Loading...
Minutes-PC 1998/08/17SUNfMAf~YACTION AGENDA CITY ~F ANAHEIM PLANf~ING COMIVIIS~10~1 ME~TiIVG MONDAY, AUGUST ~7, 1998 11:00 A.M. • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT ON DI~NEY ICE LANDSCAPE (Report given by Brad Hobson) • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARlOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED ~Y PLANNING COMMISSION) • PFZELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.M. ~ PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY ~ COMNISSIONERS PRESEf~T: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, NAPOLES, PERAZA, WILLIAMS ONE VACANT SEAT STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Joel Fick Annika Santalahti Greg Hastings Cheryl Flores Linda Johnson Don Yourstone Alfred Yalda Peter Gambino Tom Engle Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Planning Director Zoning Administrator Zoning Division Manager Sonior Planner Senior Planner ~ade Enforcement Supenrisor Princi~ai Transportation Planner Ass~ciate Civil Engineer Vice Detail Acting PC Support Supervisor Senior Secretary 0$-17-98 Page 1 i~, ---_ .__ ITEMS OF PUBLIC 19VTEREST: PLA(1UE PRESENTATIONS: PLAQUE PRESENTATION TO ROBERT (BOB) HENNINGER Plaque preseizted RECOGNIZING HIS EIGHT (8) YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS QF ANAHEIM. PLAC~UE PRESENTATION TO AL PERAZA RECOGNIZING HIS EIGHT I Plaque presented (8) YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF ANAHEIh1. 08-17-98 ~age 2 x.. : • , 1 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a) CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION- CLASS 5(PREV.-APPROVED) Approved b) VARIANCE N0. 3315 - RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME: Approved Margaret J. LeVecke, 700 N. Helena Street, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests rotroactive extension of tima to complete construction on a (To expire 1-10••y9j single-family home with accessory living quarters. This petition was originaily approved on January 10,1984. Property is located at 700 North Helena Street. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previousiy-approved CEQA Categorical Exemption - Class 5(Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) serves at the appropriate documentation for this request. Commissioner Peraza offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve a retroactive ex;ension of time for Variance No. 3315 to expire on January 10,1999 based on the following: 1. That this is thP first request for an extension of time for Variance No. 3315. 2. That this property is currently developed as a single-family home (with attached accessory living quarters) within the RS-10,000 Zone which is consistent with. the Law Density Residential General Plan land use designation of the site. 3. That there have been no Code amendments since the granting of Variance No. 3315 which effect this property, nor has the request been modified to include other waivers of Code. 4. That there are no outstanding complaints or Code violations at this property. SR1001 KP.DOC This item was not discussed. 08-1?-98 Page 3 ,: .. : - ,. _ :{, . B. REQUESj FiNAL REVIEW OF A PLANNING COMMISSION Adopted popcy POLICY FOR SELF STORAGE FACILITIES: City-lnitiated (Planning Department), 200 S. Anahefm Boutevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, requesis final review of a Planning Commission policy pertaining to self-storage facilities. CTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIFD (one vacanl seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby initiate the following wording as a Commission policy pertaining to self-storage iacilities: "Self-storage facilities may continue to be permitted in the CL (Commercial, Limited), ML (Limited Industrial) and MH (Heavy Industrial) Zones subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. The unique and opportune design features of self-storage facilities are most appropriate for irregularly-shaped properties which may furiher be constrained by accessibility or visibility and which may not be suitabls for conventional types of development. A limited number of these types of properties are found in commercial ~nd industrial zones. Provided there does not appear to be other viabie or strategic uses of the property, the architecture of the facility is of high quaiity, the use is appropriate and compatible with its surrounding land uses, and the facility is in compliance with all Zoning Code Developrr~ent Standards (including setbacks where possible, signage and landscaping), self-storage facilities may be conditionally permitted in the CL, ML or MH Zones ° SR7193CF.DOC Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated staff is returning a draft policy which Commission discussed on March 30, and April 13, 1998. They have added wording to it that Commission recommended peRaining to self-storage facilities complying with site developmert standards, This draft policy was presented to Commission for their review and consideration. 08-17-98 Page 4 C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 3T76.1693.1541.1479 AND Terminated 930 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Changiz Zomorodian, 25105 Mustang Drive, Laguna H(Ils, CA 92653, requests termination of Conditional Use Permi! No. 3776 {to permit the construction of a drive-through restaurant with an outdoor patio area), Condttional Use Permlt No.1693 (to permft the continued use of an existing billboard with waiver of permitted location and maximum height), Conditional Use Permit tJo.1541 (to permit the continued use of an existing biliboard with waiver of permitted location and maximum height), Conditional Use Permit No.1479 (to permit the continued use of an existing biliboard with waiver of permitted location and maximum height) and Conditional Use Permit No. 930 (to establish a car wash in conjunction with an existing service station). Property is located at 301 South Anaheim Boulevard. TERMINATION RESOLUTION N0. PC98-122 SR7189DM.DOC This item was not discussed. OB-17-98 Page 5 D. VARIANCE N0. 4222. COiJDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 2372 TQrminated AND 2348 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: H~arold B. Hembree, P.O. Box 7250, Newport Beach, CA 92658-7250, requests tprmination of Variance No. 4222 (waiver of permitt~~ number of wall signs to cor.struct a 96 square foot wall sign an the northwest building elevation). Conditional Uss ~ermtt No. 2372 (to permit a walk-up window at an existing restauranE with waiver of minimum numt±~r of parking spaces) and Conditional Use Permit No. 2348 (to permit sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption (n a proposed restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces). Property is located at 5755 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. TERMINATION RESOLUTION N0. PC38-123 SR7175DM.DOC i This item was not discussed. E. CONDIT'IONAL U5E PERMIT N0. 3108 - REQUEST FOR Terminated TERMINATION: Bob Courtney, President, Anaheim Hilis Plaza, Inc., P.O. Box 16700, Encino, CA 91416, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 3108 (to permit sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption in an existing restaurant). Property is located at 430 South Anaheim Hills Road, Suite H, I and J- Anaheim Hills Plaza). TEF2MINATIaN RESOLUi'ION N0. PC98-124 SR7172DM.DnC This item was not disc~:ssed. 08-17-98 Pege 6 PUBLIC H~ARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3921 (READVERTISED) Genied amer.dment to condiUons of approval 2c. REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE TIME Approved a 60-day EXTENSION TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS extension of time OF APPROVAL OWNER: F.J. Hanshaw Enterprises, Inr,., 10921 Westminster Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92843 AGENT: Desapriya Jinadasa,1112 North Brookhurst Street, Suite 1, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 1112 North Brookhurst Street. Suite 1- Cheers Market. Property is 0.91 acre located north and east of the northeast corner of Brookhurst Street and La Palm2 Avenue. ~ To consider amendment or deletion of a condition of approval pertain~ng ta hours of operation for a previously-approved 2,200 square foot ~ convenience market with retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off- premises consumption and to consider a retroactive time extensi~n tu comply with conditions of approval. Continued from the Commission meeting oF July 6, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC98-12.9 SRE894DS.DOC fOLLOWING IS A S.UMMARY OF THE:PLANNING C(yM. IS510N AGl'ION. " Chairman Bristol: Stated, for the record, a letter was received from Ciieer's Food Stores (from Desapriya Jinadasa). ApplicanPs Statement: Desapriya Jinadasa, 1112 N. Brookhurst, Suite 1, Street, Anaheim, CA 92801: Stated he is the owner of Cheers Food Store and is present to request a time extension to comply with conditions of approval and a change of hours of operation. He apologized for being late but due to a violation of the window signs, he had to go and have pictures of the window signage developed. Don Yourstone was at the site this morning to see whether all the signs at the property ha~ been removed. He approved all signage er,cept the property sign. He wanted to address the Following five items: 1. Public telephones are controlled by the property owners. 2. The owner also controls landscaping of the property. 3. Window signs have been removed (He has photographs that show this.) 4. Self-service soft drinks. He requested that Commission remove that condition to have this store as a convenience store. Most of their customers want them to open this store later in the evening. He is requesting a renewal of Conditional Use Permit No. 3921 and remove the conditions of the soft drinks and the change of hours. (He submitted a set of photographs to Commission.J 08-17-98 Page 7 Investigator Tom Engle, Vice.Detail, Police Department: On page 3 of the staff report, item no. 5 states, 'That no window sic~ns shali be psrmitted at any time, to allow unobstructed visibility of the store interior froir the outside " as recommended by the Police Department. That was a condition that Commission approved. He recommended the hours be 6:Q0 a,m. to 12:00 Midnight. Public Testimony: Ray Dominguez,1126 N. Brookhurst, Anaheim, CA: Stated he is located two buiidings north of ttie Cheers Market. He is representing Dr. David Park, who is the president of Baylos University. He has been with the university since November 1997. During that time as the Director of Administration he has noticed an increase in transient population crossing their property and also at the vacant building immediately to the south of them (the old Bryman School of Nursing). They have ihree objections towards the proposed exte~ded hours. • They have not had a need for the early hours that the applicant indicated they need. • One of their employees happened to be in the store and witnessed a robbery involving opposing gang members in the store. They do not need an increase of gang activity in the area. • The additional hours would increase the transient population in that area. Investigator Tom Engle: Unfortunately, he did have the specific statistics regarding the gang activity. He has been on vacation and was just informed by Mr. Hastings that subsequent meetings have been held with the Pianning ~Jepartment and the Police Department. Their recommendation has changed and Mr. Hastings had the latest recommendation from sfaff on the hours. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Actually the Redevelopment staff was the major party interested in this. After they found out about the Police DepartmenYs recommendation, it was unanimous that the hours of operation should remain the same. 7he Redevelopment staff felt that extending the use involving liquor would not be conducive with meeting the goals of the new Redevelopment Plan in this areG. i ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Desapriya Jinadasa: David Park, from Baylos Universiry met with him about a year ago and reguested at that time that he open the store during the early hours, so he is surprised to hear this todey. He feels this store needs to be open earlier. There is a nearby high school which his store carries school supplies. If it is not approved today he is willing to bring letters from the neighbo;hood and people to testify. Chairman Bristol: 7he applicant had referred to an agreement between F.J. Hanshaw En;erprises and RJ Communications. Mr. Jinadasa indicated that he did not contrul the landscaping or removal of public telephones because it is up to the iand owner. Desapriya Jinadasa: The landlord has given a letter fc them indicating that they will do what Commission requires once Caltran's construction is compieted. [A letter from George Castro dated August 17, 1998 was received.) Chairman Bristol: The conditional use permit indicated they could not have phones but then new phones were ~,ut in. The agreement has no date on it. He is concerned if they granted the applicant the extension of time then Mr. Jinadasa is indicating that he can control all thE activities but not the phones. The signs were removed only recently but that was a condition from a long time ago. He is suppose to have the landscaping in but he is saying that he can not control anything yet. Yet Mr. Jinadasa claims he is going to control the business regarding the sal~, of liquor for later hours. Desapriya Jinadasa: Caltrans is doing construction next to the store. As soon as it is done the owner is willing do the landscaping. When he signed ine lease it was only for the inside of the busin~ss, nat the 08-17-98 Page 8 y; ~ ~l.'J outside since the owner owns the properly. He wiil speak with the owner and if the phones need to be removed he wiU remove them. Commiseioner Bostwick: Asked who ~put up the ATM sign? - Desapriya Jinadasa: He did. Commissioner Bostwick: So he had control of the outside to put up this sign. Desanriya Jinadasa: Last year Commission asked him to light up the area. He then cailed the property owner and asked if he could put up a lit sign. Tlie owner guve him permission. Commissioner Boslwick: He has a dusk to dawn lit right underneath the sign that is lighting up the area. The sign is not lighting up the area but rather the dusk to dawn light is actually lighting up the area. Mr. Jinadas added the sign illegaily. Chairman Bristol: It has taken untii last week to get any conditions complied with includi~~ the removai of the si~ns. According to the Police Department, he is not suppose to Fave any signage at all there. The phones have been moved and there is an agreement without a date. F1e has basically not complied with the conditions but is now asking for another use to be added. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative decl~ration is adequate ic serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Denied amendment to conditions cf approval. Approved a 60-day extension of time to comply with conditions of approval, as follows: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner iJapoles and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planni ~g Commission does hereby approve a sixty (60) day extension of time to comply with the conditions of approval of Resolution No. PC97-42. If said conditions are not met within the sixty (60) day period, then this conditional use permit shall be set for revocation or modification proceedings pursuant to the provisions set forth in Section 18.030.092.040 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. VOTE: 6-0 (or~e vacant seat) Selrna Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 2?.-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 27 minutes (2:23-2:50) 08-17-98 Page 9 r - . .: . . . 3a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ~tEPORT N0. 307 (PREV: CERTIFIED) Approved 3b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 9-97 8-19 Granted, unconditionally 3c. CONDI710NAL USE PERMIT t~0. 4038 (Request for withdrawal) Withdrawn OWNER: Brian H. Krikorian, Adrienne L. Krikorian and Aram J. Krikorian, P.O. Box 5911, Sherman Oaks, CA 91413 LOCATION: 1777-A West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 0.5 acre located on the north sfde of Lincoin Avenue, 500 feet east of the centerline of Crescent Way. To reclassify this property from the CG (Commercial, General) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone and to establish a beauty salon with massage facilities with(n an existing 1,320 square foot retail space in a commercial center. ~ Continued from the Commission meetings of July 6, and August 3,1998. RECLASSIFICATION RESdLUTION N0. PC9~3-126 1069JK.DOC • • • a • • This item was not discussed. OPPOSITION: None AC710N: Determined that the previously-certified EIR 307 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Granted Reclassification No. 97-98-19, unconditionally. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim Ciry Planning Commission does hereby accept the applicanYs request to withdraw Conditional Use Permit No. 4038. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUS510N TIME: 3 minutes (1:47-1:50) 08-17-98 Page 10 4a. CE~A NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-ARPROVED) Approved 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3915 (READVERTISED) Approved, in part, as readvertised OWNER: Hussein Berri,1S205 Hemp Circle, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 LOCATION: 1199 South State College Boulevard - Mobil Service Station). Property is 0.5 acre located at the rorthwest corner of Ba~l Road and State College Boulevard. Review of revised plans pertaining to the retention of an existing non- conforming billboard and enlargement of the previously-approved car wash facility in conjunction with a previously-approved service station and convenience market, with waivers of a) prohibition of addition to non- conforming use, b) maximum area of monument sign, c) maximum monument sign width and d) minimum structural setback from an arterial highway. Continued from the Commission meeting of July 20, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC98-127 SR71 FOI:LOWING IS A SUMMARY OF l'HE PLANNING COMMISSIOrN-AC7'ION. THE FOLLOWING IS A DETAILED SUMMARY OF THIS ITEM. Applicant's Statement: David Rose, Regents Group, 3870 La Sierra Avenue, Suite 193, Riverside, CA 92505: The conditional use permit was approved about 1'/z years ago (March 1997) at which time he spoke before Commission. There were several issues that were discussed at the time. Mr. Berri came before Commission recently regarding some issues that have stood out as having some concerns on staff and Commission's perspective which he can understand, given the circumstances that have transpired. Dealing specifically with the first item, the desi~ e to get a waiver for the non-conforming use, which would be related to the billboard. In March of 1997 the issue was brought up by Chairman Messe at the time and at which point he indicated that it was a fegal non-conforming sign that they were inheriting from the existing Mobil site. They were not in a financial position to purchase that billboard and Commission understood that. Mr. Hastings had indicated that he would want to see that language stipulated on the plans. Unfortunately, Mr, Berri had some inconsistencies on his plan which were confusing and did not follow through with the intent that was described in the Planning Commission hearing at that time. However, it has been the perspective from his ciient that the entire time he has maintained that the billboard sign would be remaining. He has copies of the minutes, if Commission so desires. The second item is dealing with tfie mrmument sign and they approved for a sign at which point Mr. Berri had some concerns regarding aclvertising. It is a very key corner. There is much competition being that there are 4 gas stations on tf;e 4 corners, so Mr. Berri wanted to get as much as possible. Beiny unknowledgeable of Planning requiraments, Mr. Berri thought he had the ability to go to the staff person at the counter. He asked the staff person for input. The staff person, according to Mr. Berri, said one thing and Mr. Berri thought that he could go ahead and change the sign. Unfortunately, this is not possible. So, Mr. Berri went ahead and had his plans changed. He not only changed the signage area but he also chan~ed the length. After the March 1997 ap~roval by the 08-17-98 Page 11 Cammission (about September 7,1997) Commission saw fit to change the Plan~ing Code for signage areas of those signs and the length of those signs making his approval a legal non-confarming sign. Unfortunately, Mr. Berri was proposing to make the sign longer and the signage area increased more, which became c• ven more legal non-conforming, if there is such a thing. ~ The third issue is addressing ths illegal extension of the car ~vash. In his mind, this is the real crux of the is~ue, in addressing this item today. Mr. Berri went out and purchased the best and most accurate merchandise that he could use for the car wash. He purchased il for approximately $75,000 and found out afier he had purchased the equipment that the tunnel that was approved by the Pianning Commission was not sufficient ~r long enough to support the equipment. He was then left witn a similar situation as the first scenario. He came to the staff and said he needed to build a longer tunnel. Mr. Eerri's position was that staff said okay and once again that would be an issue of substantial conformance. it would not be in conf~rmance with the existing approvals as adopted in March 1997. Therefore, he would have needed to apply for an amendment or a new conditional use permit, let alone submit new plans. What brought them to where they are at today is Mr. Berrl submitted plans. The F~ans were inadvertently approved by tha Planning Department. Mr. Rose's beli,,` is that Mr. Berri did not act maliciously in trying to sneak something by staff. However, what has happened is that they are in a situation where there has been "he said she said" on both sides. He wants to try to come to some solutions today where everyone will agree on. In addressing the biliboard, in his mind, this is simply a public recortl issue and an inconsistency issue on his clients behalf. Everything was labeled to remain other than the billboard sign. He has firsthand knowledge in kr~wing how the Ciry of An:~heim is no! desirous of maintaining or adding billboards to the City. So whenever they can take one down, espe~ially at a c~itical intersection such as Ball Road and State College Boulevard, then they wouid like to remove it. However, he inherited the site, as he indicated before. It is inancially infeasible for him to take it down. His recommendation would be that Mr. Berri either r~aintain the plans that he already submitted last week or he submit new plans specifically indicating or mandating that the sign remain. If there is any rype of specific improvements that the Planning Commission wants as far as structural that his client has not already submitted then he would be happy to do so. De~ling specifically with the monument sign, there is room for negotiation there, depending upon the desires of the Commission and staff. The third issue being the car wash is the iargest land use issue addressing the Commission today. One of the cencerns sta'rf has is the aesthetic appeal of tliat site. In the site plan, given to Commission, there is landscape directly on the west side of the property adjacent to the existing industrial use. It is approximately 5 feet wide and 10 feet long. He knows that three most important things to City's are signage, landscape and parking. They tried their best last time working with John L;we; and Alfred Yalda, from Tra~c Engineering, to give sufficient amount of parking. They also ~n~orked with Cheryl Fiores and the Planning staff to try to provide sufficient amount of landscaaing. He proposed to try to address the aesthetic issue off of Ball Road - would be to apply a reciprocal or op~osite landscape on what would be the east side of the car wash, then basically wherever a physical structure is you would be seein~ trees and they could put a 4X4 foot planter box with a tree which would also help circulation issues where there would not be a problem with the parking space which is marked no.16. The~~ could round that off so people ~vould not be having an issue where the car is trying to exit the car wash, making a sharp left-hand turn and potentially causing some type of miscommunication with parking space no.18. In his mind, that has the ability to address an aesthetic issue. Public Testimony: Chuck Taylor, 9786 Crestview Circle, Villa Park, CA: Stated he is the neighbor of Mr. Berri. He would like to knovd if the 5 or 6 foot wall will remain inside the building and block their view. Chairman Bristol: Responded they did not know yet but would find that out for him. Chuck Taylor: All right, that is it. 08-17-98 Page 12 Francis S. Nutto, 621 Jambolaya, Anaheim, CA He has some 37 years of experience in planning, zoning and building in two counties and a city. it has been a long time since he has seen a situation this bad. He would like to focus on three items. • First, he supports the staff analysis indicating traffic conflict on-site. There is no good reason to grant a waiver to create a problem, which would exist inta the foreseeable future. • Secondly, concerning the billboard, allowing the existing billboard to remain over a building being constructed would create a non-conforming use, that is a roof billboard. The City of Anaheim Sign Code prohibifs roof billboards for aesthetic reasons and not because of how the billboard is supported. • Thirdly, the actions of the petitioner. There have been numerous plan revisions submitted. Whether the confusion is deliberate or accidental is reaily not important. What is important is that statements made by the petitioner himself show that the i~ardships are self-created. The petitioner has the temerity to say that the regulations are causing the hardships. All Commission has to do is grant the requested waivers and the hardships that he created will go away. He asked that Commission support the staff recommendations including and especially denying the waivers for setback and for retention of the biliboard. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: David Rose: !n response to the two opponents of the project, he would agree, as far as the request of the two variances relative to the billboard as well as the monument siyn, that those were self created under California statute and are not supportable as a variance for a hardship. That is why they are wiiling to work through those. i he one issue that they are desirous of working through with the Commission and with Mr. Taylor relative to the westerly property line and the ~esthetics. As far as the visibility, they are willing to work on that with the Cornmission and staff. As far as the billboard, in his mind, that is not a moot point because he understands the severity of billboards and aesthetics. It is not actually a roof mounted billboard as you might see, for example at downtown Santa Ana, it is an existing building and they are b~ilding around it. So it would not actually constitute a roof mounted biliboard. Again, that is a non-conforming issue and at the time Mr. Berri, unfortunately did not appiy for a waiver of a legal non-conforming status and "it fell through the cracks" and here we are a year later addressing that same issue. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked the City Attorney to comment on the options. As he understood there are lhree choices as far as the billboard sign. That is that they grant a waiver, they don't grant a waiver and at that point then there would be a buy out, the City would have to buy out the sign from the owner or they dany this and the owner could go back to utilizing the station as it was prior to or to the original conditions that were granted. Selma Mann, Assistant City A~torney: It is not quite as "either/or" as that. The applicant may also seek a conditional use permit for the billboard thereby making it a conforming billboard. So that is one other possibility. However, Commissioner Bostwick is correct. There is some State law protection for biliboards that indicates that you can't condition a use on removal of the billboard itself. You can deny the use but as far as co~ditioning it on removal that you would be required to, in affect, pay for it. Commissioner Bostwick: When this project first came to use it was listed as a remodel. The applicant was going to remove a portion of the roof of one of the buildings and add the car wash tunnel and more or less leave it as it was. They received a lot relief on a lot of landscaping and ofher issues. Mr. Berri then proceeded to completely tear down the building and start over ayain. 7hat has left Commission with a "bad" taste. He would look at granting tlie waiver for the billboard due to the fact that, yes, it was brought OB-17-98 Page 13 up and tha;e was some confusion and, obviously, he did not think the City wants to buy (t out. He could only do that if the car wash went away. There was some kind of action, the parking space would be utilized, then it would be much more appealing. He realized Mr. Berri has invested a lot on the equipment and he was sure the applicant could retum it or sell it to another station that is putting up a similar type of a facility. That would still given him the ability to have his station and all of the convenience market and fast food, also the parking would certainly help. It is a very intense use on the property. He would leave the monument sign as it was originally configured without the car wash, that also would fit onto a sign, the sfze would then be appropriate for listing the prices and the actions. Chairman Bristol: Agreed with Commissioner Bostwick. He recalled the conversations that they had which were for a remodel. They had extensive conversation regarding the canopies. Those canopies were going to be gone so they went out of their way io keep those where they are positioned. Suddenly the building is gone and then that extension of the tunnel. Aesthetically their cnmments regarding aesthetics, it does not do anything for the circulation. He is more comiortable with the sign than the tunnel. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked Mr. Taylor if his building is directly to the west on Ball Road? Mr. Taylor: Yes. Commissioner Boydstun: She understod he is concerned about the wall. Mr. Taylor: The wall comes out and the visibility is his concern. He has no objection to the car wash. They have been there since 1972 and they have never had a problem but when this wall came up it blocked out everything and you can not see their building driving down from !he street. Commissioner Boydstun: She wanted to make that part of the record, since that was her understanding when he testified earlier. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: There was some discussion during the applicanPs presentation about the sign being a legal non-conforming sign. That sign has not been constructed. There is no legal non-conforming status to that sign. There are instances when there is a specific waiver that is granted for the sign and the signs are approved for a particular waiver where those are exactly what is to be built. Where they are talking about Code requirements, the applicant is required to put in ~Nhatever is required by Code at the time the permit is applied for. David Rose: Asked Ms. Mann even though he was entitled under the Conditional Use Permit for a ceRain size sign, because the Code changed then that entitlement is no longer valid? Selma Mann: The plans were approved with a certain size sign which were what the Code requirement was at the time. There was no specific actior that was taken with regard to the sign. It is her understanding, that it is Building and Zoning's practice and policy, which is consistent with what is done in many other places, that whatever is in effect at the time that they obtain their building permit is what is built. The situation might have been different had the building permit been obtained rQ ior to that time building constructed, but that is not the case here. During the voting: Commissioner Bostwick: Offered a motion for a previously-approved CEQA Nec~ative Declaration. Commissioner Boydstun: Second. Chairman Bristol: They have a motion for a previously-approved CEQA Negative Declaration. All those in favor? Commissioners: AYE. Chairman Bristol: Opposed? (None) Motion is carried. 08-17-98 Page 14 Commissioner Boslwick: Offered a motion approving Waiver of Code Requirement A and denying Waiver of Code Requirement B, C and D. Commissioner Boydstun: Second. Chairman Bristol: Asked before they do this do they have to take them all in one or break them up? Commissioner Bostwick: They can do them one at a time, if Commission so desires. Chairman Bristol: So if they vote yes on Waiver A then... Commissioner Bostwick: The only thing that is allowed in Waiver A is the billboard to remain. Chairman Bristol: So they have to come back and re-address the tunnel? Commissioner Bos!wick: Asked if he was correct? Waiver A is strictly allowing the non-conforming biilboard to remain? Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: If this were to be granted, it wouid allow ihe applicant to be able to proceed with the expansion on the property with the existence of the billboard. Commissioner Boydstun: Would that mean he could add the length to the tunnel? Greg Hastings: That would be covered under a separate waiver, Waiver D. Commissioner Bostwick: If they deny Waiver D then the tunnel can not be extended. Greg Hastings: That is correct. Chairman Bristol: They are saying no to the monument sign. It has to meet Code and yes to fhe billboard sigr. Commissioner Williams: But if he would not extend that tunnel, he could still build a car wash with some kind of other equipment. Commissioner Boydstun: Yes. Chairman Bristol: Do they all understand that? Commissioner Bostwick: That is as regarding the waiver. Chairman Bristol: They have a second, right? Commissioner Boydstun: Yes, she seconded it. Chairman Bristol: All those in favor say AYE. Commissioners: AYE. (Bristol, Bostwick, Boydstun, Napoles and Williams.] Chairman Bristol: All those opposed7 Commissioner Peraza: No. Commissioner Bostwick: Offered a resolution on Conditional Use Permit No. 3915, reGuiring that prior to reactivating the building permits, that the final plans showing the removal of the car wash tunnel be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and consideration by the Commission as a Reports and Recommendation item. Commissioner Peraza: Asked for clarification on the resolution. 08-17-98 Page 15 Commissioner Bostwick: Approve the CUP with the removal of the car wash tunnel and that the plans be redrawn to show those conditions and be brougrk back as a RepoRs and Recommendation Item for substantial conformance before any further work can be done. Seima Mann: Asked to have a clarification before any further work that can be done on the site at all or just on anything having to do with the area of thP car wash tunnel? Commissioner Bostwick: The appiicant can start to remove the car wash, if they would like to remove the tunnei and what equipment is there. He would like to make sure that they have a clear set of plans that are going to be used for the finai construction of this project with signage, landscaping, everything in it so that they know what they really have before they continue on with this. Is that clear to everyone? Selma Mann: Could they get some input from the Building Manager with regard to anything that she may be wondering about right now? Julie Seay, Building Division Manager: At this point in time, Commissioners, the building permits themselves are revoked. So if they would want to add a part of your condit~ons that prior to reactivating any of those buiiding permits, etc., stc.. If that helps them. Commissioner Bostwick: Before any further building permits are issued.... Julie Seay: For any of the building permits would be reactivated..... Julie Seay: Commission would like to have them return an R&R report. Commissioner Bostwick: Would have a complete set of plans return as an R&R to the Planning Commission. Selma Mann: She just wanted to be sure that they were all clear on exactly what it was that the Commission wishes to do. Commissioner Bosh~vick: He just wanted it clear to everyone and that Mr. Berri gets what he want and they get what they want. Everyone then has a complete set of plans that they are all going tQ agree to and that they build it once and for all. Chairman Bristol: It is a resolution 2nd a button vote. Maggie Solorio, Acting PC Support Supervisor: Resolution passed with 6 yes votes. Selma Mann: Mr. Chairman, the Planning Commission's actions on this item wiil be considered final in 22 days unless an appeal to the City Council is filed within that time. • The Planning Commission has determined that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is appropriate to serve as the environmental documentation for this project, for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. • On the requested Waivers of Code Requirement, the Planning Commission has approved Waiver A and has denied Waivers B, C, and D. • It has revised Conditional Use Permit No. 3915 to delete the car wash tunnel and require the applicant to submit revised plans to be brought to the Commission as a Report and Recommendation item. Chairman Bristol: Thank you. Asked Mr. Nutto if he would like to speak? Mr. Nutto: Yes. He asked for a clarification on the status of the billboard. His understanding was that it was legal and appropriate as it was, but thaf putting a building under it would make it then non- conforming. 08-17-98 Page 16 Co~imissioner Bosiwfck: fie problem is that you can't expand the use with the biliboard there and the ~ppli~ant was expanding his use to include the convenience market and the car wash. Mr. Nutto: Hfs basic positian is that the Buiiding Department shouid not have issued the building permit because it would create a non-conforming roof billboard but they're well beyond that point. Chairman Bristol: That was the difference, they didn't. The plans indicated that the billboard was not going to remain. Commission Bostwick: The plans never showed the billboard rem3ining. Mr. Nutto: He understood that. But his original statement is, the permits should not have been issued when it would have created a roof biliboard. Commissioner Bostwick: So they have, hopefully, cleared that up and it won't be a roof biliboard. Mr. Nutto: He will return to this Planning Commission with some recommendations for changes in the Sign Code. Thank you. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: There was one other it~;n on this which is on page 7, item "d" having to do with the wall signs which staff is recommending approval of, in turns of subs!antial aonformance. Commission may wish to indicate whether those are to their liking. Commissioner Bostwick: He offered a motion that the wall signs are in conformance with the plans. Chairman Bristol: There is a motion. Commissioner Boydstun: Second. Chairman Bristol: They have a motion and a second that the signs are in conformance. All those in favor? Commissioners: AYE. (8ristol, Bostwick, Boydstun, Napo/es, Peraza and Williams.J Chairman Bristol: Opposed7 (None) Motion is carried. OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved, in part, Waiv^~ of Code Requirement, as follows: Approved Waiver (a), and Denied Waivers (b), (c) and (d). Approved, in part, the revised plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 3995, as fo!lows: Approved the requested modification of the wall signs for the accessory convenience market to allow the identification of the food service as indicated in the revised plans on the basis that the proposed signs are substantially in conformance to the size of the wall signs previously-approved for this faciliry. Added the following conditions: That the carwash tunnel shall be removed. That prior to reactivating the building permits, final plans showing the removal of the carwash tunnel shail be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and consideration 08-17-98 Page 17 __. .. ..