Loading...
Minutes-PC 1995/05/31~~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CC's"~~MISSION May 31, 1995 11:0? A.M. - PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW OF THE EAST ANAHEIM POLICE SL'13:.;TATION SCHEMATIC PLANS. 11:15 A.M. - PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.M. - PUBLIC HEARINGS BEGIN (PUBLIC TESTIMONY) SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE STAFF PRESENT Greg Hastings Selma Mann Jonathan Borrego Melanie Adams Greg McCafferty F3ruco Freeman Alfred Yalda Zon(ng Division Manager Deputy City attorney Senior Planner Associate Civil Engineer Associate Planner Code Enforcement Supervisor Principal Transportation Planner Senior Secretary Margarita Solorlo PROCEDURE TO EXPEDRE PLANNING COMMISSION PU6UC HEARINGS 1. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have five minutes to present their evidence. Additional time wi' be granted upon request it, in the opinion of the Commission, such additional time will produce evidence important to the Commission's consideration. 2, .n contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be given ten minutes to present their case unless additional Ume is requested and the complexity of the matter warrants. The Commission's considerations are not determined by the length of time a participant speaks, but rather by what is said. 3. Staff Reports are part of the evidence doomed received by the Commission in each heart!.g. Copies are available to the public prior to the meeting. 4. The Commission will withhold questions until the public hearing is closed. F. ?he Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing H, in its opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned will be served. 6. All documents presented N the Planning Commission for review in connection with any hearing, Including photographs or other acceptable visual representeUons or nontiocumentary evidence, shall be retained by the Comm:salon for the public record and shall be available for public inspections. %. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of he public will ba allowed to speak on items of interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and/or agenda items. Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (5) minutes to speak. AC053195.WP MAY 31, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. VARIANCE NO 3882 ' REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE E N I N Approved OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPRO AL Dwight (To expire 12-19-95) Belden, 450 Newport Center Drive, Ste. 304, Newport Beach, CA 9260- 7640 requests aone-year retroactive time extension to comply with conditions of approval for Variance No. 3882 (waiver of minimum structural setback and required site screening t o e n~e Decemberyl9, 70,000 square foot commercial office building) p 1995. Property is located on the northeast comer of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Riverview Drive. Continued to g, ^^NDITiONAL USE PERMIT NO 2685 - REVUE T F R atrggTAfiTIAL ^^"'FORMANCE DETERMINATION. Sam .lobar, 1074 June 26, 1995 in order N. Tustin Ave., Anaheim, CA 92807 requests substantial coMormance to be set for a public determination (review of revised floor plan) for Conditional Use Permit hearing to consider No. 2685 (to permit the expansion of a restaurant and cocktail lounge). em natitonn or Property is located at 1074 N. Tustin Avenue. Sam Johar, 1074 N. Tustin Avenue, Anaheim, applicant, expressed concerns and dissatisfaction v,~Rh the amount of time it has taken to meet with the Planning Commission. These delays do cost them a lot of money. This request is to relocate the bar so clients would have a better view of the lake and, hopefully, they can add more seating in that area. They are hoping this will help bring up food sales. He felt such a mino~c a dation~uHe also stated he eels theywould bte ire fed unfairlyiff they a e not allowed to go reco forward wfth this small alteration. Jim Johar, 1074 N. Tustin Avenua, Anaheim, stated the reason for this request is to improves hThair~designer business. The last three to four months have been very difficult in improving their ,ood sale... roved. recommended fuming their bar to face the lake and he hoped this minor alteration would be app Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, explained staff brought this back to the Planning Commission because appro~cimately one year ago the Planning Commission had seen a revised plan for the operation and since that ervvise, the Plannees argil being asked topevpew~and approvenminor Chang si at the counterthe operation. 0th 05-31-95 Page 2 MAY 31, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA ~'' Responding to Commissioner Henninger, Greg Hastings explained a conditional use permit was approved in May 1985 to permit the expansion of a restaurant and a cocktail lounge. The original conditional use permit granted in 1974 was to permit an enclosed restaurant with a cocktail lounge. Commissioner Henninger stated there was a restaurant and cocktail lounge there called "Betsy Walls", and asked if that is still the use that is out there. coccktaiFl Iounge~isCnot the primary use~They feelt the us has changed withsmorielalcohdt being served than food. Bruce Freeman responded to Commissioner Henninger that he has no personal knowledge, but has been Informed that the operation today is not being conducted in the same manner as before as a restaurant with a cocktail lounge. Ifne tthan ao estaurant ands ked the applicant what type offinenhu Is beingioffered along the entertainment Sam Johar stated when they originally operated the restaurant, the menu consisted of meals which cost approximately $20 per person. After five to six months of doing business, they realized the area was in need of a different menu. Currently the menu consists of meals ranging from $5 to $8. They still have the reception desk ff people are there to dine for lunch or dinner. They have a number of non-smoking and smoking booths. He stated they are operating a restaurant with some entertainment. Responding to Chairman Boydstun, Mr. Johar stated the menu contains a number of sandwiches, stea s, a variety of chicken dishes, pastas, appetizers, and they also have specials such as lobster which is not on the menu but is available, and they have fish for lunch and dinners. Commissioner Henninger stated it seems there are two different versions of what is occurring out there, and he thought it might be appropriate to ask Code Enforcement to go out to the establishment and glue a recommendation back to the Planning Commission. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated ff that is the direction of the Planning Commission, they may wish to direct staff to also get information with regard to the type of liquor license that the establishment has to ensure that there is consistency in what is being done by the Commission. She added she realizes this is not an area where tf;e City has jurisdiction because they have their liquor license, but just in terms to ensure that the establishment is operating consistently. iCt was i oinn to be thelsa eta t etp~ev9ous restaurant/cocktail lounge. vNow,lhe is not certain thatt ought 9 9 case. use hermit t see how the present ope tlion fits with the existng conditional use permit. lew the conditional P Commissioner Henninger stated the applicant has expressed concsrns about delays and suggested setting h for a public hearing to save time. 05-31-95 Page 3 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 ~f Selma Mann stated them is another matter on the agenda that deals with substantial conformance determination, and if the Planning Commission is saying is that there may be condtions that need to be attached to the conditional use permft in conjunction with making a substantial conformance determination, k would be appropriate to go ahead and set it for a public hearing. That would bring up the entire condftional use permit for the Commission to take a look at the conditions. Commissioner Henninger agreed and Greg Hastings asked for a four weeks continuance. ACTION: offer tior the matter go be setfora public hearing,m MOTION CARRIEDune 26, 1995, in l 051-95 Page 4 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 L4 2a, rEOA NEGATNE DECLARATION 2b. WANER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2c. rONDITiONAL USE PERMIT N0.3751 OWNER: REDA A. WASEF, 2324 Corydon, Norco, CA 91760 AGENT: FAYEZ SEDRAK, 1100 North Eucid St., Anaheim, GA 92801 LOCATION: 1100 North Euclid Street. Property is approximately 0.51 acres located at the northeast comer of La Palma Avenue and Euclid Street. To permit an accessory convenience market (with prepared food and off- premise sale and consumption of beer and wine) and an automated car wash with waiver of required trees adjacent to street frontages, required setback adjacent to an arterial highway, and landscape requirements adjacent to Interior property lines. Continued from the April 17, and May 15, 1995 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC95-55 ti. Approved Approved, in part Granted, in part ------------------------- FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Chairman Boydstun stated that no new plans where submitted and asked ff the applicant would like a continuance. Reda YJasef stated he met two times with Traffic and Planning staff (Alfred and Kevin) and has tried to find a location for the propane tank to be moved but it wasn't possible and that is why no new plans have been submitted. Commissioner Messe asked if Mr. Wasef needs to have the ability to sell propane. Mr. Wasef stated he brought the record showing the amount of propane being :old, and that he sold 400 gallons fora 30-day period, which is amend 15-20 gallons a day and he dki not think that quantity would not cause a traffic problem. He pointed out the record (reading for everyday) Is available for the Planning Commission to see. Until today he hasn't had one big vehicle, and usually sells propane in the 5-gallon containers, 2 or 3 customers a day. Commissioner Caldwell asked if the Commission were to restrict the sales to only small propane taroks, then he could not have mobile homes or motor homes coming there to fnl their propane tanks, and asked ff that would be acceptable? Mr. Wasef answered yes. ~' . 1 _,. 05-31-95 Page 5 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 ~~ Mr. Wasef stated in his opinion ff the driveway is dosed at Eudkl, all the trafffc would be switched to one entrance which is where the propane tank is located. If the two driveways were kept open he doesn't see any problem with the location of the propane tank. He added he would also be willing to accept any addition that is needed. Commissioner Caldwell suggested that a 'no parking' sign could be posted in ftont of the propane tank and Mr. Wasef agreed. OPPOSITION: None THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED, Commissioner Henninger stated h appears there is a difference of opinion with the applicant regarding the driveway and that he Is firm on the driveway recommendation because he has seen many acckJents ftom vehicles entering in from alert-hand tum. Commissioner Messe agreed and stated it also slows intersection traffic. Commissioner Henninger felt the Commission should discuss the beer and wine sales. Officer Jim Gandy, Anaheim Police Department, referred to the map displayed showing ~ihe crime rate fn specffic areas. He noted the crime rate of this particular location is 50% above the average, and this facility happens to be at a location where four,adjacent reporting districts combine, arxi crime rates of the other _ three are respectively, 125% above, 213% above and 203% above. The area has a high crime rate and there are 13 liquor licenses in the area and nc more licenses are needed. Commissioner Henninger indicated ft seems like most gas stations have to Crave a multitude of uses just to survive, and wondered what effect a limit on the sales will have on the gas stations. Commissioner Bostwick agreed and added the margin on gasoline is very low and as a result, gasoline stations are going to mini-markets. The Planning Commission discussed alcohol sales at the gas stations and convenience markets, compared with liquor stores, etc., and also discussed alcohol sales and crime rates. Commissioner Messd thought ttiere was a study on liquor outlets and crime rates. Officer Gandy racalled there was a study done by Dr. Scribner, who worked for USC, and the study showed the effects of additional alcohol outlets in an area. The study showed that the addition of one outlet increased the violent crime rate. Commissioner Peraza was concerned with the apartments that are dose to the area ancJ he believed that the neighborhood is deteriorating and that deterioration will continue. Chairman Boydstun indicated she thought this type of use adds to the deterioration and that she coul~'n't agree with the alcohol sales. She stated there are a lot of families with children in those apartments. Commissioner Caldwell asked for more information on the proposed ordinance regarding the number of trees required; and Greg Hastings explained the Planning Department is working on a draft proposal. 