Loading...
Minutes-PC 1995/02/22r-1 i I ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1995 11:00 A.M. - PRELIMINARY PLAN RFlIEW 1:30 P.M. - PUBLIC HEE;RINGS BEGIN (PUBLIC TESTIMONY) COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: HENNINGER, CALDWELL ONE VACANT SEAT STAFF PRESENT: Sre m t ~nrgs ,bnathan Borrego Melanie Adams Greg McCafferty Bruce Freeman Allred Yalda Margarita Solorio Zontng Division Manager Deputy Oily Attorney Senior Planner p~ssociate Civil Engineer Asaodate Planner Code EMorcement Supervisor principal Trena; • .station Planner Sr. Word Process„ig Operator PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS ~. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have five minutes to present their evidence. Additional time will be granted upon request ff, in the opinion of the Commission, such additional time will produce evidence ~-- important to the Commission's consideration. 2, In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be given ten minutes to present their case unless detelr'mined by thelength of time a participant speaks, but rather by what is said. mission's considerations are not 3. Staff Reports are part of the evidence deemed received by the Commission in each hearing. Copies are available to the public prior to the meeting. 4. The Commisslon wlll withhold questions until the public hearing is closed. 5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing ff, in its opinion, the ends o} fairness to ali concerned will be served. 6. All doa~ments presented to the Planning Commission for review in connection with any hearing, including photographs or other aa:epteble visual representations or non~documentary evidence, shell be retained by the Commission for the public record and shall be avallable for public inspections. ~ wh in the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, aped/oriagenlda itemsWaFach speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (5) minutes to speak. ac02?295.WP ~,_i ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA -February 22, 1995 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATION,'. A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3566 - SUBSTANTdAL E F DETERMINATION PERTAI E Determined that a CONFORMANC RES 9N TME LAYOUT AND CONFIGURATION OF STRUCK, CENT AVENUE)Q ntial onfor- substa manse with original NFi~HBORHOOD SI ~ n:ORTH SIDE OF RES ANAHEIM PLAZA: Substantial conformance determination for approved plans Conditional Use Permit No. 3566, (to permit the phased construction of a regional commercial retail shopping center with an Indoor tomotive repair and parts installation facility entertainment facility, an au in conjunction with a major retail tenant, semi-endosed restaurants with outdoor dining (food court), and an auditorium/community meeting room). Current request is to review the layout and configuration of structures on the neighborhood site (north side of l h Crescent Avenue) Quad and eliminating the previously- ma o Ptenants two previously-app j approved in-line shops. 'TFM WAS WITHDRAWN i No action B. THIS 02/22/95 Page 2 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA -February 22, 1Q~5 C. CODE AMENDMENT NO 95-3 PERTAINING TO RIGHTS-OF-VI-AY ROVEMENT: Request by the City of Ananeim Recommended adoption to City DEDICATION AND IMP Public Works-Engineering Department, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Council with than es discussed g Anaheim, CA 92805, to allow exemptions ftom dedication .~, ou1 111r, hearing ~ ' requirements. A 7I N: Commissioner Masse offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners nd one vacant seat), that the Anaheim t b a sen Caldwell and Benninger a City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to City Council the adoption of the draft ordinance wfth the fdlowing changes discussed at the public hearing: Amended Paragraphs .071 and .072 to read as follows: .07t The following building permits are exempt ftom the requirements imposed by subsection .010 of this Section: (a) Building permfts for interior modifications of buildings or structures which do not increase the suable square footage of building; (b) Building permits for replacement of an existing structure that is to be demolished or that has been destroyed by fire, earthquake or other calamity, to the extent the replacement structure does not Increase usable square footage. (c) Building permits for any expansion of an existing single-family residence; .072 The following building permits are exempt from the requirements Imposed by subsections .020 through .060, Inclusive: (a) Building permfts Sor interior modifications of building or structures which d~ not increase the usable square footage of building; (b) Building permits for replacement of an existing structure that is to be demolished or that has been destroyed by fire, earthquake or other calamity, to the extent the replacement structure does not increase usable square footage. (c) Building permits wherein a minor addition is being added to an existing structure or building. "Minor addition" shall include any 02/22/95 Page 3 ~_ 1 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA -February 22, 1995 D. ^ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 1978 REQUEST FOR PLANNING ON OR MODIFI AC TION Terminated revoca- lion proceedings OMMISSION TERMINATE REVOCATI PROCEEDINGS. VARIANCE N^ 'a' rONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1936. AND FOR PLANNIN Initiated revocation ion o ca CONDITI NAL USE PERMIT NO 2751 REQUEST COMMISSION TO INITIATE REVO~'"rims nR MODIFICATION i~~i s