- - - - _.w_ __._ ,~ : " ; '.,, by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant Ciry Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 31 minutes (1:51-2:22) 08-5 7-98 Page 18 5a. ENVIRONN~ENTAL IMPACT REPVRT No. 317 (PREV. cERTIFIED) Continu 5b. VARIAiVCE IdO. 4346 8-37-98 OWNER: Cindereila Motel, Inc., Attn: Ralph Kazarian, Jr., 2416 W. Shaw, Suite 109, Fresno, CA 93711 AGENT: Ralph Kazarian, Jr., 2416 W. Shaw, Suite 109, Fresno, CA 93711 F'amela S. S~hmidt, c/o Berger and Norton,1620 26th Street, Suite 200 South, Santa Monica, CA 90404- aoao LOCATION: 1747 South Harbor Boulevard - C~ndk,Cane Inn. Property is 2.84 acres located or. the west side of Harbor Boulevard, 250 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue. Waivers of maximum wal! heights in landscape setback area adjacent to Harbor Boulevard, minimum st~uctural setback adjacent to Harbor Boulevard, minimum structural setback adjacent to interior lot lines, and permitted freestanding monument signs, to reconstruct the main entrance driveway and install new landscaping and landscape treatments in the ~ront setback area adjacent to Harbor Boulevard, including the construction of a combination solid masonry wall/wrought iron fence with decorative pilasters, a decorative fountain, two ponds, and a new monument-type sign, in conjunction with an existing hotel. VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. I SR7186KD.DOC • Y i • • • Linda Johnson, Senior Planner: Stated after the morning sess:on, Planning staff obtained the property owner's permission to measure the property setback widlh, specifically to verify the accuracy of the submitted site plan. Staff has completed those measurements and found that while the overall dimension of 19 feet between the building balcony and the back-of-sidewalk is correct, four of the existing trees in the setback area are not accurately shown on the site plan. Staff has provided the Commission and the petitioner with a marked-up copy of the site plan which shows that two of the existing Indian Laurel Fig trees are within the 8-foot area behind the sidewalk and the other two trees would be located on or in close Froximity to tne fence line. Two other existing Queen Palm trees are proposed to be removed in connection with this project. Staff would like to indicate, for the record, that the petitioner's attorney had sent a letter dated June 18, 1998 to an attorney representing the City on litigation relative to this properry. Said letter requested that City staff not trespass on the Candy Cane Inn property. The Public Works Department subsequently sent a rnemo to Planning staff requesting staff to obtain the property owner's or manager's permission prior to entering the site. When she spoke with the applicant after the morning session he said that he welcomed the Planning staff to go onto the site to complete the measurements, which they did. She entered, into the record, two er.hibits submitted by the petitioner. The first exhibit is a set of five photographs showing the site in the before and after candition since the commencement of street improvements. The second exhibit is a copy of a letter dated June 29, 1998, which was submitted to the 08-17-98 Page 19 attomey representing the City on litigation relative to this property. Both of the exhibits have been given to the Pianning Commission. AppiicanPs Statement: Wayne Peterson, 2398 Skyline Drive, Mission Viejo, CA 92692: Stated he is representing ihe property owner, Mr. Ralph Kazarian, the site of the Candy Cane Inn on Harbor Blvd., north of Kateila. Mr. Kazarian has owned the property since 1957 and has been involved directly in a number of beautician efforts on Harbor Bivd. over the years. Also with him was Pamela S~hmidt, the attorney for Mr. Kazarian (a letter from Ms. Schmidt was submitted dated June 29, 1998]. They brought with them a court reporter due to the pending litigation relative to the property, in order to ensure a clear record. They attended the morning session. They provided photographs and a copy of a colored exhibit, They provided the authority for the City to go onto the property to actually measura it. The reason the letter was initially sent to the City was during the construction of Harbor Blvd. there was quite a bit construction activity being done on the owners property without his permission. The purpose of the letter initially sent was to make it very clear that permission needed to be granted before the people that were doing the work on Harbor Blvd. assumed that they could make sure of the hotel's property for its construction activities. Certainly, there has never been any question by City staff in connection with th~~ variance to access the property. He wanted to make it clear that there was never any inten: to prohibit staff from visiting the property. They appreciate staffs references of the photographs that they have submitted and a copy of the letter between the two attorneys. They received the staff report late Friday afternoon and tiave spent a great deal of the weekend working on responses 4o the comments that were made in the staff report. The staff report is very thorough in its discussion of the proposed modification and applicable Code references but the staff report does not address what is causing this entire application to have been submitted in the first place, which is the widening of Harbor Blvd. The City's project has completely destroyed the entrance to the Candy Cane Inn. Over the past 7 months since construction has begun there have been a series of major construction activities that have caused serious impact to the success of the business at the peak portion of the business year. There has been instances where lines have been broken, prohibiting access for considerable amounts of time. The applications for variances would not be here if the City had not initiated the Harbor Blvd. widening and required the reconstruction of the access to the hotel. The application is simply trying to replace what was on the property prior to the beginning of the City's expansion of Harbor Blvd. The photographs submitted show what was initialiy construction, then the second set of photographs (2 and 3) show what the site looked like just prior to the beginning of work on Harbor Blvd. The last two photographs show what the property looks like today. The photographs show a substantial reduction in the amount of area in the front of the hotel. What is remaining is a fraction of what was there in the beginning. In the morning session, there was some confusion where the actual right-of-way for Harbor Blvd, is. The exhibits submitted to the City show where the improvements, which are largely completed, actually start and stop. However, there is an additional 8-foot dedication that is going to be required at some point in time, for the ultimate right-of-way of Harbor Blvd. In addition to the improvements (on the photographs), an additional 8 feet is being taken for Harbor Bivd. The Inn has been in place for 40 years. To try to retroactively impose significant setback regulations on an ex~sting property must be considered at least a hardship. 'The owners of the Candy Cane Inn have tried very hard to accommodate what the City wants to do in terms of the widening. The additional 8 feet, the City has not indicated any schedule for acquiring that property and has no intention of moving on that in the near future. It is essentially a piece of pruperty that the owner must retain but he ;s prohibited from doing anythiny with until the City decides to move forward on its widening. They are of the opinion, contrary to what the staff report indicates, this Planning Commission has the authority and the justification to approve these modifications by the fact that this property is unique, that 08-17-98 Page 20 several ~f the references in the staff report are to hotel facilities which are not identically zoned in this particular araa. There are overlay zones, specific plans and basic zoning that apply to this property. There are few sites in th~s immediate vicinity which are identically zoned which is the criteria against which those kinds of applicants must be measured. The concerns that the operators of the Inn hava rel~tive to the facility is: • Street appearance of the hotel. In order to comply with the regulations that the City is imposing vi~tually low level landscaping is all that N!ould ever be allowed within the area between the existing building and the street right-of-way. The street scene along Harbor Blvd. has ala~ays been very elaborately landscaped and beautiful treatment along the street frontage. That will be impossible if the existing regulations must be imposed. • There was an existing wall and fence in place. They are simply asking to replace that with a slightly different design. Their concern with the proposed sign is that it is not at all compatible with the existing building. They have requested that it be located parallel to Harbor Blvd. because there is not adequate room to put it perpendicular. • The widening of Harbor Boulevard has brought the public considerably closer to the rooms at the Inn. Compliance with the City's regulations would not allow any barrier whatsoever between the public space and the hotel rooms, which is a very critical issue for people who wish to stay immediately adjacent to Disneyland. . In addition, the dedication for Harbor Boulevard there is a right turn lane that is being provided in order to get cars from Harbor Boulevard onto Katella. So there is additional widening that has been required from this property. • The staff report provides no indication that there is any willingness to consider alternative plans. They would like Commission to consider and understand that the applicant is more than willing to sit down and talk with staff and Commission. The way the staff report is written it is a categorical denial of anything in those setback areas. They are concerned that should not have been part of the master plan in that area. In conclusion, the problem that they are here dealing with was caused by City action not the property owners. The City is taking more land here than has been taken nn other properties similarly situated and that there are distinctions between this property and others in this vicinity. It is impossible to re-create what was existing prior to the City's efforts and still comply with the City's setback requirements. The applicant is anxious to work with the City to come up with an alternative p~an that works for everyone. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun: She personally thinks the front fence is very attractive and could understand why he wants it to be a little higher but does it need to go to 7 feet? Wayne Peterson: Those are the type of design details that they would like to sit down and discuss. They have not had any conversation with anyone from staff. Commissioner Boydstun: She could see where they would want it so someone could not step over it. The type of fence they had there would be room enough to have some color on each side of it and make it very attractive. Commissioner Bostwick: Agreed, perhaps the pilasters would remain low but if the wrought iron was arched giving them that "New Orleans" look would achieve some height differential and the yet balance to it would be very attractive. He commended the owner for the landscaping that they do, it is very attractive. The fountain aspect brings in a nice element into the streetscape along Harbor Boulevard. It is a nice addition to the project. He would like to see the sign turned around the other way with the fountain wrapped around it so it does look like the other signs on the street. With the fence lower then perhaps it would be visible for the traffic so you can read the name and it would match the other signs on the street. The street uniformity of the Anaheim Resort would be kept in tact. 08-17-98 Page 21 Linda Johnson: The application in and of itself was not a result of the street improvements it was as a result of the proposal to install a fence that did not meet the Code. The waiver of the permitted sign location was, again, not a result of the street improvements. It was a result of the application to waive the Code to install the fence which the proposed fence would probably obstruct the visibility uf a sign that was perpendicular to the street. The applicant could under the Code today fully landscape that setback area from the building to the back of the sidewalk. So there is use of that land. Also the Desert Palm Inn and Suites and the Alpine Motel are Identicaliy zoned to this property which is the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan CR Overlay and the Desert Palm Inn and Suites has similar situation with regard to right-of-way because of the right turn pocket. On Harbor, the right turn pockets go in front of ihis property and as it turns the corner it tapers along those properties for the right turn pockets. Desert Paim Inn and Suites (building) is approximately 15 feet from the back of the sidewalk. The applicant did have a wrought iron fence and staff believes that the pilaster was approximately 44 inches high and the wrought iron portion just a little lower. That was why it was previously existing before the street improvements. Staff agrees that it was a very attractive look for the property and also some other properties along Harbor Blvd. have wrought iron fences along the perimeter of their property. After staff looked at the whole street, that is one of the reason the; are going to be recommending a Code adjustment to allow properties to put these lower fences up to 36 inches in height into their front setback areas provided it is integrated with their landscape and allows an open view. Commissioners Peraza: Agreed with Commissioner Bostwick because this is a very attractive fence. The 7 foot fence would be too high but something like this would be very attractive. Chairman Bristol: Asked the applicant if a lower fence would work. Wayne Peterson: The size that was submitted was driven by the security aspect of it. If there is a middle ground then they would ba happy to work with staff but they had the very clear impression that no fencing was going to be allowed. Chairman Bristol: Could they turn the sign around and be consistent with everyone else? Wayne Peterson: They can look at it. Their intent is to get something going. They need to get a new entrance built soon. They woul~ like to work with staff to come up with some alternatives and return to the Commission meeting of August 31,1998. Linda Johnson: Staff would be comfortable with that time line. Commissioner Williams: Asked if they would be willing to landscape that front 8 feet to match the Disney theme? Wayne Peterson: As he understands it there is an established design for the extra right of way that the City is going after. His understanding is that the plans that they have submitted are consistent with that. What is creating the issue is what happens on the remaining property with fencing and fountains, etc. Linda Johnson: The back 8 foot parkway in the ultimate right-of-way is designed to be landscaped with Queen Palm trees evenly spaced between the canopy trees and the front parl;way. The ground cover would be day lilies. The plan currentiy shown has just sod in that area. It does not have any trees. The current project does not fund the acquisition or improvement of the back 8 foot oarkway. In the event the City acquires funds to peruse that project in the future then it would be done. If properties redevelop in such a manner that street dedication and improvement is required then the property would install those trees. For instance, further south along Harbor in connection with the Marriott project that was recently approved, the Marriott will be installing those trees. On Katella another project that was recently constructed, that project will also be installing palm trees. Commissioner Bostwick: In this case the applicant is proposing grass and then a continuous planter bed of starjasmine, ageinst the fence which would be acceptabte until the othe-• 8 feet are taken, then at that point would they would do the landscape change. 