05-31-95 Page 6 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 V Because of the limfted amount of the landscape area that Is adjacent to street frontages on a service station she and because of the tact that most of them have two driveways on each skJe, ft only allows enough room for a couple of trees. He stated the new requirement would be an irrtensffication of trees along the interior property line so it would be more of a backdrop and would not hkle the service station. Commissioner Caldwell asked ff tii~ possibility that the southerly driveway on Euclid would be eliminated was conskfered; and Greg Hastings stated that was not a part of the discussion. Commissioner Caldwell asked with the closure of the driveway, would the new ordinance then require addftional trees. Greg Hastings indicated ft did not but it can be added. His suggestion would be that the number of trees be doubled on any street ftontage where there is an elimination of a driveway. He darified ff the drveway was dosed, there would be two trees on La Palma and four trees on EudkJ. Commissioner Mayer asked the applicant ff there are public restrooms at this establishment; and Mr. Wasef answered there are two, one for ladles and one for men, and that they are open all day. Mr. Wasef then mentioned he brought a letter for the Planning Commission to review showing voluntary restrictions he is suggesting ff the beer and wine license is approved. A copy was given to each Planning Commissioner. He stated he is proposing to reduce the hours and not to sell in large containers. Commissioner Caldwell asked the applicant ff he was going to change the signs in any way; and Mr. Wasef answered there will be no changes. '~ _ Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, clarified the Ncoholic Beverage Control Board's (ABC) link wfth the City in terms of these types of applications. She explained the law changed effective January 1995 giving the City a veto power wfth regard to certain types of applications for sales of alcoholic beverages. The ABC has always made a determination of public convenience and necessity when there is a high crime area or over- Iiquoelicenises and crimle o they have buidlt In a imechanism foC att mptingito co trol the numrbeireo liquor licenses in the State. She explained the criteria is the amount of crime in the district that is established by the City, or there is a greater proportion of licenses issued in a particular census tract, etc. The Police Department provkies the crime rate data. The new law requires the City to make a determination of public convenience and necessity and that is whether in spite of the fact that there is a prolfferation and a high crime rate, whether there are factors applicable in this instance which indicate that a liquor license should be approved anyway. This does not mean that the ABC will have to grant the license, although ft would be very persuasive to the ABC ff that was the City'c determination. The ABC would still listen to neighborhood protests or Information is given, or the statistical data from the PD, and even ff there is a finding of public convenience and necessity, ABC may still deny the license. At this time, the Planning Commission Is dacki~ng the zoning action without making the firscing of public convenience and necessity. Until such time as the City Council designates who is going to be making that determination, and to her knowledge that determination has not been made yet, it is the City Council that will be responsible for makir;g that determination. 05-31-95 Page 7 MAY 31, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA ~~1 She added tt may be that at some lima in the future, the City Council may designate the Planning Commission to be the body who makes that determination of public cornenience and necessity to ensure a consistent decision. However, at thips time, the Planning Commission's ~h `s~~ to this particulart usah That City would havo a determination of ublic cornenience and necessity is going to be an Independent decision. Ms. Mann continued before the Planning Commission today is the land use decision regarding whother this is an appropriate use as it is being requested. The Planning Commission can conskJer the crime rate data, the over-concentration data, and the testimony and the offer of conditions by the applicant in making whatever land use decision they make in this matter. Commissioner Caldwell asked 'rf the Planning Commission can still make a decision. He asked ff the Commission moves to either appro~~e, disapprove or condition the sales of alcohd at the site, is that recommendation passed on to the City Council? Ms. Mann responded the Planning Commission decision is actually ~~ or someonexe se. She added tnhat s it is appeal~r! by the City Council or to the City Council by the apps doesn't mean that they will receNe an ABC license. date miinationrthatthere waa p oliferatonaof i censes in the area and a high c ime ratSaon made the Ms. Mann responded she did not think there is ever a "yes/no" answer and that is a judgement call and one - that really needs to be made by the Planning Commission ff there is specific data with regard to the type of crimes that have been taking place in this location. It may be that Police or Code Enforcement can supply additional data and answer specific questions regarding the impacts they see from a prolfferation of liquor uses. She added from their experience, they may have information they can provide that is not in the form of a formal study. Commissioner Henninger stated he will make a motion to ask Council to consider delegating the determination of public convenience and necessity to the Planning Commission because it would be nice to consider that in conjunction with the conditional use permits. He added he sees those as two very different decisions. He would use dffferent criteria to determine ff the public is being conveniently served, which he feels they are at this location, and then no more liquor licenses are needed in this location. However, when consklering the conditional use permits, he has a different point of view and thinks basically it is a land right and unless there is a good reason to say no, they ought to find a way to say yes. Commissioner Mayer stated she was concerned about the fact that we are losing gas stations fairly regularly and not only are they closing the stations, but are removing the tanks from the ground. She asked at what point we decide where there are enough. She added that is a whole public convenience and necessity because it serves more than Just selling liquor. She was concemed how to keep these types of businesses because we definitely need gas stations. Commissioner Caldwell stated it has not been shown that a gas station will not survive without the sale of alcoholic beverages. 0531-95 Page 8 l ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 Mr. Wasef asked why the Police Department shows his business is In a high crime area with the ABC accepting his application and shows ft is not a high crime area. The Poise are saying ft is 50% above the crime rate, and he thought ff it is 50% above, the ABC would not even consider his application. He also questioned why a few weeks ago the Commission approved the Chevron Station nn State Cdlege and Ball where the crime rate is four times higher than this area. Officer Gandy explained every year the Poise Department provides the ABC with the crime statistics and that the ABC will take an application for any Location, regardless of whether they know it would be accepted or would not be accepted. ABC is a licensing body and they have to accept the application, but the application is then either approved or denied. Officer Gandy explained that the applicant has tiled an application for an ABC license and the Pdfce Department has filed a protest based on Section 28954.4 of the Business & Professional Code for high crime and/or over-concentration of licenses. The Poise Department has receNed a letter back ftom ABC accepting the protest and ff Mr. Wasef wants a public hearing, he can do so at the ABC reganding the Issuance of the license over the Pdlce Department's protest. Officer Gandy stated regarding the Chevron Station at 1195 S. State College, the Planning Commission approved the conditional use permit. The Police Department filed a protest against the license, so no liquor license has been Issued and the applicant is pending a hearing before the ABC hearing officer. Officer Gandy explained ff the City makes the determination of public convenience and necessity, the ABC issues a liquor license over the protest of the Police Department. He also explained ff it is c!etermined not ~_, to be a public convenience and necessity, the applicant still has the right to have a hearing before an ABC administrative law Judge. Commissioner Peraza asked ff the administrative law judge takes into consklsration the fact that Anaheim has more liquor licenses than any other city in Orange County. Officer Gandy responded that he always points that out. He stated they do not take that information as a primary consideration. They look at the specffic location and whether that particular location meets the public convenience and necessity criteria. He stated their rule ~f thumb is a like use w".hin 1000 feet, and ff there is one, the public convenience and necessity criteria is not met. 216 reporting districts in theC ity of Anaheim and that 61dof thosei216 are highOcrimeGrat dareas~ there are Commissioner Peraza stated the area directly across the street is at 125%. Officer Gandy clarffied that urffortunately this site falls right at the adjoining point of four reporting districts. He added this ske would have an impact on the other three districts, as well. Chairwoman Boydstun asked ff the applicant would be able to operata the business without the sale of beer and wine. Mr. Wasef responded without the sale of beer and wine, he would be completely out of business. He added ft is not the profft he is making from the beer and wine but the one customer who can buy cigarettes, candy, gasdine, etc. in addition to the beer and wine because the customer will not make two or three dffferent stops. 05-31-95 Page 9 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 ~~ Chaim~an Boydstun stated adding a car wash and food at this she should increase the business, but that she would not vote for approval to beer and wine sales. Commissioner Bostwick stated at that comer of Euclid and La Palms, there Is an Arco station on the SW corner and this station on the northeast comer and clarified that the Arco station isn't a canvenience store so a customer would have to buy his alcohol at the liquor store if both of these stations do not sell beer and wine. Mr. Wasef stated they can get >t at the comer of Euclid and Orangethorpe at the P/obil station. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved WaNer of Code Requirement as follows: Approved, in part, Waiver A (required the installation of 6 trees, 2 on La Palms,, Avenue and 4 on Euclid Street) Denied Waiver B on the basis that it w~.s deleted. Approved, in part, WaNer B (required the installation of 15 trees) Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3751 wfth the following added conditions: That there shall be no parking permitted in front of the propane tank. The curb shall be striped and clearly marked as a no parking area. That there shall be no alcohol sales. '~_ That the public restrooms shall be maintained. That this southerly driveway adjacent to Euclid Street shall be closed and replaced with standard curb, sidewalk and gutter, as well as a minimum 5-foot wkie planter with landscaping. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann presented the 22-day appeal rights. 05-31-9:i Page 10 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 3a, rFn4 NEGATNE DECLARATION Approved 3b. WANER OF CODE. REQUIREMENT Approved 3c. rONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. N0.3758 (READVERTISED) Granted OWNER: MO0 YEOL RAH and HWA JA RAH, 2207 W. Woodiey Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 2211 and 2207 West WoodleYAvenue and 323 North Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 0.60 acres located at the northwest comer of Woodiey Avenue and Brookhurst Street. To permft an expansion of an existing child day care facUfty wfth up to 70 children (in conJunction with asingle-family home) with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and required landscaping of front yard area. Continued from the May 1, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC95-56 ~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Hwa Ja Rah, owner, stated she is requesting use of the empty commercial building to expand a day care center. She explained she has three parking spaces which is approximately .6 acres and that she is requesting a maximum of 70 children. She explained they provkfe transportation for children from their house and back to their house after school, and since the opening wfth 30 children, they haven't had any traffic or parking problems. The parking lot is almost always empty since parents utilize ft about 15 minutes a day. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairwoman Boydstun questioned where the trash is located? Mrs. Rah answered that they use the regular single-family trash bins but ff they increase the number of childre~,they might need the larger trash bins. Chairwoman Boydstun stated she thought the City did not allow use of resklential bins for a schod and she thought they would have to use a commercial trash bin. 05.31-95 Page 11 MAY 31, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA l.~ Allred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, stated he thought that question should b~.