p 9 PROCEEDIN .Initiated by City of Anaheim, Code Enforcement CA 92805. Request to Anaheim vard l B , , e ou Division, 200 S. Anaheim terminate revocation proceedings for Condtional Use Permit No. 1978 (not applicable to subject property) and to inftlate revocation proceedings for Variance No. 761 (to erect an 18-unit motel), Conditional Use Permit No. 1936 (to expand an existing motel wfth waiver of maximum structural height) and Conditional Use PermR No. 2751 (to construct an 18-unit addition to an existing 27-unit motel). Property is located at 420 S. Beach Boulevard. E. CODE AMENDMENT NO 95x4 PERTAINING TO MOBILEHOME March 6,1995 PARKS AND DISPLACED MOBILEHOME OWNER. Requested by ~-- City Attorney's Department, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim 92805, to delete and amend code sections pertaining to mobilehome parks, defining displaced mobilehome owners and amending wording pertaining to relocation benefits. FOLLOWING I A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DISrL1SSION: Vicki Talley, Executive Director, Manufactured Housing Educational Trust, explained this association represents mobilehome park owners in the counties of Orange, Riverside and Say Bernardino. She referred to a written communication which she sent to the City Clerk's Office and requested that it be forwarded to the Planning Commission. (It was noted the Commissioners had received the document.) Ms. Talley stated her firm represented the owner of the Orange Tree Mobilehome Park in preparing the Conversion Impact Report, but thy: she is not here today on his behalf. Sheincl d ehe owneh of the Orange TreeaMob ehome ParkCity of Anaheim which does 02/22/95 Page 4 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA -February 22, 1995 ~' She stated the proposed amendments would impact owners of the mobilehome parks and she thought the amendments could be even more far-reaching than she would point out. She explained she did not have adequate time to advise the mobilehome park owners and thought their opinions need to be heard regarding this proposed amendment. She stated they would urge the Commission not to make any amendments to the current ordinance. The ordinance was put in place about 15 years ago, after considerable deliberation including the community leaders and representatives of the park owners and tenants. The Manufactured Housing Educational Trust's primary objection is that they do n~i feel this amendment is necessary. While Anaheim's ordinance has been in place for many years and it has worked well, she admitted they have taken this ordinance to other cities, suggesting if they are going to look at a mobilehome conversion ordinance, they might want to consider Anaheim's ordir -once because it has worked well. She stated their experience is that a mobilehome park conversion ordinance is not `- necessary at the local level because the issue of mobilehome park closure is covered adequately in the state law. Therefore, the City of Anaheim doesn't even need an ordinance. If the Commission is going to reopen the discussion and revisit the city's mobilehome park conversion ordinance, they should consider whether or not that ordinance is even necessary. Ms. Talley stated she felt it is irriportant to be on record stating that their organization does oppose local ordinances as unnecessary. Concerning the definition of a "displaced mobilehome owner", she states; the city ordinance and state law provides that no notice needs to be given to any mobilehome park resident until after the approval of any local jurisdiction. This reads as follows: "That anyone living in the mobilehome park at the time of the notice of closure will be entitled to relocation banefits". She added that is very problematic for many reasons and it seemed to her that the owner of any mobilehome park that is going to close in the future will not givo notice until the final approval is made and then a 6-month notice is required. She further explained she is talking about the final approval of the conversion impact report. She thought this would act as a "disincentive". If the city is trying to protect both the park owner and the residents of the mobilehome park, the more notice given residents, the better. She did not think any amendment should be 02/22/95 Page 5 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA -February 22, 1995 adopted that is going to be a disincentroe to give notice, considerably in advance if necessary. The notice might be given at a time when all the spaces were occupied and between the time the notice is given and the park actually closes, things happen such as people abandon their mobilehome, they default on the mortgage or just leave, or they are evicted for non-payment of rent, etc. She felt this amendment would give benefits to people who have not paid the rent, or who have abandoned the mobilehome, etc. She stated the owner of the Orange Tree Mobilehome Park gave a 12-month notice. In effect the residents of that park had a considerable amount of time to move. After that original legal notice, probably 1 /3 of the tenants of the park were evicted for non payment of the rent, etc. This amendment would give benefits to those people who had not paid the rent, had foreclosures for non payment of mortgages, etc. and it is certainly not appropriate to go back to that notice date and give people relocation benefits who have not paid their rent. She did not think this amendment had been well thought out and is ill timed. She referred to the mention of "comparably sized mobilehome, and agreed that is probably