applicant would like a continuance in order to work these details out, so they will know exactly what the fees will be. Mr. Colombo stated the Commission can make the condition upon the definitions by staff or they can make it finite and he thought they are ready to agree to that portion. ;~~ Commissioner Henninger clarified that he would like this condition to read that they will pay the difference in fees on the building area that is dete~~mined to have changed use, as determined by staff. Ms. Adams responded that is acceptable. Mr. Slaughter suggested leaving Paragraph 7 as is and add language as follows: "or the difference between commercial and Industrial uses for the expansion area, whichever is lesser." The applicant would pay either what is shown here or an amount calculated by staff at a lower level. ACTION: Commissioner Henninger orova of the tNegative DDec arationo(F ridings in Paragraph MOTION CARRIED for app No. 13 of the staff report). Approved Waiver of Code Requirement (Findings in Paragraph No. 19 of the staff report.) Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3737 with the following changes to condftions: (Findings in Paragraph No. 20 of the staff report) Modffied Condition Nos. 1, 5, 9 and 10 to read as follows: 1. That the property owner shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 3223 prior to the commencement of activities, or within one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first. 01/23/95 Page 19 i 5. That prior to commencement of activity sidewalks shall be installed along Gilbert Street in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in ~„_;= the office of the City Engineer. A request to waive this requirement may he made to the Public Works-Engineering Department. 7. That prior to issuance of building permft or commencement of actNity, whichever occurs first, (a) a fee in the amount of $324/1,000 s.f. of expansion building area shall be paid to the City of Anaheim for sewer capacity mitigation or (b) the difference between the commercial and industrial sewer fees based on the non-industrial area within subject buildings, whichever is less. 9. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or 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. 4, 6 and 7, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said condftions may be granted in accordance wfth Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 10. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 1, 5 and 8, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. VOTE: '-0 Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attomey,presented the written right to appeal the Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ;~ OTHER DISCUSSION: Commissioner Messe requested that the appointment of a Planning Commission representative to the Utilities Underground Conversion Subcommittee be agendized for the February 6, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 2:45 P.M. TO THE FEBRUARY 6, 1995, PUiNNING COMMISSION MORNING SESSION AT 11:00 A.M Respectfully submitted, f~!;~,~,~la~hv.~ )~ Edfth Harris Planning Commission Secretary 01/23/95 Page 20