~ directed to Sanitation, but that he believed they should have a commercial trash bin. He responded to Commissioner Messe that he has a copy of the latest plan and that he had reviewed with Mrs. Rah at the last meeting a way to park parallel and Provide more landscaping. He added apparently she didn't like that design and made changes and that is what~the Planning Commission has before them. Commissioner Messe indicated he would like to see that center building, the reskential house, retain its residential look and have a lot of landscaping and grass around it, as ft is now. He suggested the two parking spaces in front of the middle building be eliminated and then add one of those parking spaces back tparking space. He istated that wouldrallow the Lands ping in fwrontof hehouse to remainosing just one Mr. Yalda responded he though that could work and agreed to review ft with the applicant. Greg Hastings indicated spaces 5 and 6 will be eliminated and spaces 3 and 4 will be moved westerly and there will be a new space number 3, indicating he would make the changes on the plan, and that it results in orne less parking space than shown on the plan for a total of 10 spaces. He added all of the landscaping in Rant of 2207 Woolley would be retained. Mr. Hastings stated there is a freestanding sign in front of 2211 W. Woolley which is right in front of a wall sign and staff would recommend that the freestanding sign be removed and that the wall sign be retained at the Plan ing Commissionfmay wish to ask for the eltimanat on of one o ~theuotheght next to a wall sign, and ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement (Waiver A was approved for 10 parking spaces) Granted Conditional Use Permft No. 3758 with the following added conditions: That only one sign shall be displayed on Woolley Avenue. 20 sh uage feetli shall be r a wall or freestanding sign, shall be a maximum of twenty ( ) q located on RS-A-43,000 Zoned property and shall be reviewed and approvers by the Zoning DNision. That the existing wall sign at 323 North Brookhurst shall be removed since tt is redundant of the pole sign located next to the wall sign. That a revised site plan shall be ~~omitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval showing the elimination of the two easterly parking spaces proposed for 2207 Woolley, the addkion of a parkingln pa~ ~ j ~ and tohe~moving of the 2 westerly spaces shown at the westerly property file All of this is to preserve as spaces at 2211 Woolley to the west as far as pons much landscape area as possible for 2207 Woolley. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 2?.•day appeal rights. 05-31-95 Page 12 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 qa. ~EQ_~ NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Previously Approved) 4b. ,f~QNDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3670 (Readvertised) OWNER: "TRANSAMERICA FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION,10100 Pioneer Bivd., Ste. 106, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90650 AGENT: TAYLOR CAITLIN PROPERTIES, P.O. Box 3568, Huntington Beach, CA 92605-3568 LOCATION: ,,~14 N Beach Boulevard (formerly The Electric Circusl. Property is approximately 0.67 acres located on the east skis of Beach Boulevard and approximately 1,050 feet north of the cerrterline of Lincoln Avenue. Petftioner requests modification or deletion of conditions of approval pertaining to the limitation of time, unfformed security, bar or lounge area, and code enforcement inspections to permit the on-premise sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with an existing restaurant/billiard center with musical give entertainment). Continued from the May 1, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC95-57 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Approved Approved amendment to conditions of approval (To expire 5-1-96) Steve Gibbs, agent, stated after reviewing the report, he felt the Planning staff recommendaotio~=oe eHend the request, while the applicant is trying to find a tenant for the vacant building, would be app p explained right now they are working with a tenant but would Tike to leave the options open to find a suitable applicant for the property since it is vacant and owned by an institution. Chairman Boydstun stated ff there are any changes, they vaill need to come in and get a new conditional use permft. Mr. Gibbs responded he understood, but would just like to have the option to have the time to apply ft to someone who is actually going to use the site, than to it actually being vacant and having the permit expire. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Henninger stated wfth regard to the condition regarding the security, It should read: "as required by the Anaheim Police Department and the one regarding Code Enforcement should read instead af, 'after the first Fi0 days', perhaps it should read: 'or thereafter as required by the Code Enforcement staff ' 0531-95 Page 13 ANAHEIM CITY PLANhIING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 ~~ Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, indicated to make it dear to the applicant and Mr. Gibbs, that in terms cf potential tenants, the C'dy does have in place ordinances regulating sex-oriented businesses and regulating anyt~ g thatasuggests this type of tenant, iocatinon~y wish to obtain copies of the two ordfnanc~s t tmakes sure that they do understand the limitations. ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved the amendment to the conditions of approval. Modified Condition Nos. 1, 5 and 18 of Resolution No. PC94-45 to read as fellows: "1. That this conditional use permft shall expire one (1) year ftom the date of this resolution, on May 1, 1996." "5. That a minimum of two (2) uniformed and licensed security officers, performing security duties exclusively, shall be present to monftor activities both Inside the restaurant and in the parking lot during all live performances, as required by the Anaheim Police Department " '18 That the applicant shall pay the cost of Code Enforcement Division inspections for a maximum of once a week during the first sixty (60) days of operation and thereafter as required by Code Enforcement staff." VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann presented the 22~1ay appeal rights. 05-01-95 Page 14 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 (U Approved 5a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0.317 Recommended 5b. ^ENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0.334 ado lion to City 5c. PECIFIC PLAN NO 94-1 (including Zoning and Devetooment Standards) Council INITIATED BY: RedevelopmNen Agency, Attlen on~ MMchaal Welch~20~1 Shouth Anaheim Boulevard, #1003, Anaheim, CA 92805 I (A) Consideration ,~ Emriranmental Impact Report No. 317 as prepared by the Lead Agency (Redevelopment Agency) and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration. (B) Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 334 to amend the land Use, Parks Recreation and Community Services and Environmental Resources and Management (Conservation/Open Space) Elements of the General Plan to establish consistency between the General Plan and the Development Areas identified within the proposed Specific Plan, to amend the General Plan designation for the acreage within the boundaries of SP88-3 (not a part of the subject Specific Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element 1) To add text to the General Plan Land Use Element recognizing that the Anaheim ' Northeast Area Specific Plan is an implementing zone for the Northeast Industrial Area; and that the Specific Plan establishes building intensfty for each of the developmen areas (i.e., InciustriFil, Industrial Recycling, Expanded Industrial, La Palma Core, Transft Core and Commercial Areas). To amend the General Plan Land Use Element Map for eighteen (18) areas wfthfn the Northeast Industrial Area as follows: Figure 1 - An approximate 113.5-acre area from the General Industrial to Business Office/Service/Industrial designation. Subject area is generally located south of Miraloma Avenue, west of Tustin Avenue, north of the SR-91 Freeway and east of Miller Street. Figure 2 - An approximate 39.3-acre area from the General Open Space and General Industrial designations to the General Commercial designation. Subject area is generally located south of the SR-91 Freeway, west of the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way and north of the Santa Ana River Channel. Figure 3 - An approximate 11.9-acre area from the General Open Space to the Conservation/Water Use designation. Subject area Is generally located south of the SR-91 Freeway, west of the SR-91 /Tustin Avenue Interchange, north of the Santa Ana River Channel and east of the Atchison Topeka and Sarda Fe Railroad right-of-way 05-31-95 Page 15 ANAHEIM CIN PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACi ION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 Figure 4 - An approximate 2.8-acre area ftom the General Open Space to the General Comm~~^lal designation. Subject area is generally located south and east of the SR- 91 / fustir~ Avenue Interchange. Figure 5 - An approximate 11.3-acre area ftom the General Industrial to the General (;ommerciai designation. Subject area is generally located on the east skJe of Tustin Avenue between La Palma Avenue and the SR-91 Freeway. Figure 6 - An approximate 8.0-acre area ftom the Conservation/Water Use and General Industrial designations to the General Commercial and General Industrial designations. Subject area is generally located at the Tustin Avenue/Miraloma Avenue intersection, and north and west of said intersection. Figure 7 - An approximate 2.1-acre area ftom the Conservatlon/Water Use to the General Commercial designation. Subject area is generally located between Orangethorpe Avenue and the Atwood Channel, and west of the City limits. Figw•e 8 - An approximate 7.9-acre area from the General Industrial to the General Commercial designation. Subject area is generally located immediately north (on both sides of Miller Street) of the Miraloma Avenue/MUler Street intersection Figure 9 - An approximata 46.8-acre area ftom the General Industrial to the Conservation/Water Use designation. Subject area is generally located south of La Jolla Street, west of the Carbon Creek Channel, north of Miraloma Avenue and east of Kraemer Boulevard. Figure 10 • An approximate 10.7-acre area from the General Industrial to the General Commercial designation. Subject area is generally located at all four (4) legs of the Kraemer Boulevard/Miraloma Avenue intersection. Figure 11 - An approximate 10.7-acre area from the General Industrial to the General Commercial designation. Subject area is generally located at the nor!heast, southeast and southwest comers of the Red Gum Street/Miraloma Avenue intersection. Figun~ 12 - An approximate 5.0-acre area froth the General Industrial to the General Comrr,ercial designation. Subject area is generally located at the northeast and southeast corners of the Blue Gum Street/Miraloma Avenue intersection. Figure 1,1- An approximate 52.9-acre area from the General Industrial to the General Commer ;ial designation. Subject area is generally located south of La Palma Avenue, west of ; hepard Street, north of the SR-91 Freeway and east of White Star Avenue. Figure 1 l - An approximate 9.1-acre area from the General Industrial to the General Comma cial designation. Subject area is generally located at all four (4) legs of the Blue Gem Street/La Palma Avenue intersection. (This GPA has been deleted.) 0531-95 Page 16 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 ~~ Figure 15 - An approximate 13.7-acre area fi~om the General Industrial to the General Commercial designation. Subject area is generally located at all four (4) legs of the La Palma Avenue/RichNeld Road intersection. Figure 16 - An approximate 23.8-acre area ftom'the General Industrial to the General Commercial designation. Subject area is generally located at all four (4) legs of the La Palma Avenue/Lake~~lew Avenue intersection. Figure '17 - an approximate 58.1-acre area from the General Industrial to the Conservation/V1later Use designation. Subject area is generally located south of La Palma Avenue, west of Fee Ana Street, north of the Santa Ana River Channel and approximately 570 feet east of the centerline of La Palma Avenue and Van Buren Street. Figure 18 - An approximate 15.7-acre area from the General Industrial to the General Commercial designation. Subject area is generally located on the south skis of La Palma Avenue, approximately 468 feet west of the centerline of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway, and north of the Santa Ana River Channel. B. Parks, Recreation & Comr~iunfty Services Element 1) To delete a proposed Community Park site designation from the Park Facilfties Plan (Figure 5.1) of the Parks, Recreation & Community Services Element. Saki site is located south of the SR-91 Freeway, west of the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way aril north of the Santa Ana River. C. Environmental Resource and Management Element 1) Open Sna~a • To delete an approximate 38.7-acre open space area depicted on the Environmental Resources and Management Open Space/Conservation Element Exhibit, generally located scuth of the SR-91 Freeway, southeast and southwest of the SR- 91 /Tustin Avenue interchangd, and north of the Santa Ana RNer. (The proposed proposed changes to thenLand UUse Element asekf ei8ed in Figures 2-4 above the 2) C1onservation - To make modifications to Water Use areas as depicted on the Environmental Resources and Management Open Space/Conservation Element Exhibit as follows: a) An approximate 11.9-acre addition to the Water Use area adjacent to the Santa Ana River and generally located south of the SR-91 Freeway, west of the SR- 91 /Twst~n Avenue interchange, north of the Santa Ana River Channel and east of the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. b) Recognizing the approximate 184-acre Wamer Basin as a Water Use area in addition to it's Sand and Gravel designation. Subject basin is generally located east of Tustin Avenue, south of La Palma Avenue, west of Fee Ana Street and north of the Santa Ana River Channel. 