something that could be clarified by the ordinance. Concerning lodging, she thought anyone closing a mobilehome park would be happy to include reasonable lodging in the mitigation benefits, but thought the way this amendment is written, it would be a problem because it does not have a limitation included. Even though they are opposed to the amendment, they feel lodging should be limited to five (5) days. After discussion, she suggested wording be added as follows: "or until the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy." Concerning the relocation bonus, she questioned why that is necessary. She added the goal is to pay reasonable relocation costs to relocate the people who are displaced when the mobilehome park closes. She did not think the City cares who pays that, but they do not want the displaced resident to carry the burden and is saying that should be mitigated. This amendment is saying that anyone who is displaced will be paid the relocation costs of moving a comparable mobilehome. That is not "actual" and this section refers to "actual". Ms. Talley stated they found the average cost to move adouble-wide mobilehome is $4800 to $4900 and in the case of the Orange Tree Mobilehome Park, later on in the process, they were seeing receipts with costs of $18,000 or $19,000. She felt this amendment provides the ability for that type of abuse. 02/22/95 Page 6 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA -February 22, 1995 ~_1 She stated as long as the residents are receiving fair and reasonable mitigation or compensation, it should not be a concern of the City and the City should not be involved in saying where that has to come from. If the displaced resiab~t is receiving payment from someone in addition to the mobilehome park owner as an incentive from the receiving park, that should be deducted and credited towards the amount and not be a "windfallu. She stated this amendment contradicts state law and the City's ordinance because they do not say "actual" costs and the reason they don't say "actual costs" is because that would leave the door open and encourages abuse. She stated this Commission has the final authority to make a decision on whether or not the mitigation is appropriately presented in the conversion impact report. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated it was not the intent to change the fact that what state law requires is average relocation costs". Some of the problems that became evident and some of the comments from the Planning Commission suggested that they felt that the benefit from the receiving mobilehome park should not be counted in determining what the average relocation costs are. She suggested maybe the last sentence should be the first sentence of that provision to make clear there is ~- no intent to change the "average relocation costs". The intent is to determine what the average relocation costs are and the Commission does not consider the availability of potential relocation bonus amounts because they are very variable and same of those were available from parks that have age limitations and other limitations which made them less desirable. The intent was to make it more fair since those were not always available to persons moving from the park that was closed and the intent was to not have those be a part of the consideration in determining average relocation costs. Ms. Talley stated the owners of the Orange Tree Mobilehome Park went to great lengths to line up other mobilehome parks which would pay relocation costs. She added the residents should not make money on the c+eal. Commissioner Messe stated if it is against actual costs, the tenant would not make money. He added there could be abuse from both parties. Selma Mann stated if the mobilehome park owner wished to consider the relocation bonus which the tenant was receiving from the accepting park, it was an option available to the park owner but that would have to be a separate consideration apart from average relocation costs. In that instance, 'rf the park owner made that decision, it would have to be a case by case determination of the actual costs and the 02/22/95 Page 7 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA -February 22, 1995 L.. mobilehome owner would have to cooperate and the abuse issue could probably be taken care of in the language. She added maybe those should be two separate provisions in the amendment: a. The bonus received from the accepting mobilehome park would not be counted in the average b. If the park owner wishes to offset the accepting park bonus, it is removed from the average determination. Then actual costs would be used and the bonus could be taken for that actual cost. Commiss~odn to the comments about the people who just albandon theen ob ehome'or and refe e those who were evicted for not paying the rent, etc. Ms. Mann stated maybe the person entitled to the relocation benefit is the person who is holding th viewed befo~e the amendmen tgoes to the City Counca for cons derat on t should be re She added that issue was not considered. Commissioner Messe stated maybe the mobilehome was too old and could not be y that had been d splacedsby the closure of the park. s She asked the Comm ss n to discuss some of the possibilities and possible remedies. Chairman Boydstun suggested maybe any rents owed could be deducted from the benefits they might receive. Ms. Talley stated they object to tho first and last recommendations of this amendment. She stated once a mobilehome is abandoned, probably no rent is coming in and if a bank owns it, the rent may or