08-17-98 Page 22 , , ;_. , .: ;; Linda Johnson: Code does not require them to install the Queen Ralm trees in connection with this level of development, installing a fence. So ff they put in sod or another ground cover then that would be fine. Wayne Peterson: He dfd not believe the applicant at this point has any indication that the Ciry is going to act on that additional dedication in the near future. They approached City staff as to what they should install in the interim. Staff suggested the sod plan. Therefore, obviously that is what the owner has opted for. As a property owner that is having these standards imposed on him 40 years after his hotel is built, adding additional palm trees to further block the view of their building is not something they would want to do voluntarily, but they have not discussed that in any depth. Retroactively imposing those requirements makes it very difficult for an existing facility to deal with. Linda Johnson: Planning staff did not recommend the sod in that 8 foot. Their recommendation would be to put day lilies to match the day lilies in the front parkway instead of the sod. Commissioner Napoles: Offered a motion for continuance to August 31,1998, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and motion was carried. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request !o the August 31,1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to submit revised plans to tower the fence and to look at the possibility of orienting the sign perpendicular to the street. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: 26 minutes (2:51-3:17) (A break was taken following this iter.n.] OS-17-98 Page 23 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 98-99•02 6c. VARIANCE N0. 4345 6d. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0.15703 OWNER: Tatsuye Shozi, Tom Shozi, Yohko Shozi, Ray Shozi, and 7akeo Shozi, 3038 West Orange Ave., Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Greystone Homes, Attn: Douglas Woodward, 26 Executive Park, #100, Irvine, CA 92614 LOCATION: 3038 West Oranqe Avenue. Property is 10.3 acres located at the southeast corner of Halliday Street and Orange Avenue. Reciassification No. 98-99-02 - to reclassify subject property from RS-A-43,000 Zone to the RS-5000 Zone or a less intense zone. Variance No. 4345 - waiver of minimum lot size, and maximum lot coverage to construct a 71-unit, 2-story single-family residential subdivision. Tentative Tract Map No.15703 - to establish a 74-lot (including 3 lettered lots) 71-unit 2-story single family residential subdivision. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLU710N N0. PC98-128 VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. PC98-129 Granted, unconditionally Granted Approved ' 'FO COUVING IS A'SUMMA OF THE PLANNING:COMMISSION ACTION. ApplicanYs Statement: Douglas Woodward, Greystone Homes, 26 Executive Park, Suite 100, Irvine, CA: Stated they looked at different way to develop this properry as residential. The General Plan allows up to 1 S homes per Gcre. After visiting the site they noticed this was a~reat opportunity to build larger homes. Their desire was to assimilate these homes into the existing neighborhood, altho~gh the existing neighborhood is p~irr~arily single story homes for them to make economic sense out of the community two story homes was necessary. But they wanted to provide a very traditional street scene. They went wilh the lat that was a full 50 feet in width which is identical to the homes arnund it. They wanted to pruvide streets tha-. had parking on both side and sidewalk on both sides, as you would find in any other traditional single family neighborhood in the City of Anaheim. The street in the interior is a private street. It is only because the City's minimum street width for a public street was just so wide that there was nothing left over to build homes on. At 36 feet from curb to curb, with a sidewalk on both sides that is the same as the County of Orange standard for public streets. So it is essentially the same size as the public street. They contacted WHND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council), went to their meeting and presented their proposal to them and found that they were very supportive. They f~ave also contacted the immediate adjacent homeowners and met with them to address som2 of their concerns. Their concern was some visual intrusion potentially from the applicant's two-story homes into iheir single story homes. He is very much aware of that concern. They will be happy to install landscaping and Italian Cypress trees all along that edge. They can also require through the CC&R's that the homeowners that buy those 3 homes maintain those trees and leave them in place. 08-17-98 Page 24 They are planning a 6 foot block wall. There has been some indication from them that maybe a higher wall makes more sense. His recommendation to the neighbors was to have Commission condition thern to come to an agreement since he is not sure an 8 foot is really what they want on their backyards but they agree to install a wall. Maybe after some discussion the height ~s what they can agree upon. They are requestiny a rezone to 5,000 squa~e foot minimum lot. One of the variances requested is for a reduction in that lot size. The site is a very long rectanguiar parcel. They did maintain the minimum 50 feet in width for each of the lots. In order to get the three homes across to make an affective use of the property they were not able to get to the minimum 100 foot depth. The homes are typically 84 feet in depth. They do have homes facing in Halliday. They felt it was impoRant to become part of the neighborhood. They did not want to put a wall around it and shut out the outside community. But in order to do that and not to have an ineffective set of two rows of homes that were very deep in lot size, they had to have a little less than the 100 feet in depth. The backyards are typically about 25 feet in depth, so they are actually quite large backyards and are comparable to what is in the neighborhood. That is the reason for the first variance request. The second variance request has to do with maximum coverage. The coverage ratio is 35% of the Code and theirs is slightly higher than that. That is driven by the fact that the home sites are not 100 foot in depth which is what Code requires. There ~re a couple of conditions of approval that have been recommended to Commission that they object to. The first is the request for the front yards to be maintained. Chairman Bristol: Stated, for the record, Mr. Woodward submitted a letter. Douglas Woodward (continued): The numbers stated in his letter have changed since he wrote the letter, that is the reason they do not match with thc staff report. Staff informed them that there are requests from the City Council that the .`ront yards be maintained by an association, It is not an economic issue. Their objection is that they are i~ying to build a single family neighbnrhood. If they were going to build small lots ihen that might make sense but they have homeowner5 that want to buy a home and maintain the front yards. if the Homeowner's Association maintains the frorit yards then it will create a homogeneous streetscape. There would be an easement on those front yards. So those homeowners would not have control over their own fror,'. yards. They do not feel that makes sense. He requested that they remove that condition of approval (Condition Nos.12 (bottom of page 8), 17 (middle of page 9) and 4(page 10 towards the bottom). There is another issue but he thought they could work it out. There was discussion from Engineering about a gate but there is no gate on the plans because they want to be a,:art of the surrounding community. He was q~'te surprised to havp the Engineering Department say they were opposed because they wanted them allow for a g~fe. Most cities do not want them to put in a gate. They did not plan to have a gate and if the gata means a loss of a home or two then they can not economically support that. He would like to find a way to meet their concerns. At the "entry street" they tried to put a parkway in there to be consistent with the parkway on Halliday so in entering the community there is a broad sense of entry. He would like to be able to work with Engineering to come up with a solution. The last issue concerns a block wall on the east side of the Community. It is their intent to install a 6 foot high block wall although on the majority of that property a block wall already exists. Where it doesn't exist they will install one, and 4vhere it does exist they plan on ~sing it. In conc~usion, they are very excited with the proposal and think that this is an appropriate land use. It is probabiy lower density than many developers would have proposed. Jack Demeter: Stated he owns the properly at 3053 Rome Avenue. He has been in contact with all the residents on Rome Avenue that are up against this property. The property on Rome has been there for a long time and now there is the possibility of two story homes looking into their backyards. He spoke with the developer and suggested they construct those i~omes as single story and the developer indicated that it was financialiy incompatible. 08-17-98 Page 25 Another suggestion would be to include as a conditian that 10-foot tall Italian Cypress trees be planted along the wall. There wouid be a stipulation in their zgreement that the Homeowner's Association maintain those trees so the trees are not cut down after the homes are sold. On the south end there is a cui-de-sac that has a sidewalk that comes right up against the block wall. That means that the cul-de-sac would need to be cut back a few feet to accommodate a landscaping area. In speaking with the applicant, he did not see this was a major problem. A concern of the homeowner that lives at the end of the cul-de-sac, the whole project is directly across the street from Twiia Reed Park. This park is very busy. After hours there is a probiem with drug addicts loitering. The person that lives at the end of the cul-de-sac, on the south end, is seriously concerned if there is a police chase and a 6-foot wall is easy to jump and get into his backyard. He proposed the height of the wall be increased. • He understands that the developer is required to put $2,000 to $3,000 a unit into the Twila Reid Park for Redevelopment. He ~ecommends that it be applied to off-street parking for 7wila Reid Park on Halliday Street, a pocket parking lot with diagonal parking so that there is a place for people to park. He has spoken with all the homeowners along the back fence of Rome and they have come with a consensus of opinion of how they could handle this and still maintain privacy. Esther Wallace, Chairman of WAND: They have had several meetings with the developer to discuss this property. Mr. Woodward came out and showed them the plans. She has been asking the community their opinion on the plans and received no objections to it. They have always said that they do not want variances but there are some variances for this proposal. They realize there are special circumstances with this property due to the size, in order to get 3 rows of homes they would have to have shorter lots. Also the park is across the street, it seroes as the green belt. This project does have sidewalks and nice streets. They will be up to four bedroom homes. It will be the type of home people will want to buy. She likes the suggestion of the Italian Cypress trees, next to the homes on Rome. They are trying to eliminate the loitering at the park and hoping the addition of the homes will do something about the people roaming the park at night. She lives on Orange Avenue and has never had anyone jump into her backyard. Regarding the park fees, they have had iwo meetings of the neighbors with the City which they were informed there is money from another source to put in a parking lot at Twila Reid Park. They are going to build from 92 to 120 additional parking areas in Twila Reid Park. They have seen the plans and would like to work with the City in preserving a string af trees along Halliday Street. They are concerned that they are going to be removed if the parking is constructed. The neighborhood is thinking of other ways to use the money that comes from these homes. These homes will be a welcome addition to their neighborhood. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Douglas ~^/oodward: They did decide on Italian Cypress trees. Their intention is for the homeowner to maintain thE trees because the trees will be in their backyard, with the exception of the end of tlie cul-de- sac. The~~ propose that the Homeowner's Association have the right to enforce this in order to ensure the trees are kept in good health and maintained. They intend to pay a park fee and have offered to the City if there is an improvament that can be made in the park, it may be financially beneficial that Greystone Homes do that work. On the front yard maintenance, that there be strong wording in the CC&R's that require the homeowners to maintain their front yards. If they are not maintained the HOA Board will have the duty to make sure they are maintained. Commissioner Bostwick: He felt that other types of trees would work better to soive the problem rather than Italian Cypress trees because they grow very thick and if not trimmed and maintained they might possibly fall over into the neighbors yard. Douglas Woodward: He would be heppy io have their landscape architect meet with the homeowners to come up with the best solution. 