05-31-95 Page 17 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION,AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 V (C) Consideration and adoption of a Specffic Plan identifying sbc (6) Development Areas for the Northeast area which currently encompasses 2,645 acres including the Canyon Industrial Area as wd.! as properties within and surrounding the boundaries of tho Redevelopment Project Area Alpha. The Specific Plan anticipates a total buildout ar 0~~ ~ 3.3 mill on square feet of thisr 2010, of which 21.8 million square feet is existing. App Y existing 21.8 million square feet is anticipated to be reconstructed. Approximately 7.5 million square feet is anticipated as new developmer. (D) Adoption of zoning and development standards to set forth standards, procedures and guidelines for the development of industrial uses, corporate headquarters, research and development, support services, offices and rommercial retail areas to serve the demand for a wide variety of goods and services within the Specific Plan area as provided for in Chapter 18.93 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. The proposed Specific Plan zoning designation, SP94-1, would replace the current zoning designations of ML (Limited Industrial), RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural), and CL (Commercial Umited). The proposed 2,645 acre Northeast Area Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment project area is generally bounded by the Orange (SR-5'~ and the Riverside (SR-91) freeways, Orangethorpe Avenue and Imperial Highway, and includes the Canyon Industrial Area and properties wthin and surrounding the boundaries of Redevelopment Project Area Alpha. The 26-acres located at the southwest comer of Tustin Avenue and La Palma Avenue which is located within the boundaries of Specific Plan No. 883 (Santa Fe Pacific Plaza Specffic Plan, also known as PacffiCenter) are not included within the boundaries of the proposed Specific Plan bu< are included within the boundaries of the proposed General Plan amendment area. Continued from the May 1, and May 15, 1995 Planning Commission meetings. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC95-58 SPECIFIC PLAN RESOLUTION N0. PC95-59 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None IN FAVOR: 4 people spoke in favor Commissioner Messe declared a conflict of Interest. Mike Welch, Community Development Department, explained this is the Northeast Area Specific Plan which was continued from the Planning Commission meetings of May 1st and May 15th. Specifically, two items were directed to Community Development and Planning staff. The two areas were adjacent to the 91 Freeway between Kraemer Boulevard on the west to Tustin Avenue on the east. 05.31-95 Page 18 MAY 31, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA The recommendation was for staff to look at the land use designation on the south side of the fteeway, generally adjacent tohanneeto~a comme cial~and~useodesignatt on a-xl thatlwas referredi9o asoDevelopment~ proposal showed a 9 Area 5. industrial and to look at a vacant He explained they studied that area to retain ft as a Development Area 1, 4-acre parcm industrial to~comme.-cial t Snclude h n Development Area 5 ther thanaDevelopn eint Area 3 n that site fto Those two areas were studied and the traffiTust n/Ls Palma, andtLakevfew/La Palma, wou d be impacted intersections, including Kraemer/La Palma, anti one intersection, Tustin/La Palma, would be at an unacceptable level of service. The Redevelopment Agency staff di iflo Flee S i~onhtha wou d allow aesserrtially developmentithat would be consider as an addition to the Spec no granter than the floor area ratio (FAR) to the area south of the 91 freeway and if the FAri was greater than .10, prior to Issuance of any grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, for any development south of the 92 fteeway, the applicant shall prepare a traffic analysis and any other environmental documents which include necessary features to mitigate those traffic impacts identified by the traffic analysis to a level of insignificance. He added that woatiagower FAR and the traffic analysis would show that therems an adequate evelof~~h of the 91 freeway service at those Intersections. Philip Anthony, representing the George Adams and Davkl B. Williams, who own property and own and operate businesses In the area south of the fteeway on Frontera Street, stated they are very pleased with the staff report today and he thought it very accurately reflects the direction the Planning Commission gave at their last meeting. He stated the thought of retaining the general industrial as the base zoning for this area is reflected in Paragraphent Area 1 Sandraccurat y reflects t citrus situat on and they can support thatanguage to Developm He stated the thought of the fteeway-oriented commercial overlay in Paragraph 3b rt that Ian ua~e Heng added to Development Area 1, as described, is very appropriate and they do suppo g g roes do stated the fteeway location is certainly inviting anti there is a tremendous ~Ma9~~a a very anxious to work have serious restrictions because of the landfill and access. The property tentials can be realized. more closely with the Redevelopment staff in the future to see if those fteeway po He thought it would take a very serious joint effort to bring that to reality. Mr. Anthony stated the possibility of adding the recycling overlay to this area had been discHssedd~ he e, exactly as it is to Area 1A across the freeway, slightly to the west (the Taormina property). thought that situation is virtually identical in the sense that the existing uses are basically all recycling. 05-31-95 Page 19 MAY 3i, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA Mr. Anthony r antic Rttercling business and concur with the decision to have t e property orned industrrial support the Ad ecY with a recycling overlay. The Adams business provides an Important service to the cftizens of Anaheim n that he assists th$Irbft~ i~ u~ al few short~blocks away is argreat corneniencelfor the! buiness and his having Mr. Adam 1 customers and asked beat everything be done to retain Mr. Adams' business in Anaheim. Mr. Anthony thann ed' CoarrPimission' d ect on and~th staffs v ork on thee anguage are veryiappropriate and thought the Plan g they support R entirety. George Adams, Adams Recycling Group, asked about the traffic and stated he did not understand how traffic at Lakeview could possibly affect them. He stated it was mentioned by staff that they thought they were at .1 and t ~t n soulnds like what was lust proposed~is that the traffic designation w uld make ft dffflcult mean, but thong for any type of growth in the recycling business, and he did not see how their business could impact tra c on Lakeview. stated he is not a traffic engineer but has been Allen Rubin, Consultant to tho Redevelopment Agency, briefed by the traffic engsnfor t e Specffic P anh Henstated they have explained to hgm thamthe differenceg all the traffic impact analy between theFAR floor area riat o) lis .25,iand it al ows 25% of these to be develolpedn The industrial FAR is commercial ( k hour traffic is different with the .5 which means 50% of the site can ~n in an industrial situationhvers~us commercial, Commercial `~ addftional development that can happ ~,,, traiflc. establishments generate peak evening (p.m.) traffic and industrial e„.~blishmerrts generate peak (a.m.) This change has an Impact throughout the area, basically like water flowing downhill, and it reverberates throughout the entire northeast area which extends for 5 or 6 miles east and west and for about 2 miles north and south. Intersections are impacted because trips would be coming from throughout the area, as well as ftom the fre awa~k vhewnTustin and sPalmatand Kraeme and La PaImaV/aY That is why impacts are felt as far away Chairwoman Boyd asked for t~h existing trafficr count this was a new industrial site bringing new industries Into the area. She Mr. Rubin responded the existing counts only take into account the hotel which is existing. The other uses are mostly outdoor uses. Chairwoman Boydstun me ed if tohe*hei south s e of the frpreeway would affect those Intersections. t~ ~e did not understand how so 9 Mr. Yalda stated he believed the intersection at Tustin/La Palma is operating at either LOS D or E at this time. Lakeviewhe ~v~ of Service D o ES He added whenever andintenrsection falls ibel waD' it has toshave operating at eft mftigation. He explained there are several ways to mitigate -the road could be widened, optimize tha tsa c signal timing, etc. 05-31-95 Page 20 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 V Mr. Yalda stated the City has a citywide model with our existing traffic counts and that model indicates what will happen in that area. Chairwoman Boydstun.stated those businesses~are existing and.there is no change.. . Mr. Yalda stated based on what was done in the traffic study, h was determined that the existing use was acceptable because it would keep the level of service at those intersections acceptable. By making changes, the use of the property is intensfffed and would directly impact those Intersections. He added somehow acceptable levels of service have to be maintained. Commissioner Henninger stated when this was discussed earlier, he thought the discussion was at a FAR of I.0 as the limit and not 0.1 and asked ff that is a typographical error. Mr. Rubin stated there probably was a misunderstanding because they were talking about 10% coverage. It was clarified that the industrial is .5 and that was used as a benchmark and that they discussed the particular types of uses in this area and they are much less Intense. He stated typica! industrial would be .5 which means 50% building coverage or less which provides fcr parking and some landscaped setbacks. However, the types of uses which are there now have very 1'dtle building to storage yard and parking area. Commissioner Henninger stated he understood the issue was not to keep the industrial uses where they are today, but to keep under a threshold that caused these problems and he dki not think the Issue is the floor area ratio of these particular businesses. He suggested changing the language to talk about uses that have traffic Impacts similar to a typical industrial use with the floor area ratio (FAR) of maybe .25. ~J Mr. Rubin stated they know that the .25 does not work over the entire area. Commissioner Henninger stated we know that commercial works over the entiro area and he understood that is because of the traffic patterns. He added this could be taken back for recisions before it goes to the City Council and the Commission could request that the right numbers be inserted. He did not think .10 is the right number. He continued that what they are really trying to look for is not the floor area ratio but it is the traffic Impacts associated wRn g typical industrial use. Mr. Rubin suggested another way to look at it is to set a threshod of trips coming out of the area and Commissioner Henninger agreed and added that might be a better way to look at ft. Mr. Rubin thought Redevelopment, Traffic and Planning staff could propose a sdution to the City Council which would meet the concerns of the Planning Commission. He clarified the Intent is to establish a threshold for new trips generated by now industrial development from the area south of the freeway. Commissioner Bostwick stated obviously there are uses existing in that area but there is some open space which we are now being tdd the county wants to sell. He asked what this ratio will do to that property ff they have someone who wants to buy it and develop it. 051-95 Page 21 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31,1995 l.~ Mr. Rubin responded it may Ilmit the intensity of development and the type of development, depending upon the trip generation pattern of the use they propose. He clarified at this point they are proposing to sell the sire to some unknown parry and when a use is proposed, we will have to evaluate the traffic patterns that will generate and see if those trips can be mltigated. He explained through the trafflc.model we know all the thresholds. Commissioner Bostwick asked the effect N this is designated industrial and they propose a commercial use. Mr. Rubin explained a commercial use would require a CUP and as part of the process, the traffic would be evaluated and depending on the number of trips and the traffic capacity at the intersection, there may or may not be mltigation required. Mr. Yalda explained a commercial use such as a large furniture store would generate less impact than another commercial use such as an appliance store, He stated a car dealership has a different traffic pattern than a regular commercial use. Mr. Rubin stated since those commercial uses are subject to the conditional use permit process, they would be evaluated on a case by case basis against the city's transportation model. Commissioner Henninger stated when the new language is drafted, he would like to have the threshdd expressed on an average acre basis. i George Adams stated they feel the recycling overlay would help provkfe them with long term financing. Jim Cavaneau, Controller, DBW & Associates, sp~3aking on behalf of the company, invited the Commissioners to come out and tour their facilfrj. He explained they recycle aluminum containers and by state law, they have to also take in glass and plastics. They sell those to Anaheim Disposal and they work very well together and have a good relationship and they are in favor of this proposal. Gary Gramman stated they are Interested in the 91 Corridor and regarding the specific plan and looking at the long term ramifications, there is discussion of potential commercial retail users with buildings in excess of 50,000 sq. ft. to be located In this area. He added obviously that would help generate sales tax revenues and a user of that type is rather significant. He stated there is concern about signage along the 91 Corridor and as specified in the ordinance, an $-ft. high monument sign is discussed and some areas of the 91 Corridor are elevated and with an 8-foot high sign, only about 2 feet would be visible from one side of the freeway. He wanted the Commission to take that Into consideration and added he did not think an eight-foot high monument sign would be high enough for a car dealar. Mike Welch stated staff dkl recognize the freeway signage is something that needs to be restudied and would propose that portion of the specific plan be deleted. He stated they have hired a consultant who is doing a study of that corridor to bring back a presentation and illustrations to the Commission in the future regarding a freeway oriented signage criteria. 