may not be paid and a bank is not a displaced person and she would hope the ordinance would not require benefits be paid to the bank. Chairwoman Boydstun stated she thought foreclosures should be exempt from benefits. Commissioner Mayer stated there are many units which cannot be relocated and will not be accepted in other parks and in any case, they have no choice and people cannot sell the unit or relocate ft. Ms. Talley stated that information is not correct and that every mobilehome in Orange 0122/95 Page S ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA -February 22, 1995 ~I Tree could be relocatable, even the oldest and the owner of the oldest was paid relocation costs to a park in Dana Point. Ms. Talley stated the coaches are abandoned for a variety of reasons It is very unlikely that someone would walk away or cbandon a older mobilehome that is paid for. Other reasons for abandoning are: the coach may not be worth very much and the person does not want to move it to another mobilehome park and they might rather just take their relocation money and abandon that coach. Or they have lost their job, etc. Primarily the homes that were abandoned at Orange Tree were foreclosures. The residents took out loans on the units in excess of the value of the coach, and whpch the t could no~pay and they could not sellt he oach. encumbered with a loan Y Commissioner Messe asked ff that would be a displaced mobilehome resident and Ms. Talley stated that would have been their own choice. Commissioner Messe stated the closure notice would have caused the person to have to leave and they may have been in good standing with their mortgage and their rent prior to the notice. Ms. Talley stated there are people who have gone through foreclosure because they have lost their jobs and many people who live in mobilehome parks have lost their jobs, as they have in her neighborhood. Commissioner Messe asked when tht~ ini"~~al notice has to be given. Ms. Mann responded it depends on what type of use is contemplated by the owner. If it is a closure, notice has to be given at least 12 months before the closure. If it is a change in use, then it is a different period of time. The intent here was that there not be a situation where a property owner may initially decide he will just close the park and follow those procedures. In that instance, there is no involvement by the City, other than reviewing the conversion ~ impact report. Then having the park owner change his mind and decide to go with a change in use anyway, and have a separate notice issue. She stated that is what she heard from the comments made by the Planning Commission and the people who had been residing in the park -that at the time of the initial notice, they had been displaced by the initial notice. Ms. Talley stated when a change in use is applied for, an official notice is not required until after that change in use is granted, and then it is a 6-month notice of closure. o2/~/ss ` Page 9 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA -February 22, X995 Commissioner Messe stated the initial notice would come in that case after the conversion impact report. Ms. Tall3y stated the residents would have received not~ication of public hearings and they would know the park is closing. She explained in her opinion, this amendment causes a problem in that the park awner could Just wait to give the 6-month notice until after he had gone through the approval process. Commissioner Messe stated that would still be the equivalent of a I-year notice. Ms. Mann stated a park owner could decide to just close the park and then wait for two years and the overlay zone disappears and no action needs to be taken by the city. There are options the owner has whether this amendrent is put in place or not. She added maybe we need to take a look at the requirements of the California Civil Codes and the Government Code section and it may be that since we require notice under this section, that notice to remove the Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone would also be sufficient to define the resident as "displaced owner". She stated it was her understanding that the intent was that the earlier notice triggered the status of a displaced mobilehome owner and that a subsequent notice doesn't change that status. If someone feels they have to move because a park is closing boca~!s2 they have received an earlier notice, it doesn't mean that they should no longer be entitled to the benefits. Chairwoman Boydstun suggested that the lodging (Section .0402) be limited to 10 days or until issuance of a certificate of occupancy. She felt repossessed units should be removed. Commissioner Messe stated he would like to see the City Attorney's Office do the research as mentioned and bring the amendment back to the Planning Commission for further review. He asked ff not ~mly "comparable-sized" but "comparable age" should be included. Nis. Mann asked if the resident was still living in tho mobilehome, would the Commission want to have the provision with regArd to offsetting any rents in arrears. (Chairwoman Boydstun stated in tnat case, they would have to pay the rent.) ACTIJN: Continued to the meeting of March 6, 1995. o2/2i/ss Page 10 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA -February 22, 1995 ~.' -- 2a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Previously March 6,1995 Approved) 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3718 (Readvertised) OWNER: THRIFTY OIL COMPANY, Attn: Gerald Greenberg, 10000 Lakewood Blvd., Downey, CA 90240 LOCATION: 1881 West Ball Road fThr'rfty Oil Service t ti n . Property is 0.43 acre located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Nutwood Street and described as 1881 West Ball Road (Thrifty Oil Service Station). Petitioner requests amendment to conditions of approval pertaining to removal of service station structures in conjunction with an existing service station facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 6, 1995 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to be present. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Caldwall and Henninger absent and 1 vacant seat) 02/22/95 Page 11 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA -February 22, 1995 02/22/95 Paye 12 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA -February 22,1995 3a. FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0.315 (Previously Certified) 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3565 (Readvertised) OWNER: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM, 7667 Folsom Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95826 AGENT: O'CONNOR REALTY ADVISOR'S INC., Attn: Mike SVIe, 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90025; Donahue Schriber, Attn: Brad Deck, 3501 Jamboree Rd., South Tower, Ste 320, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 500-600 North Euclid Street Anahg_m_ Plaza . Property consists of two parcels of land: Parcel 1 is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 38.25 acres bounded on the north by Crescent Avenue, on the east by Loara Street, on the south by the Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5), and on the west by Euclid Street (Anaheim Plaza); Parcel 2 is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 8.82 acres located at the northeast corner of Crescent Avenue and Euclid Street, having approximate frontages of 620 feet on the north side of Crescent Avenue anc1640 feet on the east side of Euclid Street. Petitioner requests modification or de;ation of a condition of approval pertaining to tenant identrfication on an bxisting freeway-oriented freestanding, project identification sign to identify six (6) major tenants instead of five (5) major tenants ar7d one (1) major entertainment ~arnponent as previously approved. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC95.18 Approved amendment to conditions of approval 02/22/95 Page 13 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA -February 22, 1995 C. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. O'r°nSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Brad Deck, Agent, explained the request is for modification to a condition in CUP 3566 to allow them tc~ identify two additional anchor tenants on the neighborhood portion of Anaheim Plaza o^ t~s tteeway-oriented pylon sign. The existing condition as stated limits them 'to froe on site major tenants, plus one entertainment orienteu tenant. They waM to be allowed to identify six major tenants. Four would be in the regional component and 2 in the neighborhood component. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Messe asked why there will not be any theaters in this center. Mr. Deck responded they are working with two tenants right now which are similar to the major tenants in the regional component. All tenants in this category are very sensitive ;o proper identfication, both on the major arterials and the freeway. -- He explained they talked to a number of different theater groups for this project and it was determined then that there were enough existing theaters to satisfy the demand in this area. He added he understood that it has to do with the theater's ability to buy films and they just did not feel it would be competitive based on the number of screens in the trade area. Commissioner Messe stated west Anaheim has no real theaters. Mr. Gack continued that they could net find any rnajor theater chains who were interested in this location. ACTION: Found that EIR 316 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved amendment to conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 3566 Amended Condition No. 1 of Resolution No. 93R-162 to read as follows: 1. That the freeway-oriented project and major tenant identification sign shall be limited to not more than six (6) major tenant identification panels in addition to the Anaheim Plaza "A" iden::~cation logo." VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Caldwell and Henninger absent and 1 vacant seat) 02/22/95 Page 14 i~NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA -February 22, 1995 4a. CE(#A NEGATNE DECLARATION (Previously Approved Approved) Approved 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2992 revised {Readvertised) plans OWNER: LEONARD CHAIDEZ AND CYNDIE CHAIDEZ, P.O. Box 29, Anaheim, CA 92815-0029 LOCATION: 50? South Lemon Strut., Property is approximately 0.56 acre located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Street and Lemon Street. Petitioner requests review and approval of revised plans to retain a previously approved tree service contractor's yard with waiver of minimum front yard setback. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC95-19 FOLLOWING {S A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Jeff Williams, agent, 5(i7 S. Lemon Street, explained they want to modify Conditional Use Permit No. 2992 to include an area where they can sort tree trimmings into three different components. They want to use a portion of the yard as a sorting transfer area; that they have components to recycle and components to take to the land fill and also they have a wood yard located in Silverado Canyon. When they bring in mixed loads, they need a place to dump it and then sort it. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairwoman Boydstun clarfied that they will be constructing a block wall on Lemon and Santa Ana Streets. (Mr. Williams responded that is one of the conditions; and they will comply.) 02/22/95 Page 15 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA -February 22,1995 l_' Chairwoman Boydstun referred to the gate off Santa Ana Street and clarfied that they do service their trucks on the site. She asked what they do about the waste, pointing out it looked oily when she was there. Mr. Williams stated they have a barrel on site where th9y store their ha~:ardous materials and lt is collected by a service. He stated the lot is 10096 asphalted. Commissioner Messs asked ff there is a layer of dirt over the asphalt. Mr. Williams responded they try to keno lt clean but with the trucks coming in, there is some fluff which blows off the trucks. Commissioner Messe asked about the wood products and clarified that lt is fire wood and asked if they ever sell that from this site. Mr. Williams answered that ff they have a client who wants wood and they have lt at the yard, they will give lt to the customer, but they do not sell lt from this site. He explained nothing is stored on this slte. Commissionb; Messe stated they have a tool storage area, an office, truck storage area and the proposed sorting and transfer area and asked where the mechanical work is done. -- Mr. Williams explained it is in front of the longer storage area which is where the mechanic's tools are stored. Responding to Commissioner Messe as to whether work is allowed outside in this zone, Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, explained if this was a commercial operation, all work would have to be conducted inside the building. Since this operation appears to be outdoors, lt would be up to the Planning Commission to determine if that is part of this storage of the trucks and materials. He added in this case, it should be clear in the conditional use permlt whether the use includes the repair of the vehicles. Chairwoman Boydstun asked what type of work is done on the vehicles and clarified that the repair and service would be of their own vehicles. Commissioner Messe stated the gate that is open is on Santa Ana Street and there is a residential neighborhood nearby and this use is not really very beautiful to look at. He added he would be more concerned if they were going to be repairing engines. Mr. Williams asked if the Commissioner is suggesting screening. Commissioner Messe stated he would like to see that done and Mr. Williams asked if keeping the 02/22/95 Page 16 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA -February 22, 1995 gate closed would help. He stated they have not submitted a design for the gate, but would propose that it would be something with a metal frame with a pleasing material such as wood to provide screening. He added they would be willing to keep the gate closed. Commissioner Messe stated he would feel better 'rf the gate was closed. Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated if the gate is right at the property line, there would be a problem because the trucks would stop in the street and block the sidewalk and create an unsafe condition for traffic moving on Santa Ana Street. If the gate is to be closed, it should provide at least 20 or 30 feet from the back of the sidewalk to the gated area so that if there are any other trucks coming in, they would got block the sidewalk or the street. Chairwoman Boydstun asked if a truck would block traffic any more than the train when it sits there. She did agree with the requirement on any other street in Anaheim, but not on this street. Mr. Williams suggested closing the gate after the trucks leave arour;~i 8 in the morning and opening it again at 4 and leaving ft open until 5. He stated all the trucks could -- stop in the middle of the street. Alfred Yalda stated Traffic Engineering would not recommend stopping in the middle of the street. Fle referred to another location in Anaheim (West Street) where that occurs and recently a driver was hit by a car. The driver would have to stop and get out and go over the open the gate. Mr. Williams pointed out they have about 12 trucks. Commissioner Messe asked 'rf they would install an electrically controlled gate. Mr. Williams stated he could do that, or also that they have radios in their trucks and the driver could call into the office and someone could open the gate. Commissioner Messe agreed the radio communication would be an acceptable solution. ACTION: Determined that the previously approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. 02/22/95 Page 17 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA -February 22,1995 c Approved revised plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 2992. Amended Condition Nos. 6 and 10 to read as follows: 6. That clinging vines or fast-growing shrubbery shall be planted adjacent the proposed masonry block walls facing Lemon Street and Santa Ana Street in compliance with Code Se~~tion No. 18.04.060.040 to prevent graffiti opportunities. Said plants shall be equipped with an automatic watering system. 10. That tree trimming debris shall not be allowed to aQmpost on site. Added the following condition: That a solid gate shall be installed along Lemon Street and Santa Ana Street. Said gates shall remain open in the morning from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. and in the afternoon from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. and closed between 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. A two-way radio communication system shall be used for opening gate. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Caldwell and Henninger absent and 1 vacant seat) 02/22/95 Page 18 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA -February 22, 195 ~~ 5a. CEG1A NEGATNE DECLARATION Approved 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3742 Granted OWNER: MENNEN INDUSTRIES, INC., Attn: James O. Ashcraft, 2305 Cherry Industrial Circle, Long Beach, CA 90805 AGENT: JOSEPH De CARLO, 3520-B Cadillac, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 LOCATION: 2037 East Ball Road. Property is approximately 3.03 acres located on the north side of Ball Road and approximately 400 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard. To permit a car wash facility including asemi-enclosed detail area. CONDIT10iNAL USE PERIArr RESOLUTION NO. PC9r20 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIOh~ ACTION. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Mike Easton, agent, explained this is a family-owned center and that the car wash is to be family owned and operated. Recently this center has had high vacancies and they want to revitalise the center with this car wash. There are no other car wash facilities in this area and this fac"~ will be aimed to service the low to median income residents. Concerning the detailing area, he explained they are currently discussing that with staff. A normal car wash uses 45 to 50 gallons of water and this system, with recycling and recovery systems that would be used, will use 6.25 gallons of water per o2/as/ss Page 19 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA -February 22, '1995 car wash (an 87% water savings). He stated they are requesting that the Commission approve the CUP based on staff review of some of the minor outstanding issues Page 2, Item No. 6 - no prepared food service and explained that is true and there are no plans to serve prepared food. No. 10 -sign program for the stropping center -they are interested in updating the entire center's sign program. Have not submitted a plan because staff had indicated the Commission was in the process of reviewing and proposing changes to the existing sign program. They have just received a copy of the proposed changes and their intent is to update the signage in the center and the plans will meet these new standards. Page 3, Item 17 -relocation or modification of the detailing area -right now it is proposed under the existing breezeway (former bank drive through). They would like to see it left as originally planned but are willing to work with staff and make whatever modifications are necessary. They feel they can allow some angular parking and some screening with the detailing area as shown. They would like to work with staff further on that issue and then report back to the Planning Commission as a Report and Recommendation item. -- Page 4, -they agree with all the proposed conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS rLOSED. Commissioner Messe stated the applicant really has not came forth with new drawings showing the northern boundary. Mr. Easton stated they have a corrected drawing showing the northern boundary. Cheryl Flores, Associate Planner, noted that Melanie Adams of Public Works - Engineering had agreed to accept the drawing as suggested. Commissioner Messe asked about the open breezeway where they want to do the detailing and their plans to screen it from view. Mr. Easton stated if the Commission wants that area screened from view, they would have to go with the plan the Commission saw today. Concerning the parking with the center fully occupied and a full service car wash, Alfred Yalda stated there would be less conflict on the public street ff they close that 02/22/ss Page 20 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA - Fettruary 22, 1995 access. He added a bank would generate more peak hour trips than a car wash so there is no impact on the parking. Concerning the parking agreement, Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated the Commission could add a condition to this approval requiring that they demonstrate that there is a reciprocal parking agreement. Concerning the plant material, Mr. a ma 6riapand the I have not con act d a that they put i-, some type of high hedge-typ Y landscape architect. Commissioner Messe stated he would like a condition added requiring that type landscaping. Greg Hastings stated ff Commission wishes that driveway be closed, staff recommends in addition to the planter area, all the 2~rea between the public sidewalk and building be landscaped so that all the asphalt is removed. Mr. Easton stated th~3y would agree with that proposal and the plans do show that area as planter. Commissioner IJlasse was not comfortable with the sign program and would tike the sign program completed. Mr. Easton stated they have some other projects which are on-going and feel they have done enough preliminary work and fully understand the City's intent and they will do it if the Commission wishes, but plan to fully cooperate with staff's recommendations and with the new sign criteria. Greg Hastings stated staff has the Planning Commission's input for the new sign regulations and will be submitting it to the City Attorney's Office. Staff's concerns with car wash facilities is really the menu board type signs and the new sign ordinance will not address that -only the