08-17-98 Page 26 Commissioner Bostwick: It would be better at the end of the street, along the wail, if they plant somet.~ing more like Bougainvillea which would discourage someone from climbing the fe,~ce rather than Italiar, Cypress trees which can be a nice climbing tool. Investigator Tom Engle, Vice Detail, Police Department: Asked if there is going to be any common areas, such as swimming pools or tennis courts? Douglas Woodward: No, they will only maintain the 15-foot landscape area along Orange Avenue outside of the wall. The internal street is private because the City standard is so wide that it did not work so the HOA will maintain that street also. The intention is for the HOA to have limited duties so it represents itself as a traditional typicai Anaheim neighborhood. Chairman Bristol: Regarding Halliday Street, the applicant has indicated that it is their own property and asked staff for a clarification. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: The difference between this and the projects that Council has given direction would be that the other would be units that are detached condominiums but these are detached single family. City Council is interested in the public parkway which is outside the front setback area that it be maintained by the homeowners. Whether that is the homeowners or the Homeowner's Association it has never been established. Chairman Bristol: Asked if there is public parkway on Halliday Street? Greg Hastings: Yes, there is approximately 5 feet, which would have some type of groundcover and street trees. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if there is any way to verify with Parks and Recreation Department (known as the Community Services Department) that they are going to put a parking lot on Twila Reid Park because of the necessity7 Greg Hastings: Staff contacted Parks and they are in the design phase for 122 parking spaces to be constructed within the park. Commissioner Peraza: Indicated that he would like the applicant to work with Public Works,''raffic Engineering regarding the gate, because they may ~ot want a gate now but may change their minds in the future and there should be enoligh space to allow for that possibility in the future. Commissioner Williams: He did not feel the Homeowner's Association would ever pay for it because the people living in Halliday Street would never have a use for it. Commissioner Boydstun: Suggested adding a condition that there will be not gate in this complex so the people know that up front. Alfred Yalda: They had that in other projects and people returned and insisted on the gate for their safety. That is usually trie case in ahout 99% of the projects F.ave a gated entry because people who purchase the homes feel safer. They are not asking them to install the gate but simply to provide an area for the gated area that would allow them that option. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Suggested that Condition Nos. 2, 12,17 and 19, be placed on the Tentative Tract Map conditions rather than the Variance conditions because all those need to be included as a maintenance covenant in the CC&R's for the Homeowner's Association. On page 9, Condition No. 20, there is a condition requesting aesthetic enhancement in the form of hardscape materials. They would request the plans be reviewed by the Commission as a Reports and Rscommendation item for that. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked where the zero Ict line is regarding, Condition No. 12, on page 117 08-17-98 Page 27 Cheryl Flores: It has to c~o wi!h a condominium complex on the east property line. There is a condominium built there that is on the zero lot line, so they needed to provide a way for the condominium maintenance to get in there and maintain that wall in order to paint it occasionally, in the form of an easement whfch involves 2 or 3 lots. IN FAVOR: 1 person spoke in favor of subject proposal. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition to subject proposal. ACTiON: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 98-99-02, unconditionally, deleting Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3 listed in the staff report. Granted Variance No. 4345 with the following changes to conditions of approval: Deleted Condition Nos. 2, 17 and 19. Modified Condition Nos.12, 20 and 26 to read as follows: 12. That the developer shall be responsible for providing and planting one (1) minimum 24" box canopy-type tree in the front yard of every dwelling unit. Said trees shall be specifically sho~vn on plans submitted for building permits. 20. That "B" Street shall be provided with aesthetic enhancements in the form of hardscape materials such as brick or stone pavers or stamped and colored concrete. Final plans showing said enhancements shall be submitted to lhe Zoning Division of the Planning Department for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 26. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. ~4 above- mentioned, shall be complied with. APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 15703 with the following changes to conditions of approval: Added the following conditions of approval: That layered landscaping with minimum 15-gallon, non-deciduous, broar~ headed or canopy trees, shall be planted by the developer and ultimately maintained by the Homeowner's Association adjacent to the north property line (Lot C) to pr~vide a broad screening efiect adjacent to Orange Avenue. It shall be the responsibility of the Homeowner's Association to inform all affected homeowners that trees in this area shall not be removed or trimmed by the individual homeowners. That the developer shall be responsible for the planting and maintenance of groundcover and trees in the landscaped planter located within the public rights-of- way adjacent to Halliday Street and Orange Avenue unless otherwise indicated by the City. The Homeowner's Association shall ultimately be responsible for the maintenance of this landscaping. That either minimum 'l-foot liigh Italian cypress ar minimum 15-gallon size broad headed trees shall be planted by the developer along the entire southern property line including the area at the southerly terminus of "B" street. The trees shall be aliqned with the second story windows of the new dwellings so as to minimize visuai intrusion of the existing single-family dwellings adjacent to the south property line. These trees shali be maintained by the developer until such time as the Homeowner's Association OS-17-98 Page 28 becomes responsible for these required trees. It shall be the responsibility of the Homeowner's Association to inform all affected hc~meowners that these trees shall not be removed or trimmed by the individual homeowners. That the individual property owners shall be responsible for the maintenance of the front yard areas adJacent fo Haliiday Street. It shall be the responsibi.lity of the Homeowners Association to ensure proper maintenance of these yard areas in the event that the individual property owners do not satisfactorily compiy with this requirement. That a rnafntenance covenant identifying compliance with condition nos.13,15,16, 17 and 18, above-mentioned, shall be submifled to the Zoning Division for the review and approvai of ihe City Attomey's Office. The covenant shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. A copy of said covenant shall be provided to all initial and subsequent homeowners. That an unsubordinated covenant shall be recorded with the Office of the Orange Gounty Recorder agre2ing to provide the buyer of each dwelling unit with written information obtained from the school districts pertaining to possible overcrowded conditions and bus(ng status of the schools serving the dwelling unit. A copy of the covenant shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation. A copy of the recorded covenant shall be submitted to the Zoning Division. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant Ciry Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for TTM No. 15703 and the 22- day appeal rights for the balance of the items. DISCUSSION TIME: 42 minutes (3:18-4:00} 08-17-38 Page 29 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4054 Granted OWNER: Michael R.A. Bagguley, 701 Concord Street, Glendale, CA 91202 AGENT: Jack and Carol Cushing, 701 Concord Street, Glendale, CA 91202 LOCATION: 3000•3020 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 1.58 acres located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard. To permit 5 additional units (in existing floor area) for a total of 12 units within an 18,214 square foot commercial center. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NQ. PC98-130 w/staff • • e • • e ApplicanYs Statement: Jack Cushing, 701 Concord, Glendale, CA 91202: Stated he is representing the owner. He asked for a clarification on page 5, Condition No, 3, which states that separate water meters shall be provided for the new units. This is a building that they are separating into smaller spaces. They currently have one water meter. He did not know how they could install separate water meters. They purchased this property just over a year ago and currently have 40% vacancy. Condition No. 12 regarding the 13, minimum 15-gallon size trees. They have five or six large trees on the property. He feels these trees wili cause a visibility problem at this corner. He suggested planting 4-foot shrubs instead with a few additional larger trees. Condition No. 15. There does need to be work done on some trash enclosures but it is in the corner where they are going to put a donut shop. He asked for clarification on the timing of this condition. Condition No. 16, Caltrans has been at both Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue. 7hey spoke with Caltrans and thought they would be out in 6 months, can not be certain they will be out within that time. He suggested modifying the condition to read, that the applicant install their landscaping 30 days after Caltrans compieted their work. THE PUBLIC HEARIIvG WAS CLOSED. Chairman Bristol: Asked if he requires the tenants to operate 7 days a weeks, as stated in this letter of operatiun7 Jack Cushing: They do not require the tenants ta operate 7 days a week. The businesses include Fantastic Sams, a donut shop, DMV licensing and insurance, financial services/bank, tobacco store, toy store, Allstate Insurance, Numero Uno Piua, and religious shop. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked staff if they have a problem removing Condition No. 3, related to the water m~ters? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Condition No. 3 came from the Water Services Division. Condition No.10 should read, that prior to the operation of each business a valid business license would be obtained. 0&-17-98 Page 30 Condition No.12, thes~ trees can be clustered. They do not need to be 20-foot on center Commissioner Bostwick: He suggested installing Queen Palm trees which have less visual impairment to the center. They could group three to four palms together in a group. Cheryl Flores: Responded to Mr. Cushirg's concern about the timing of Condition No.15. The timing for that is prior to the issuance of a building permit or with a permit of one year. That they submit plans showing the requirements of Condition Nos.1, 2 and 3. Suggested adding a condition that would limit the number of stores to a maximum of 12 stores. Jack Cushing: Asked if they would consider a maximum of 13 stores? There is a tenant that has 2,400 feet and there is a possibiliry that it will be split in two units sometime nex: year. Commissioner Peraza: Stated Condition No. 4 addresses that. Commissioner Bostwick: The appticant could return at a later day to request the increase to 13 units. Jack Cushing: They have a need for 5 less parking spaces because the square footage is wrong, it should be 105.5 incre2se of 109, and they have 1 ~ 1 parking spaces. Chairman Bristol: Asked what is ihe length of thcse stripings? Jack Cushing: The person that did the striping in the front wanted to do them to begin with and he said he did not know if they were suFaose to have them back there. So he asked him to return and stripe in what is legal. Judy Kwok thought 14 parking spaces would be appropriate but when he received the bill it stated 16 spaces. Chairman Bristol: The striping was not done correcily. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and ~s, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4054 with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Deleted Condition No. 3 Modified Condition Nos.10 and 16 to read as follows: 10. That prior to the operation of each business, a valid business license shall be obtained from the City of Anaheim, Business License Division of the Finance Department. 16. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 7 and 14, above mentioned, shall be complied with. Added !he following condition of approval: 7hat pr,ior to the issuance of a building permit, final landscape plans shall be submittsd to the Zoning Division for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendatians item. Landscaping adjacent to the public right- of-way shall be installed ninety (90) days after completion of Caltrans improvements. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 26 minutes (4:07-4:33) 48-17-98 Page 31 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 8b. CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3703 (READVERTISED} Approved, as readvertised OWNER: Lewis R. Schmid,1725 S. Douglass Road, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Jason T. Schmid, 2610 E. Katella Ave., Anaheim, CA 92$06 LOCATION: 2610 East Katella Avenue - J.T. SchmEd's Restaurant. Property is 3.1 acres located at the southeast corner of Katelia Avenue and Douglass Road. To permit the 2,018 square foot expansion of an existing 14,000 square foot semi-enclos~d restaurant (previously-approved fior sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption) and to consider amendment or deletion of conditions of approval to allow the retail sales of beer (%: keg minimum size) manufactured on-site for off-premises consumption. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FtESOLUTION NO. PC98-131 SR7196KB.DOC • o • u~i•~.~ s • Investigator Tom Engle, Vice Detail, Police Department: J.T. Schrnid's operation has been outstanding. They have had not problems with them nor has CorJe Enforcement. Therefore, they support the applicanYs request. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved Conditional Use Permit No. 3703, as readvertised. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute 08-17-98 Page 32 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE ~ECLARATION Approved 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4051 Granted for 5 years OWNER: U.S. Sprint Communications Company, 901 E.104th Street, Kansas City, MO 64131 AGENT: R.H. (Hank) Sweers il, 712 Broadway, Suite 300, Kansas City, MO 64105 LOCATION: 1750 West Penhall Way - Sarint Switchina Station. Property is 1.03 acre located on the south side of Penhall Way, 670 feet east of the centerline of Crescent Way. To permit a 10,644 square foot 2-story expansion of an existing 13,165 square foot telecommunication switching station and to construct a maximum 65-foot high roof-mounted telecommunications tower to replace an existing 125-foot high telecommunication tower with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC98-13L SR7192TW.DOC • • • • • • ApplicanYs Statement: Hank Sweers, representing Sprint Communications: Stated they would like to extend the use beyond 5 years because Sprint has several hundred million dollars invested at this site and they are not intending to leave in 5 years. They would also like to move item no.11 from the before permit status to an after permit but before occupancy status. There is an easement for the electrical service and they are in need for the building permit before they can get th,eir legal and survey people to finalize that easement, they s:ill need to get the building underway as so.,n as possible. They would like to move that from the before permit to before occupancy permit. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: Based on the parking study, they recommend the number of employees be limited to 20 due to the number of parking spaces that they are providing. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Staff requests that a condition be added that the existing tower will be removed upon activation of the equipment on the new tower. They had a question for the applicant regarding a construction trailer that is on the site now, what is it being used for and the timing for the trailer. Hank Sweers: It is there at the site in the anticipation of getting the construction underway. Cheryl Flores: It will require a permit through the Building Division to be there during construction. Chairman Bristol: Asked staff if there was a problem with the applicanPs request on the variance? Alfred Yalda: Stated that was no problem as long as they keep the number of emoloyees to 20. Cheryl Flores: As clarification a condition could be added to limit the maximum number of em~loyees to be 20 to go along with the 26 spaces. Hank Sweers: After this development they can not add any more at that facility. OS-17-98 Page 33 Commissioner Bostwick: Asked if they could put something else in the top of the building other than a lattice tower on the top of the building. Hank Sweers: They are trying to install a monopie on the side of the building. They are trying to find a location at the side of the building. They are looking at two locations in order to add that tower to the side so the existing antenna can simply be relocated over the other point. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Cammission may wish to ask for final desisn review under a report and recommendation for the actual design of that replacement tower. Cheryl Flores: It is staff s understanding that the existing tower will be removed and that a new tower will be placed on the roof of the second story building not to exceed 65 feet in height from the ground. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Deciaratiun Approved Waiver of Code Requirement for minimum number of parking spaces requiring 26 parking spaces as recommended by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager with the understanding that there shall be a maximum of twenty (20) employees at this site. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4051 with the f~llowing changes to conditions: Medified Condition Nos.15 and 16 to read as follows: 15. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13, above mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for fu~ther time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of tha Anaheim Municipal Code. 16. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 4, 6,11 and 14, above mentioned, shall be complied with. Added the following conditions: That the existing lattice tower shall be removed upon activation of the equipment on the new tower. That plans showing the final design of the 65-foot high telecommunications tower shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. That subject facility shall be limited to a maximum of twenty (20) employees. That within thirty (30) days of the date of this resolution, a permit shall be obtained from the Building Division to permit the existing construction trailer. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (4:35-4:45) (Commissioner Peraza left affer the action of this item. j 08-17-98 Page 34 10a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 322 Certified 10b. RECLASSIFlCATION 98-99-04 Granted 10c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 10d. CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4034 Granted 10e. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0. 97-187 Approved OWNER: Plaza Properties, LLC,13031 Newport Avenue, Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92780 AGENT: John Killen, A.I.A.13031 Newport Avenue, Suite 200 Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION: 1500 South Douglass Road - Arena Corporate Center. Property is 24.5 acres located on the east side of Douglass Road, 1,080 feet nonh of the centerline of Katella Avenue. Reclassification No. 98-99-04 - to reclassify this property from the RS- A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone to the CO (Commercial Office and Profe~sional) Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 4034 - to construct a 982,000 square foot commercial mixed-use center consisting of a 290,000 square foot, 10- story office building, two 180,000 square foot (each) 6-story office buildings, a 160,000 square foot 4-story office building, a 5,000 square foot day care facility, a 7,000 square foot restaurant, a 200-room, 160,000 square foot hotel, a 3-level parking structure, and a 4-level parking structure, with waivers of (a) minimum landscaped setback adjacent to the south and east (interior) properly lines and (b) minimum parking lot landscaping. Tentative Parcel Map No. 97•187 - to establish a 9-lot commercial subdivision for a 982,000 square foot commercial mixed-use complex. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. PC98-133 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC98-134 SR6892DS.DOC FOLLOWING IS ~A SUMMAf~Y OF THE PLANNING.GOMMISSIQN ACTION.. • THE FOLLOWING IS A DETAILED SUMMARY OF THIS ITEM. ApplicanYs Statement: John Killen, representing Bernett Polygon Development and Plaza Properties (the land owner for the proposed Arena Corporate Centre Project): Stated he will be giving a 20-minute presentation. Their design team was present, including iheir architect, traffic engineer and their counsel who may be able to address questions regarding some items that came up during the Commission's morning session. Mr. F3urnett, the property owner, will close the presentation. They have been working with staff for about 15 months who have assisted them in getting the project to the point it is today. 08-17-98 Page 35 Presentation The site is a 24.5 acres wi;h the frortage alonc Dougiass Road being removed. They are p; oposing an 810,000 square foot project with 4 office buiidings; 2 parking structures, one to the north and 1 to the south; a child care faciliry; a restaurant and a 200-room hotel. The parking structure to the south is intended to be buiit in 2 phases with an ultimate buiid-out of 2,775 parking stalls. The north structure, about 790 parking stalls will be primarily market driven. They have received indications from the brokerage community that the 4 per 1,000 ratio is more fitting for this site. This site !o the west is Douglass Road; to the south is the Arena; to the east are the parking areas for the Arena, and to the north are the ra~lroad tracks and the equestrian center. They have one main access point, which they are currently cailing Arena Centre Drive, and to the northwest they have access point and a potential access point to the northeast which wouicl lead out to Phoenix Club Drive and ultimately to Ball Road. He brought an exhibit at the request of the Planning Department and Traffic Engineering showing site lines and how the project would be viewed from the southbound 57 freeway. Model: View No. 1, is southbound on the 57 fwy. which shows the corner of their site and the 4-story building. Moving southbound View No. 2 shows the Arena. There is a bridge that crosses Cerritos which is View No. 4. View No. 5 and 6 are just continuing on down the freeway. Approximately 400 to 500 yards down pass the bridge wculd provide a full view across the site to the Arena as it appears today. Site Plan: He pointed ou; the scale of the buildings. The two buildings in the middle are both 6-story. On the rendering they are depicted by the building ~n the left. There is a central court formed with the 10- story building in the background. They have essentially taken the base of the project and stepped it down towards Dou~lass Road. In the northwest corner is a 4-story office building. Regarding setbacks they have allowed along the Douglass frontage 25 feei; along the soutfi frontage of the parking structure it varies from 32 to 37 feet within which there is a 20 foot fire lane. They have received indications from the Fire De~artment that they would like the fire lane adjacer.t to the building and the Planning Uepartment would prefer to see landscaping there which created the condition for the waiver. They do have the 12 foot landscaping minimum in addition to the 20 foot fi~ :. lane. Thsre is about an 18 to 20 foot wall on the property line which actually runs on the south edge and then along the easterly edge all way up to the north. On the east side of the parking structure they have a fire lane. The way the parking structure steps along khat side, ihe landscape area varies from a minimum of 12 feet to r,~aximum of 50 feet. Phasing Plans: In Phase ? is a 6-story office building with a 790 car parking structure. The groundbreaking on the 6-story is anticipated to be November ! 998 and it is planned to be available for use by November 1999. The Parking structure we~ld be operational at the same time as well as the improvements. The main entry drive and circulatiun access across the site, the pads available for the hotel, restaurant and child day care center will be devel~ped concurrently along with the balance of the site improvements. Essentially, a Phase 1-B would be the 4-story office building. They would also provide a surface parking area to the south, temporary parking, as i'. would become the staging area for Phase 2 and the future parking structure. Phase 2 is to begin December 1999 and be completed in one year. li consists of the first phase of the parking structure and the second 6-story which is essentially a sister building to the first 6-story buiiding. Phase 3 is the completion of the parking garage and the completion of the 10-story building •i year later. So they are looking at a December 2001 completion on lhose. Pedestrian Circulation on-site: At completion there will be a main north/south pedestrian access that would run along the front of the two 6-stury builc+ings and allow pedestrians to circulate into the main courtyard area. There will be an auto court with a wat~r feature in it arid is on access with the main entry coming through the project. The pedestrian way would be across the front. They pulled the Phase 2, 6- story building back to allow an additional 25 `eet of courtyard and pedestrian area. '~here is a seccnd pedesrrian way coming to the north and sou,.h which will ultimately connecl the two parking structures at 08-17-98 Page 36 the ground plan. Around the restaurant site there is a pedestrian access w-hich would ~un from the restaurant frontage out to the 4-story, ihen out to the street. Parcelization: They have divided the site up essentiaily a parcel for each component. Therefore, the 2, 6- stories stands alone on a parcel, the'.0-story stands alone on a parcel as are the 2 lots for sale, restaurant, hotel and child day care. The 4-story and the parking structure are on separate parcels. Cammissioner ~Nilliams: Asked if their parking is taking in consiceration the requirements af the hotel as well? John Killen: The parking is adjacent to the hotel and their total number does include the 200 roams. In fact they have that over Code at 250 spaces for 200 rooms which allows for some small food and beverage component, employee and meeting area parking. It is not intended to be a full service conference type hotel with large banquet or meeting rooms. Commissioner Williams: Asked whether they are physically going to build a hotel and "farm" that out to a chain? John Killen: '•'es, they are office developers and that would be a site that is made available to a hotei developers. They do consider approximately 105 to 110 cars directly on the surface, around the office bGilding itself and the balance of 150 cars would be in the structure. They are anxious to move forward with the project and have their architects working on construction ~iocuments now for the first ~tiase. On the elevatians they are intending a GFRC which is a glass fiber re- enforced concrete finish at tf ~e bottom 2-stories of the building, a plaster type system on the upper levels toward the back, in the rear is the mechanical equipment system tully screened and roofed. They have g!ass elements that pick up some of the architectural features of the Anaheim Arena. They feel it is a stunning G~ilding and would like to take some of the entrance features and some of the access elements and integrate those to get the projects to tie toge~her architecturally. Lighting Element: The accent lighting features that are around the arena now would be carried down Douglass. 