05-31-95 Page 22 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGEtJDA MAY 31. 1995 U, Concerning the recyding overlay zone, Mr. Welch stated the entire 2600-acre Northeast area is designated by the State as Orange County's first and only recyding market development zone. That indudes all the properties within the boundaries of the specffic plan (both the City and Redevelopment Project area and those areas in the Canyon) and that offers certain benefits to all.businesses, inducting recyders, for low Interest loans and other benefits by the State. The Recyding Zone Overlay Development Area 1A is the far western portion of this Specific Plan and it was not their understanding when they restudied the south skis of the 91 freeway to inducts that within the designation of 1A. The overlay (1A Recyding) is at the far western portion of the project area adjacent to the 57 freeway and that is the area of this specific plan and the environmental impact report considered for expansion over several years from the environmental and traffic perspective and mitigated in this plan. Commissioner Henninger stated the fact that we do not spread that overlay zone of the specific plan ail across the Canyon Industrial area does not mean that the benefits that come from the State designation are in same way limted. Mr. Welch responded they are limited and explained we have existing businesses manufacturing new products throughout the northeast area who are presently purchasing their materials from existing businesses which collect and process that material and are manufacturing h into new products locally. Commissioner Henninger stated ff there are some low interest loans which the State has in this designated area, those would be available to those businesses along the south skis of the 91 freeway and Mr. Welch responded that is correct. Commissioner Bostwick stated there is a recyding zone which is the whdeese~~here on the south skis of then there is this recyding overlay which is just strictly over the property p y this area. Commissioner Henninger stated the language suggested (n 4d of the staff report talks about the recyding uses south of the 91 freeway. Greg Hastings pointed out that use is allowed by conditional use permit. Mr. Hastings stated staff had a concern regarding the setbacks along the freeway for Development Area 1, 1A, 3, 4 and 5, relatNe to freeway frontage roads. If there is a freeway frontage road, staff would recommend that there be a 30-foot fully landscaped setback for the building. Currently it reads that there be a 50 to 100-foot setback from the frontage road. Staff would recommend that requirement when it is adjacent to the freeway, but when there is a freeway frontage road between the freeway and the property, it could be reduced to 30 feet fully landscaped. 051- Page'.'1 ANAHt"1M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 ACTION: Approved and recommended that the City CouncU acting as a Responsible Agency consider EIR Nn. 317 as prepared by the Lead Agency (Redevelopment Agency) and approve and adopt the Statement of Findings of Fact (which includes the Rejection of Alternatives), adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations and pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Pub iPlan' Resource Code, adopt Specific Plan No. 94-1 'Northeast Area Spec as the reporting or monitoring plan for the Project, finding that the Northeast Area Specific Plan incorporates measures to mitigate or avoid signfficant impacts on the environment and will itself act as effective mitigation for potential environmental impacts Identffied in the final EIR. Recommended that the City Councll adopt General Plan Amendment No. 334. Recommended that the City Council adopt Specffic Plan No. 94-1 (including Zoning and Development Standards, Design Plan and Guidelines, a Public Facilities Plan for the Northeas- Area Specffic Plan, the recommended conditions and Errata dated May 5, 1995 and the Revisions to the Errata dated May 17, 1995) Made the following changes: A. Deleted the freeway oriented sign section of the Specific Plan. Revised fteeway oriented sign provisions shall be processed through a subsequent ~~- Specific Plan amendment public hearing following further study by Community Development and Zoning staff. 3. Adjacent to any freeway frontage road, a 30 foot fully landscaped setback for the building shall be required. Currently ft reads that there be a 50-100 foot setback ftom the frontage road. That should be the case when the property in any Development Area is adjacent to the freeway, but when there is a freeway frontage road between the freeway and the property the setback shall be reduced to a 30-foot fully landscaped. C. Added the following language to the condftional use permit list for Development Area 3: "Retail sales provided such uses are freeway-oriented or abutting a frontage road adjacent to the Riverside (91) Freeway, provided such retail sales pertain to f•~mfture, home building products, office supplies or products determined to be similar by the Planning Commission and further provkfed the retail sales portion of the business shall be a minimum of 15,000 square feet' 05-31.35 Page 24 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 D. Added the fdlowing language to the condftfonal use persnft Ilst for Development Area 1: 'Retail sales provkfed such uses are freeway-oriented ~~ ch~retail sales and wfthin 600 feet of, the RNerskle (91) Freeway, P ies, or products pertain to fumfture, home building products, office suppl determined to be similar by the Planning Commission and further provided the retail sales portion of *.he business shall be a minimum of 15,000 square feet.' A paragraph will be added regarding the circulation mftigation necessary for Development Area 1 south of the 91 Freeway. Wording will be provkled by Communfty Development staff at the Council hearing. The language added shall set a threshold based on the average traffic generation per acre format. The basis of the threshold will be the maximum amount of traffic that can be generated from this area wfthout causing the intersection problems associated wfth the Development Area 1 designation. The restrictions shall be Iimfted to peak hours. E. Added wording contained in Paragraph (4) (D) of the staff report, which would add to the conditional use permft list for Development Area 1, south of the freeway 'scrap metal salvage and shredding, automobile dismantling, used auto parts businesses, and large cdlection processing facilfties and yards' subject to operational and design restrictions. \ Prior to voting, Commissioner Bostwick asked ff the recycling overlay could be added to the industrial area south of the freeway. not smre that he fully understood all theuelements o9thate ecyc ing olverlay andtasked what thatwold adds Greg Hastings stated he thought the difference between 1A and tof userdin~g use I the impacts havo been there is no condtional use permit required for the recycling type klentified in the EIR. Commissioner Henninger stated the main difference is whether a condftional use permit would be required and added he knows the current users fear coming in and requesting a CUP, but somehow he really thought requiring a CUP is appropriate here. gotteniCUPs onmost oftheir~uses~andlasked ff tha9would ~etchanged so that he would not hav a ton and continue doing that in the future. alregadyabeen taken care of through the E R for that prloperry o ethat~area ina he 1 A des gnat onhat have Commissioner Bostwick stated he feels they are the same uses and those businesses fall within that recycling overlay. 051-95 Page 25 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARYJACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 ~1~ Commissioner Henninger asked if they should be allowed as a matter of right without any screening. He stated he thought we have ample evidence of the behavior of that type business and it might not be a good idea. The City has had some difficulties with the current uses. Selma Mann stated there has been an extensive history with Code Enforcement on this and she thought h has been the most time/material/money intensive correction problem in the history of the City of Anaheim. th rator is o ratin in conFomiarrce with Although following the extremely expensive court proceeding, a ope Pe 9 a stipulation that was entered into wfth the City. At the present Ume the authorization to operate on this property is contingent upon continued compliance with that stipulation and the right to operate will end, she thought, in 1998. At that Ume the applicant will have a right provided that it has been in complete compliance with the stipulation, to come in and apply for whatever use is permitted in that area just like anyone else. She thought the impacts have already been analyzed and accounted for in the ernironmental impact report but did not think such Impacts have been really accounted for or analyzed for expanding that particular area. Commissioner Henninger stated Mr. Adams had talked wfth him at length on this subject and he thought that he is worried that the City is trying to get his business out of the area. He thought with the changes to the Specific Plan to specifically Identify this as a conditional use in that area, that should set the record straight. He added he belioved those uses are going to stay there, but thought ft is incumbent upon the City tohat no require a conditional use permit so they have reasonable contrds over the use. He stated he hoped one on staff has the idea that they want to get rid of the use. Recycling is an Important thing for the future of this country and for the human race and we need to provide places for it. Commissioner Peraza stated he thought there has been a lot of improvement on the upkeep of that site and ~--~ he thought requiring a CUP would be appropriate. Commissioner Henninger stated he would leave the wording in the specific plan as proposed regarding recycling. Greg Hastings clarified that the Errata dated May 5, 1995, is included and Commissioner Henninger responded his mo:lons include all the changes and the Errata. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Messe declared a conflict of interest) Selma Mann pointed out this matter will be set for a hearing before the City Council. 051-95 Page 26 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 ~, ~EQ4 NEGATIVE: DECLARATION I Continued to 6b. VARIANCE N0.427 June 12, 1995 OWNER: DISNEY GOALS, INC., 888 S. West St., Ste. 102, Anaheim, CA 92803 AGENT: LIAM THORNTON C/0 DISNEY DEVELOPMENT CO., 500 S. Buena Vista St., Buri~ank, CA 91521400 LOCATION: 300 W Lincoln Avenue f4naheim Community Ice Rink). Property is approximately 3:17 acres located at the southwest comer of Lincoln Avenue and cyementine Street and further described as 300 West Lincoln Avenue. Waiver of minimum landscaping of required yard areas in conjunction with a previously approved Ice rink. VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. `~ _- OPPOSITION: None FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. PETITIONER'S COMMENT: Liam Thomton, Development Manager, Disney Development Company, 8.88 Community Sce Rink projec eHel poln~ted out the plandhas receivedrRedevelopme t Commission approvahl im and Redevelopment Agency approval. Michael Maltzan, Project Design Architect, Frank GQry Architects, presented an overview of the project and stated they have always intended that the landscaping would be part of the architecture and stated there are palm trees along Clementine, West Harbor and palm trees on Lincoln and along the service drive. There is a tall ornamental grass which wraps all around three skies. Mr. Thomton stated Disney is planning In s couple of years to put in a kiosk for some sort of coffee and beenkint nded tctbe seen ftomt360 degrees which ishivhat gave the building its sculptural fourm land that he landscaping is very important. Mr. Thornton indicated the landscape approval they are seeking is for the on-site landscaping. The ght-of way and thate dudes twoi addnior ail t ees onhu cd Avenue.oThat will fill inn this gap thatwasc shown on the landscape plan. OPPOSITION: None 05.31-95 Page 27 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Henninger asked the height of the grass; and Mr. Thornton responded it is about 1-1/2 feet high when it is planted and grows to about 3 to 4~ feet. Commissioner Henninger pointed out the roofing material comes down to wfthin 121nches of the ground level and this grass will cover the edge of the slab and hkJe the junction between the roofing material and the