freestanding. Mr. Easton stated the plans indicate the placement of the menu board signage and it is located and clearly shown under the canopy against the building. The unly other signage shown on their plans is one wall-mounted sign, as well as the monument signage that would be within the scope ~~f the new regulations. ACTION: Approved Negative Declara;on Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3742 with the following changes to conditions: 02/22/J5 Page 21 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA -February 22, 1995 ~t Deleted Condition No. 5 Added the following conditions: That an unsubordinated reciprocal access and parMng agreement, in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, shall be recorded wfth the OfNce of the Orange County Recorder. A copy of the recorded agreement shall be submitted to the Zoning Di\dslon. That final landscape and sign plans shall be submitted to the Planning Com ansish as a "Report and Recommendations' Rem for ra•~lew and approval Landscape p include a high hedge-type shrub screen of the auto detail area and further indicate landscaping to be planted and maintained in the area between the public sidewalk and the planter area. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Caldwell and Henninger absent and 1 vacant seat) 02/22/95 Page 22 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA -February 22,1995 ~.I 6a. CEDA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 21 Continued to 6b. VARIANCE N0.4018 (Readvertlsed) April 3, 1995 Cfty of Anaheim, Code Enforcement DNlslon, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA OWNER: FRAN2 POLL, C/0 ACE Property Management, Attn: John Aceves, 58 Plaza Square, #J, Orange, CA 92666 LOCATION: ~' South Anaheim Boulevard. Property Is approximately 0.29 acres located at the southwest comer of Midway Manor and Anaheim Boulevard. Request to consider the termination or modlflcatlon of Variance No. 4018 (to establish a commercial use in a residential structure) pursuant to ~onfng Code Section 18.03.091. VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. '~ _; FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THl~ PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Petitioner's Comments: Mark Botich, 883 S. Anaheim Bc~levard, Anaheim, explained they entered into an agreement with Dr. Poll, the owner, on a purchase contract 3-1 /2 years ago. Recently the bottom dropped out of their business and they could not go ahead with the purchase. They put in over $100,000 and tried to meet all the conditions for occupancy. They completely sprinklered the building, got the approval to make it commercial which added a lot of restrictions. They put in a parking lot, street lights. sewer improvements, etc. The owner has agreed to do the landscaping. They are prepared to go ah©ad with the improvements and they would like an opportunity to stay in business in this location and would like more time to meet these requirements. John Aceves, Property Manager, Dr. Poll, 58 Plaza Square, Ste. J, Orange, 92666. He stated they begun the landscaping, and already have the ground cover in and have worked with staff and are working to meet the requirements. 02/22/95 Page 23 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA -February 22, 1995 L~ He stated Mr. Botich is right in that they have put in a lot of improvements and are prepared to go forward and meet all the requirements. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairwoman Boydstun asked ff the building permits have been renewed with the Building Department. Mr. Botich stated he talked to them yesterday and was informed to meet the Fire Marshall's approval and that he talked to Jaff Lutz, Fire Department, and h6 is going to send a Fire Inspector to the site. After that is done, he can go back to the Building Department. Mr. Eotich responded to Chairwoman Boydstun that this is strictly an office and no one is living there. They had a young man living there as security and also worked on the improvements, but he left about a year ago. He explained the round portion is an office and the inside has all been improved and there is an open air patio in the rear, and it has some temporary material to keep the sun out, but that will come off. An awning system ~Nas designed for that area. Commissioner Messe asked if 40 days is long enough to complete the conditions and added that is absoiutsly the end of the time limits. Mr. Botich responded they will meet the 40 days ACTION: Continued subject request to the April 3, 1995 Planning Commission meeting in order to give the property owner and/or permittee the opportun'rry to (a) complete the installation of required landscaping, (b) renew the expired building permits and complete rehabilitation of the structure for office use; and (c) obtain the required Certificate of Occupancy. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Caldwell and Henninger absent and 1 vacant seat) 02/22/95 Page 24 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTION AGENDA -February 22,1995 ~~ niSri.. ~cioN ITEM: REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF Appointed A REPRESENTATIVE TO THE Bo dstun aser COMMUNITY WIDE CDBG Y CITIZEN PARTICIPATION representative and COMMITTEE Commissioner Messe as alternate MEETING ADJOUIRNED AT 3:25 P.M. TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MORNING WORK SESSAGENCY PRESENTATION REGARDING THE EASTERN ORTATION CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR. Res ttully submitted, Edith L. Harris Planning Commission Support Supervisor 02/22/95 Page 25 { ~ ~.