ground. Commissioner Henninger asked how they (ntnd to deal with the valve farm near the trash enclosure, noting the landscape plan does not address those. Mr. Maltzan answered that the trash enclosure itself is the minimum size they could make by code and they are trying to down play ft as much as possible. The enclosure is surrounded by the tali grass. Commissioner Messy asked ff a block wail is going to be built around the valve farm. Doug Robertson, Executive Architect for the protect, stated they expect the valve farm to be covered by the landscaping; that they cannot cover or enclose that in a CMU enclosure because that has to be accessible to the Fire Department for connection to the building. The grade today is about 6 to S' below the ftnal finished grade, but they expect the 3' tall grass to conceal the valve farm and that only the Fire Department connection will be visible from the driveway. Commissioner Mayer asked what sort of maintenance plan they are recommending for this type of in and it `~. _ She noted she has seen it maintained in various ways, none of which she thought was very appeal g has a lot of die-back. Sha asked ff ft will be shaped or be allowed to Just grow. Mr. Thornton explained the maintenance will be done by the Koll Anaheim Center Associates and it is a very drought tolerant grass as far as irrigation is concerned, and ft is not a signfficaM maintenance concern. Commissioner Mayer stated there have been some unusual types of planting done by public artists In the Koll project area, all of which have been pruned in some very unusual shapes and to no apparent standard, and she felt ff there is going to be this type of unusual plant look, maybe there should be a maintenance guide. Mr. Thornton stated the variety currently specfffed does develop a slightly dumped appearance. Also, it has a Iffe span of 5 to 7 years and at that time it would need to be replaced. There won't be any particular effort to sculpt or shape the grass or to urge it to take a shape other than its natural form. Commissioner Mayer asked ff the die-back would Just remain a part of the look; and Mr. Thomson answered that the specffications indicate that dead and dry stems/branches be removed to prevent a fire hazard. Commissioner Mayer indicated this type of dumps of grass tends to attract trash; and Mr. Thornton responded that Disney is well known for the energetic nature of their building maintenance. He thought regardless of the type of grass, there will be a certain amount of urban trash that accumulates and he expects their client will energetically maintain theft property. Commissioner Messy asked ff a few trees could be planted on the comers of Lincoln where the mainstream of traffic goes by the building to hide the trash enclosure and maybe making a dffferent kind of statement on the easterly skle of Lincoln. 051-95 Page 28 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 and driving down Uncoln, thee is sefairiy g food view into the load ng banyss Thatt areaoistnot really hkld n ftom Lincoln. Mr. Thomton answered ft 3s.the back of the building and they tried to hide it as much as they could. The masonry block wall which is seen right now will be covered with the a false facade made out of the same material as the rest of the building. In addition to that, the mechanical lowers for the equipment at the back of the building will be made out of the exact same material as the back of the building. He indicated they are also creating a false wall that runs westerly, so a person traveling eastbound on Lincon would not be able to see back there because of the angled wall. Commissioner Henninger asked how t ntfn~out there a e roll up doors ndrthe rest of thle load g is the exhibit the continuation of the wall, po 9 screened behind the wail. ICoading donors forthe 9rafflc that is eastbound ontLincoln. wale pointed out the viewtls not blocked today with the wall that is there. Mr. Robertson stated the concrete masonry walls that are on the sfte today is the final extent that will be built, but those walls will be dad with a metal material identical to that on the building. He explained when they designed that loading bay, it is important to note that they do not expect to have a truck larger than a two-axle van at any point. That wall was designed to extend 22', which is the length of the van. A person driving on Lincoln would see the front of the van behind the fountain grass, but would not see any loading "~- activity. It was their Intention to fully screen the loading activity and the full length of the van ftom Llncdn Avenue. Commissioner Henninger indicated that is what the Commission understood when they approved it, but the it Is dear thera is a good view into the point he is trying to make is that as the building sits on the sfte today, end of the loading dock coming eastbound on Uncdn. He felt that is unfortunate and R would be appropriate to do something about ft, and some of the Planning Commissioners think it can be accomplished through providing some addftional landscaping. Mr. Thomton stated he feels they can accommodate the Planning Commission's concerns by adding a tree or two on the property line. Chairman Boydstun suggested putting a canopy tree offset a IitUe between every palm tree across the back, similar to what is across the street. She added on the northeast comer, they could plant some type of duster of trees, even using the trees they are taking out on Clementine, and then a couple of trees by the trash enclosure. Mr. Thomton indicated they would prefer to plant palm trees. Chairwoman Boydstun responded she did not think palm trees would provide any screening. Commissioner Henninger stated his concem is the view ftom Lincoln into the end of the loading dock and is not an overall concem about the landscape proposal but a particular concem for that one area and would like to see sornething proposed to the Planning Commission. Also, another concem is the plats material proposed has a considerable amount of die-back and if not well maintained it can look Pike a field of weeds. 051-95 Page 29 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 4.,~ Mr. Thomton stated regarding the maintenance Issue, as an employee of the Walt Disney Company, he could assure the Commission that it would be very well maintained in the same manner as their parks. He added that area is fully Irrigated. Commissioner Henninger responded that is true as long as they are in contrd of it, but in the future that could change, and he felt something should be added regarding maintenance. Commissioner Masse asked ff they had offered to provide some trees to mask the loading dock on efther side of the drNe. Mr. Thomton answered yes and that they think ft can be done with palm trees. Commissioner Masse stated palm trees don't provkle a screen unless they are thinking of shorter palm trees, unless they have a utility pole appearance. Mr. Thomton stated they would like to use the trees to hide the view into the back of the loading dock, but not to use the trees tc hkie the building. He added it is their intent to emphasize the building. Mr. Maltzan stated in every building they design, they certainly put their reputation on the line, and having something look like it is the back end of the building and a trash chute is a major problem for them. That is going to be a big facade and people will see the building ftom that direction and they definftely share the Commission's concerns. He stated unfortunately, for all intents and purposes that Is, the loading end of the building. One of the skies of the building has to be a loading end and that was one of the design constraints and requirements. They worked very hard to try to make sure that even though that was the ;_ case, the aesthetic attributes far outweighed, ftom a design standpoint, the detrimenw. Commissioner Henninger stated this is a loose end and none of the Commissions y iscovered it ob in e plans until they saw the building and it doesn't work very well. He did not think the did a good j disguising this loading area and he would like to see them design something creative to fix it. Julie Mayer asked is the food service is still proposed for inskie the building, as well as retail uses; and Mr. Thornton answered "yes". facility, but tre auxtiliary uses which would be stall and foodeusesilyThey cannot cont d the loos k of t ethis trucks. Mr. Thomton stated that is correct b~! the; ran contrd it to some extent, through the timing of the deliveries and that the facility will operate almost 24 hours a day. Commissioner Peraza stated there would tie more traiftc on Lincoln than would use Harbor Place. Chairwoman Boydstun stated when the freeway is finished, Lincoln will be the entrance to the city and this would mean looking at the back of a building with no trees. Commissioner Caldwell stated he understands from their perspective, and respect the prerogative of the designer End he gets the impression that all the Commissioners are trying to hdd their comments and work with the scope and have a tremendous respect for their firm, but have been able to ideMffy today a specffic problem. He agreed they are the Inventive ones and should do something to block the view Into that loading dock area and it doesn't appear that has been done. 051-95 Page 30 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 plainTtrees tha~re herepnowtwouldhworkras well~asnpalm trees as far as obscuring the lui ding.i~on Commissioner Henninger stated the Commission is not talking about obscuring the while bufldin an~and wanted to be sure they understand that he does. not have a problem with. the overall landscape pi thought f: is a nice plan. He does have a problem with this one particular view which no one noticed on the plans originally, and he would Tike to see ft cured now. Commissioner Mayer stated the Impact of the buAding is really the monumental scale of ft and not ground level to 8 or 9 feet up or even 6 feet up which is what they would like to screen. She stated !f they had unloading activity that wasn't screened, it might draw the eye to that area. Commissioner Caldwell indicated the Planning Commission is walling to hear them say they will take a look that isenvisioned ffor his building, but will come back before the Commis on with solut(on~ign function Mr. Thornton responded they would like to take a look at it and asked for darificatlon on what they Commission does not want to see referring to the loading dock, whether ft is the entry into the loading dock that is a concern. Commissioner Henninger explained he thought as a person (s driving east on Lincoln ftom Harbor, there is an area where you can see the blunt end of the loading dock and doors behind the dock area, which the wind wall was really designed to screen, and ft screens it well if you are standing directly across Lincoln. He would like to see somehow that view softened or blocked, and added he was not sure ft is trees, maybe ` - trees are the wrong height and maybe ft should be a massing of bushes or something in the line of sight between Lincoln and that loading dock area. Mr. Robertson stated they take the comments to heart and added his concern is given the nature of this site and the complexity of trying to get the cars in and screen a view which is really down the street, which is really down the service drive, and how to accomplish that. He would certainly not mind putting a series of bushes in an area that is off their site, pointing it out on the exhibit Commissioner Henninger agreed that would be a good klea and thought he could work it out and dartfied that location is part of the Koll center. Chairwoman Baydstun asked that th.~ comer of Clementine and Lincdn be considered as well so ft doesn't look so stark. Commissioner Caldwell asked Mr. Maitzan and Mr. Thornton how long would it take to get back w(th cane Planning Commission; and Mr. Thornton answered two weeks. ACTION: Continued subject request to the June 12, 1995 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to find a way to screen the loading dock area. VOTE: 7-0 05-31-95 Page 31 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 C1 7a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) Approved 7b. .CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3672 (READVERTISED) Approved amendment to OWNER: - CANYON PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER.. Attn: James f:-Dobrott, conditions of General Partner, 3146 RedhUl Avenue, Ste. 150, Costa Mesa, CA approval 92626 (1'o expire 5-2-98) AGENT: ESSEX REALTY MANAGEMENT, Attn: Phpfp Anthony, 3146 Redhill Ave., Ste. 150, Costa Mesa, CA 92626; KEVIN PETRIMOULX C/0 FOXFIRE RESTAURANT, 5717 E. Bartle Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, Ca 92806 LOCATION: Property is approximately 8.06 acres located 2~. the northeast comer of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway. Petitioner requests modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to the limitation of time of a previouslyapproved public dance hall in conjunction with an existing restaurant with on-premise sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC95~60 --------------------------------------------------------- FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. George Adams ftrst thanked everyone for the time they gave him on an earlier matter. Regarding the Foxfire, he stated he assumes the proposed one year time limit condition came from the Police Department and he knows the City has a lot of cor ^ems/problems with the proliferation of the SOB (sex-oriented businesses). They have spent a tremendous amount of money trying to make the Foxfire the finest restaurant in the City of Anaheim and certainly their intent is to continue to do that. The cover charge is used to offset the entertainment and he was not sure if there fs something that could help the Pdice Department to be sere that they would never allow ft to become an SOB business, but that he will leave ft up to the Commission. OPPOSITION: None PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairwoman Boydstun stated it is her understanding that there have been no problems this past year. Officer Jim Gandy, Anaheim Ponce Department, stated the calls for service for this particular location shows that there has been rto significant change, and there have been 21 calls for service this year and last year there was about 38. He stated there is no reason to have concerns regarding the operation of the business at this time. Although h is their feeling and their pdicy in the past that when a business has intensified its use such as this, going to a public dance hall, that when the one year ends, they ask for another year. The ~ _ .' 05-31-95 Page 32 MAY 31,1995 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA ~} uoli the Polri eeDepartment if the buinessrtuhms bad. He stated theaPdice Department recommends one Po ear, unless the Commission deckles otherwise. Chaim~an Boydstun asked if two years would be acceptable since the calls are down. Officer Gandy indicated he suggests one year but if the Commission deckles two years, that would be acceptable to the Poll;:e Department. He explained their preference for the one-year time Ilmit is because in their experience, businesses that cause problems do so in the first three years and he felt ft would be best to have the applicant come back in one year. Chairman Boydstun stated she felt Foxfire is a upper-class restaurant; and Officer Gandy agreed. Commissic^.er stated he understands what Mr. Gandy is saying, that so far the track record is good but just wants to be cautious. He would recommend a 1~ to 2 year extension. Further discussion followed between the Commission indicating their opinions in regards to a 2 or 3 year extension. ACTION: D et requiredtenvi onmental diocumentat on forsubject equlestis adequate to serve as Approved amendment to conditions of approval. l_ Amended Condition No. 1 of Resolution No. 94R-127 to read as follows: "1. That subject petition is hereby granted for a period of three (3) years to expire on May 2, 1998." VOTE: 5-2 (Commissioners Messe and Peraza voted no) 05-31-95 Page 33 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 L_.~' 8a. ,~EQ" NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3767 Granted OWNER: AnaheimC A 92807PIMPER AL CA ON PARTNERSHIP, A, 5557 Santa Ana Canyon, #201-A, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: ~°~~-5665 East Santa Ana Canvon Road (lmuerial anvon ShcAUin rn r . Property is approximately 5.03 acres located at the northwest comer of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway. To permit a subdNision of space within an existing shopping center to allow fcr indivklual office suites. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC~-Si ~ ' FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None Joseph Kung, 5557 Santa Ana Canyon Road, Suite 201-A. He ind!cated he bought the shopping center sbc months ago and is present because he found out there is an existing condition which needs a conaitional use permit. The three suites were partitioned and operated by a real estate company several years ago. The previous owner tried to rent each unit separately and that is what this application is about. He stated he has read the proposed conditions on Page 5 and does agree to accept them. Chairman Boydstun asked ff anyone would like to speak on the Issue; there was no response. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Messe stated parking was a problem years ago at this shopping center and asked what has changed to allow this intensification of use. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, explained the applicant redesigned the parking lot and he believed they have a substantial number of parking spaces. Mr. Kung stated they restriped all the parking lot and added about 20 toblem'at this t meh They also hired a building and at the Chinese Restaurant. They do not have a parking p parking consultant to make a study which was submitted for the next item. changed and that he was there on Sunday afternoon and therenwasanot parking problem Wit has 05-31-95 Page 34 MAY 31, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA ~% Mr. Yalda indicated the peak hour in that area is on Friday around noontime. He added the study did not look at that area on Sunday, but because of our experience we know that Imperial and that area peaks on Fridays. He stated they looked at the area and are satisfied with the parking study and feel the parMng is sufficient He explained they have limited the number to 59, but considering there might be a vehide occupancy o; approximately 1.5, there would be no objection ff they raise the number from 59 to 8A people (referring to Item #9). Greg Hastings stated the Commission might conskler adding a condition Ilmiting the suites to office use only, since that is the way this has been brought before tho Planning Commission, rather than having retail uses. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3767 with the following added condition: That subject indivkJu21 suites shall be limited to office use only. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann presented the 22-day appeal rights. ''t 0531-95 Page 35 ANAHEt~d CITY PLANNING COhiMISSiON, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 9a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REtiUIREMENT 9c. CONDITIONAL ;;3E PERMIT N0.3766 OWNER: G & A PARTNERSHIP, 5557 Santa Ana Canyon Rd., #201-A, Anaheim, CA 92807; IMPERIAL CANYON PARTNERSHIP, 5557 Santa Ana Canyon, #201-A, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 555.5665 East Santa Ana Canvon Road timperial anyon Shoooina Centerl. Property is approximately 5.03 acres located at the northwest comer of Sarrta Ana ,',anyon Road and Imperial Highway. To permft a private community center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC95-62 Approved Approved Granted for 1 year (To expire 5~1-96) FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. IN FAVOR: 1 person spoke in favor/a petftion was submitted wfth signatures in favor of subject proposal OPPOSITION: None Joseph Kung, 5557 Santa Ana Canyon Road, Sufte 201-A, referred to condftlons #3 and #4 of the staff report, and stated Item #3 has a Iimftation of 59 people and he thought that was too restrictive, and his proposal is to change it to 90 people during week days, between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and up to 142 people during weekdays after 5:00 p.m. and during weekends Saturday, Sunday and hdkiays. He referred to the parking study which showed that the parking lot could support 60 cars for the center. The City staff used the factor of one person per car to arrive at 59 people maximum occupancy limit. He has discussed with City staff that perhaps 1.5 people would be acceptable which would support about 90 people. He stated most of their tenants dose their businesses on the weekends and on the week days after 6:00 p.m. He stated he has reviewed the proposed center with the Building a3partment regarding occupancy and the Building Inspector indicated 142 as the maximum occupancy, and he thought perhaps the IimR of 142 could be used for evenings and weekends. Mr. Kung indicated regarding the water easement that he actually found the problem and brought it to the attention of the Water Department within the last few months, but dkin't realize it would became a condition here. He stated he has no problem dedicating the easement, except for the cost. He pointed out he is donating this facility for the public's use as a goodwill gesture to the community and he has received tremendous support from the community. He stated he is also working with the City to buy the street behind the shopping center (the Old Santa Ana Canyon Road) and their proposal has been to the City since January. The water line easement mentioned here is tied to the main water line to the Oid Santa Ana Canyon Road, so during the abandonment and 05-31-95 Page 36 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1945 purchase of the street, alt these things wUl have to be worked out. Hls proposal is to work it out at the same time to save money for both the City and himself. He added he has no problem In getting K done, just to the timing. He believed the street should be done within one year because he has accomplished everything on his side and is waiting for the City to discuss the details. Chairman Boydstun asked ff the City takes care of the cost for that dedication when the property owner is making an irrevocable offer to dedicate to the City? Selma Mann answered an irrevocable offer is just exactly that, and that the owner makes the offer and that has nothing to do wfth getting any sort of payment. Chairman Boydstun asked ff the dedication would cost? Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, indicated there is a processing fee that has been approved by the City Council, and it wAl indeed cost him to process the easement. She stated the cost is a minimum of about $200.00 and to her knowledge, there Is not a provision for a waiver. She added perhaps there is something the applicant can arrange with the Utility Department to cover the cost. Commissioner Messe asked ff there is really a nexus between the dedication and this application or should it come along with the completion of the street. Melanie Adams indicated that the Commission will not see the abandonment application which goes straight to the Ci!y Council. She pointed out this is a request from the Public Utilities Department, not a request ~~ from Public Works. Commissioner Henninger indicated that according to the applicant this is a timing issue and suggested perhaps the Commission can change the timing of the condition to within a year of the establishment of this use. Mr. Kung stated as of now the easement is not a problem, as long as nobody wants to build anything over the water line. Commissioner Henninger asked ff his suggestion that the applicant had to comply with the condition within a year would be acceptable. Mr. Kung indicated condition #6 already mentions one year. Commissioner Henninger explained that condition requires compliance at the issuance of a building permit or the establishment of the use. Commissioner Messe added that condition (#6) also states'or within a period of one year from the date of the resolution or whichever occurs flrsY, so K would be with a building permit. Commissioner Bostwick stated he believes the applicant is asking for deletion of that ci+~dition. If something was built on top of the water line, he would then have to come bac ~ adaus tment made o the wa er line build that building. As a result, there wou'id have to be some type j He felt deleting that condition is a reasonable request. 05,31-95 Page 37 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 ~~ Delores Nelius, 375 N. Wayfleld, Orange, stated she is a staff member of the YMCA and is on two committees presently in support of Mr. Kung's proposal. One is the Anaheim Hpls Task Force Committee which is a YMCA Committee and the other is a group of citizens who are in support of the community center. She Indicated they are very pleased with Mr. Kung's generosity, and he has given a lot of cooperation and time. She added there is a need in the community for places for people to meet and she sees the community center as a gathering place where people can communicate. OPPOSITION: None CHAIRMAN BOYDSTUN CLOSED THE PUBUC HEARING. Commissioner Henninger indicated that he is a member of the Orange YMCA, and that his son utilizes some of the programs and asked ff there is a conflict of interest; Selma Mann ascertained that ha is not a member of the board and the YMCA is not a source of Income, and indicated it appears ft would not be a conflict unless he felt he could not fairly evaluate the proposal. (Commissioner Henninger responded he dkl not feel that way.) Mr. Kung clarified his relationship with the YMCA, and explained he Is the owner of the shopping center and is donating the place for use by the local community and the YMCA is helping to manage the place. Dolores Neilus stated Sheila Harold, Chairman of the Canyon Hills Community Council, could not stay for the meeting and asked that she submit the signatures of people who would like to have the community center to the Planning Commission. r Commissioner Bostwick asked about the day and night time uses, and how it fits with the traffic. '..._ Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, indicated he does have some concems about 142 people after 6:00 p.m. because the study indicates at 7:30 p.m. there would be 139 people, and adding 142 may exceed the parking demand. He stated he would feel comfortable wfth having 142 on the weekend, but nit on weekdays after 6:00 p.m. He suggested keeping it to 90 people during the week. Commissioner Henninger stated he is comfortable with 59, but shares some of Commissioner Messe's concems about the parking and felt maybe it should be tried for one year. He added from his personal experience, parking at this center has been tight. Commissioner Messe stated he (s comfortable with fi0. He though the number could probably be Increased in the even(ngs. Julie Mayer asked ff there will be some drop-off and pick-up activities for groups of children and that would impact the circulation. Commissioner Henninger stated the Chinese restaurant seems to have parking problems. He suited also he knows where bingo has been allowed in other places, ft has the potential for being a real parking generator. Alfred Ya!da stated he thought the applicant had applied for abandonment of Old Santa Ana Canyon Road and ff that abandonment is approved, the parking could be substantially increased. Commissioner Henninger stated ff this is approved for one year, with the limits as discussed, there would be an opportunity in one year to review it. 051-95 Page 38 MAY 31, 1995 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA ~) r Bostwick su Bested a 75 people maximum during the day and 125 after 6 p.m. and on Commissione 9 weekends. Commissioner Masse recommended 60 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. and 100 after 6 p.m. and on weekands. Commissioner Caldwell stated from what he has heard, the peak appears to be during normal business hours, 8 a.m. to 6 pm, and he would like to have a one year time limft to see how that works. He stated because of this gentleman's generosity to the community, he could support increasing the number to 125 after 6 p.m., with the one year time IimiG Commissioner Bostwick stated after one year, maybe the road dedication will be done and there will be a lot mare parking available. Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement Supervisor, stated Janet Baylor from the Flre Department asked him to give the Commission the information that she met with the applicant and she felt a maximum of 100 people or less would resolve some of the Fire Department's concerns which are mainly parking problems at the center. Alfred Yalda suggested ff the applicant gets his abandonment through in less than a year and ff he revises the parking, he would always have an option to come back and ask to Increase the number. The abandonment might be accompihou d go to tthte City Council soon. ap~lcant has already submitted the application (5 months ago). Commissioner Masse stated bingo concerns were taken care of by the parking as to the number of people. `-' of the bin o regulations will be sent to the Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, indicated a copy 9 applicant. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3766 with the following changes: Modified Condition No. 3 to read: 3. from 8:00 a mmto 6:00 p.mrandito 90 persons latter 6:00 p.m. w ekdaysWweeaends and holidays. Deleted Condition No. 4. Added the following condftion: That subject use permit shall expire in one year from the date of this resdution, on May 31, 1996. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann presented the 22 day appeal rights. 0531-95 Page 39 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 ANAHEIM erne NFGATNE DECLAROTION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) 10a. EADVERTISED) 10b. GOND~ AL USE PERMIT N0_~~ (R OWNER: HoldingsY11N755 WUshire B~ivdC Ste 2440, Los A~n9eles CA 90025 AGENT: DONALD SHERMAN, 126 S. Vineyard Ave., Ontario, CA 91761 Approved Approved, as readvertised wfth changes to conditions LOCATION: "4' S Harbor Blvd. Property is approximately 0.6 acre located on the east side of Harbor Boulevard approximately 400 feet south of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue. To permit the storage and rental of moving trucks in conjunction wfth a previously-approved automobile rEmtal agency. ras-e~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. P I - ---- ------------------ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIGN ACTION. CA. resented some PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Donald Sherman, 126 South Vineyard Ave., Ontario, p photos to the Planning C H br efl nexplained ea h photorindicating tey sshow ~hehsurrounding a ea~ oHe degradation to the area Y agreed there are certain things that can be done, but disagreed that there is a degradation of the aesthet cs of the neighborhood.R tier's fleet is ir8fyea s old so they are not talking aibout old trucksRand they are not use are new trucks. y diesels, they an anc tr and i~his opinion aee lessnnoisy than the d Ne-ineestaurants that are onhboth skies of no noisier tha OPPOSITION: None his facility. Mr. Sherman explained their hours are from 7 a.~n. to 9 p.m., but tradftionally, their business is from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Mr. Sherman explained the need for adding trucks, in addition to a car rental, '.s because R i rof ryHe stated do asingle-purpose business and pay the taxes and rent, much less trying to bring in any p he very much needsah ear anld obviously is a blighttoh a corm munityra~nd hated he willbfix fti up~He~n vacant for well over y questioned what the trucks do to the aesthetics and stated he feels they don't do anyth ng. Steve Lyle, 440 S. EI Seallo, Palm Springs, CA. stated he was given the task of locating an adequate site in Anaheim for th~OC% cap etntai to ~~ trucks Her was also told toekeep south of Katal a siHe met with City approximately staff and discussed the proper zoning. He was told by Planning staff that there was a special reso zone 05-31-95 Page 40 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 where they were not allowed and he clearly stayed out of that zone when he dkf his search, and that zone ended at Orangewood. There was not very much property available where the zoning would allow this use. He located this site that had obviously been on the market for a whUe, the weeds were growing up through the asphalt, lt was formerly a Dollar Rent-A-Car facUity and lt looked as ff lt wou:d work perfectly. Mr. Lyle stated he contacted the owner of the property and talked to the City staff and at that time, they dkl feel the use would work. There were a couple of c;oncems the City felt could be worked out and the two months applicant then proceeded to open discussions wlth the City and the property owney Today, ~ the later, he is before the Planning Commission and was surprised on Friday when the received a copy staffs recommendation that the truck portion of the project be denied. The truck rental is very important to his client and was told the project would not work without the trucks. The site is too expensive just to lease cars. Mr. Lyle indicated he had three main Issues regarding the staff report. The first issue that lead to a denial was that the property was located close to the resort zone and what was mentioned as the gateway to the resort zone. In his opinion, lt is a problem for him as a commercial broker when he is trying to fit into the rules of the City and then all of a sudden the line changes because of a gateway and he does have a nto deciding w ereHhat Rine should be atnd as shown on the map ltgwas clearly drawnn atiOrangew~ooodrt. went The other two Issues were (1) visibility of the trucks ftom the apartments and (2) noise from the trucks to the apartments. As far as visibility from the apartments, the trucks drawn on the slte plan virtually cannot be seen because the building is about 30 feet tail and next to the building (s Baker's Square and on the other side is Arby's. He indicated when looking at the site plan, the traffic going down Harbor cannot see the ~`~" trucks when parked In the truck storage area. As far as the noise and visibility from the apartments, he discussed with the architect the possibility of adding some additional landscaping. Mr. Lyle asked ff ttie Planning Commission has a copy of the latest plan showing the additional landscaping. (The Planning Commissioners indicated they just receNed the copy.) Mr. Lyle thought the new plan would also help with the noise although he doesn't see how the noise could be a concern because he feels the Arby's driveway that goes to the back street in front of the apartments is more of a noise generator than a rental car/truck storage lot. Dan Burgner, 11755 Wilshire Bivd., Los Angeles, Century Investments who owns the property, indicated the property was approved as asingle-purpose facility. The facility was originally built in the 70's and has been operating as a car rental agency for a long time. The use is co Ian andas also consistent wlt~h the prelous consistent wfth the general plan, zoning plan and the gateway p uses. OPPOSITION: None THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Boydstun asked Mr. Shem~an how many trucks would be on the lot; Mr. Sherman stated that lt varies throughout the year and suggested maybe 20 trucks. 051-95 Page 41 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1035 U Commissioner Messe asked Mr. Sherman ff he read the conditions on the staff report; Mr. Shemran answered yes he has. Commissioner Messe then asked ff he had any problems with the conditions in addition to certain stipulations that was already mentioned; Mr. Sherman indicated he has no problem with Condftion Nos. 1, 5, 7 or 8, but has problems with some of the other recommendations and indicated item 2 is not consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. Commissioner Messe indicated t~ the applicant that he stipulated an S-foot shrub line on the rear property; Mr. Sherman indicated that was correct. Mr. Sherman also stated item 3 is not consistent with any of his neighbors. He feels the ingress from a stand point of safety might be good to have. Commissioner Meese asked ff he wasn't going to use that to put trucks out in the street; Mr. Sherman indicated routinely absolutely not. Mr. Sherman stated there is no problem with Item 4. He gave his suggestions on Item 5 in putting a time line and no earner than a certain tune and would hope to work out some hours. He suggested for Item 6 that 20 feet of trees wouldn't cover but he will try to add something that would fit in that is compatible and acceptable. He has no prol~em wfth Item Nos. 9 or 10 and will certainly comply. Julie Mayer asked ff the car washing pad is going to have a canopy; Mr. Sherman hasn't thought much of it and asked ff it is a requirement to have a canopy. Further discussion followed between the Planning Commissioners and Mr. Sherman in regards to the car wash area. Commissioner Caldwell asked ff it was staffs attempt to eliminate the drhreway at the rear of the site, east s,~ property line; Greg Hastings answered yes that it came from Zoning and the idea was that ff the use would be permitted that they try to minimize the affect on the neighbors, inducting parking trucks on the street nor parking cars and also the access with people riving the trucks in and out. Further discussion followed between the Planning Commission giving their opinions in regards to the driveway. Commissioner Caldwell gave his opinion in regani to a having a P.A. system that dose to a residential area and feels ft would be Inappropriate. He feels the project can be a proper use provided a wall be built across the back, put the curb and gutter in and enhance the landscaping across the back and it appears the applicant intends to enhance the landscaping on Harbor Blvd., with the conditions available he would be in favor. Commissioner Meese asked ff he is saying to dose the driveway on Acama Street; Commissioner Caldwell stated he wouldn't encourage any more traffic from the back of the lot, K should come off of Harbor. Commissioner Henninger stated he approves of the Landscape screening being the 8' foot high shrubs and would like to see the shrub on the other skfe and feels once the shrub is in, a chain link fence behind it would be appropriate. The Planning Commission and the applicant darffied what is to be proposed In regards to the fence, gate and planter. Greg Hastings asked ff there was a time limit for the applicant to comply with the conditions; Mr. Sherman stated ff they could give him 3.6 months so he could do the requirements made by the Planning Commission and also be able to take the necessary actions In preparing the building for operation. 051-95 Page 42 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA MAY 31, 1995 (~~ Commissioner Messe asked if he was going to operate; Mr. Sherman staled partial operation, but not to rent cars just to get things going. He has computers to install, refurbish the building, etc., and would like to do that concurrently along with the conditions made today. Greg Hastings stated everything that has been asked can be' done prior to their actual renting of the trucks and cars. Chaimnan Boydstun stated you can comply with the conditions while you are getting the building ready which will be before you put the "open" sign up. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Conditional Use Permit No. 1839, as readvertised, with the following changes: Modffied Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 7 to read as fellows: 1. That there shall be no on-site maintenance of cars or trucks permitted. 2. That there shall be a 3-foot planter across the rear property line except for the area of the driveway. Said planter shall be fully irrigated and planted with an 8-foot high shrub that will grow together in two years. There shall be a 6-foot high block wall behind saki planter. ~:. 7. That no more than 15 trucks with a maximum size of 22 feet shall be stored on the premises at any given time. Said storage shall take place in the areas indicated on the site plan. Deleted Condition Nos. 3 and 6. Added the following conditions: That the chain Zink fence and gate located around the storage area shall be slatted. That the rear gate shall be kept locked and used only for emergency purposes. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann presented the 22 day appeal rights. ADJOURNMENT: MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:40 P.M. TO THE JUNE 12, 1995 AM WORK SESSION AT 11:00 A.M. Res ctfully submitted, E~ L. Harrls Planning Commission Support Supervisor 05-31-95 Page 43 GYi ~ "t ~ F - fl,fJ l~E'~ y ~~' ! !S . !i~",. t! JN~ 7~`l + c s y1 ~~ ~~ i^ i ` 1 V