'fhey would use the same street liyhts, the same "cobra" style parking lot fixtures in their main parking areas and they would pick up the same IandscapA aesthetics down the street with use of the palm trees and the shrub planting. Mark McGuire, attorney with Hewlett and McGuire, 19900 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 150, Irvine, CA: Stated he wanted to discuss the school district issue. There were two letters from the high school district. They did not receive any comments letters from the elementary school district. He does not want to he insensitive tv school facilities and school facilities financing issues, nor does his client, Burnett Polygon. School facilities financing is a complicated issue invoiving all levels of government. They do not think it is a CEOA issue so much as a socio-economic pol~cy issue. It would only be a CEQA issue to the extent that the project is likely to iead to indirect or direct student impacts that would in tur~ lead to physical impacts on the environment such as the need to design whole new schools. That is the la' ;st case law on school facilities under CEQA. He understands it is not the position of the school district but they do believe the let!er received does not reflect the la!est thinking in the caae law. The Sportstown EIP. reflected the current thinking as well, that is that you htwe to lead to physical environmental consequences for it to rise to a CEQA significant impact. On the issue of the policy, the Sportstown EIR dia note, virtually no city or county in Southern California imp.~ses school facilities financing on commercial projects beyond the statutory fee. They will be paying a stat. . y fee per square foot which is the appropriate amount in this case. The first letter which was responded to in detail in the EIR's Response to Cumments document. It seemed to assume that every employee would bring their students to the school district because they want to briny their students to the district within which they work and not within the district where they live. That is the first time ~7e has seen that in a comment letter from the school district. It is not a typical position. In fact, in the school districYs own fee study they assume just the opposite. They calculate the number of students that they would expect to be indirectly generated by commercial projects as a result of 08-17-98 Page 37 that portior; c'~at tt y think would move to the City of Anaheim, relocate and have students based on where they live ~ not where they work. The school district letter grossly over estimated the number of students that wo~~~d be generated by the project. In the Response to Comments documents they reviewed their fee study and the number of students that would be generated based on their own assumptions and fee study would be fewer than they calculated, as a conservative estimate, as part of the EIR documents. This is in the Response to Comments document and explains how they would arrive at an even lower number if they used their own fee study as a basis for analysis. The second letter, points to the two nearast schools (junior high and high school) from the project site and states that those two sch~ols are over capacity and they would have an impact on those schools. That is an assumption that the employees would somehow be bringing their children to the nearest school to the project. Again, they do not see that as a realistic assumption at all. At worst case, and as analyzed in the EIR, fhey assume that they would indirectly result in some employ?es relocating to Anaheim and that those employees wouid live somewhere within the City of Anaheim, probabiy use a number cf the schools In the high school districYs comment letter they listed 8 juniar high and high schools. Of those 6 of their schools at the junior high school leve! are not at over capac~ty, two of them are and also at the high school level 6 are shown to have capacity and two of to be over capacity. They disagree with some of the assumptions of the school districYs letter. Lyn Burnett, Burnette Polygon, 13031 Newport Avenue, Suite 200, Tustin, CA: Stated in a letter dated August 13, 1998 from Vestar Development Company representing Mike Moore and Tejas Partners was fo~rvarded to Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner, that Vestar Development is generally in agreement with their proposed development, they have requested a 2 to 4 week continuance of this item to allow Vestar Development time to study, deveiop and presen; a plan for a retail project on the west side of Douglass Road. The proposed project is a result of 15 months of concentrated effort and a multitude of ineetings. Their team of consultants have worked closely with Planning Department, Traffic, Engineer and the Police Department to define and understand and solve area issues. They have provided an open forum for the discussion of these issues. They have solicited and received input from tne Pond management, Disney Sports Enterprises and previewed this plan with Mr. Moore of Tejas Partners nearly a year ago. A continuance of this hearing would not only represent an unfair and costly delay, it w~uld serve no useful purpose. A thoughtful and comprehensive plan of development from the Tejas site could not be completed in 2 to 4 weeks. They request thaF Commission take action today in approving the project. Chairman Bristol: For the record, Mr. Burnett submitted a letter to Commission just prior to the meeting a~d echoed what he stated in his testimony. There were also some additional conditions that were given to Commission prior to the meeting. Public Testimony: David Rose, the Regents Group, 38~0 La Si,:rra Avenue, Suite 193, Riverside, C.4 92505: Stated they are not against this project either as a consultant or on behalf of Mr. Moore who owns Tejas Partners Limited. They are very much in favor of this project but they just have some concerns that, in Mr. Moore's opinion, have not been addressed yet. The Tejas Partners parking lot is the triangular piece of property just north of the site that the City acquired from the County, in auction, known as the site that serves hot chocolate, coffee and Toosie Rolls after the events at the Pond. There are three issues. The first issue, Mr. Moore happens to be the only private parking lot operator in the City. When they obtained the right to lease that property approximately four years ago, it was their full intention to take that use to the hiyhest and best use which is some type af cammercial development. Mr. Moore has had discussions with himself as well as other entities in and aboui the City of Anaheim for approximately 3 years. Although Mr. Moore did see the plans about a yep • ago with Mr. Burnett, there were certain issues that he was unaware of until recently. He was an vacation and received a letter, which in turn he (~avid Rose) received a call on Saturday, August 8th ii~forming them of a meeting at the 08-17-98 Page 38 Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim with City staff, Bumett Polygon Development, staff as well as the Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim staff. At that meeting, they were presented with some information which addressed some of the issues from Mr. Moore's concem. When he commented on the EIR it brought up additional concems that he has given the future viability of his property. In reference to any and all proposals that may involve Vestar or any other developer but strictly given the aspect of operating a parking lot. The first issue is regarding event parking. The proposed project does not include the provision for event parking and that a separate CUP will be required, Condition No. 29. His question is clarification whether this is a readvertisement or new CUP specifically dealing with event parking? He assumes that it would be a separate CUP. Since Mr. Moore is the tenanUleasee of the property, he is to be duly notified in care of Mr. Michael Moore, Tejas Partners Limited, at 4748 Katella Avenue, Suite 206, Orange, CA 92867, regarding that CUP. During events there are several people who cross the street from the off-site parking and Mr. Moore's concern is that if there is not a collaboratiun of ali the inferested parties with traffic (with John Lower, Alfred Yalda and the other various other properties involved) the consensus may not be there and they do not want to exacerbate the existing problem. The second issue, there is a provision for intersection lights located a third of the way down north of the railroad tracks. In the meeting they were informed by the Director of Public Works that at present there is only going to be one allowed by Code. Mr. Moore's concern is, at present, if that was to go through to his property and have an intersection there that basically allows for about 11,000 square feet north of his property, he is on a triangle,.that would leave 11,000 square feet of useable space. He has about 330,000 square feet on his property. If he chooses to develop it, he basically has 97% of this lot, to the south of the light which is restrictive. Mr. Moore is concerned with his existing p~operty rights. What is the highest and best use of his praperty. He is concerned because there is a developer who is walking in and that he is not going to be able to obtain the best use for his property in the future. One of the conditions of approval for the Burnett Polygan site would be the provision for an overhead sign directing traffic. Both Mr. Moore and Mr. Rose have been unable to find that condition and asked for someone to point it out to him. They are in favor of the development. It will provide TOT tax, which the City needs to the Disney bond revenue as well as assist in the office market in this part of town. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, Traffic Engineering Division: The condition Mr. Rose was referring to is on page 6 of the Arena Corporate Centre-Mitigation Monitoring Program Measures, the 5th item down on that page. It states, pri~r to the issuance of the first building permit or as apGroved by the City Engineer, an overhead changeable siQn bridge shall be installed on Douglass Road, north of Katella Avenue to assist in segregating the event patrons from employee/visitors of the Arena Corporate Centre. Joel Fick, Planning Director: A question was raised whether there would be a new conditional use permit or readvertisement for a proposed parking program and it would be a new conditional use permit. Commissioner Bostwick: 'fhey should also receive notification with a 300 foot radius. They notify residents in three ways, the State la~v requires two of three; posting of the property, legal notice in the newspaper and mailing to residents within 300 feet of the project. The added request in this case was since the commentator is a lessee of the property that they be notified as well. Their encouragement would be that the applicanf work with the lessee and inform them of the plan in advance of the proposal er concurrently working with the City on the application. Staff made every attempt with having scoping meetings that were advertised in the newspaper, notice of preparation, hearing processes and did everything they could to make sure everyone knew about this, held meetings outside of typical course of meeting. They would also attempt to do similar notifications with the parking program in the future. John Killen: They intend to worl< very closely with Tejas Partners and their developer for their site. As things move forward they have been a party to several meetings with them already and he did not believe notification would be an issue. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 08-17-98 Par~e 39 Commissioner Bostwick: Regarding the traffic signal at Arena Corporate Way, asked whether the City has any plans to change the traffic flow. Presentiy the City lot on the old transfer site and the Tejas property, everyone comes together at the driveways and many people cross the street when the P.olice stop the traffic. Asked there was any proposai to correct the traffic pattem? Joel Fick: They have had many discussions on that. The City as weli as Commission's interest enter dramatically in making sure that access and the parking situation for the Pon~ certainly is not diminished, biit hopefully is enhanced after this development occurs. There has been much discussion on that very point with the Public Works Directors and the Traffic Engineer. By having a traffic signal there does provide an additional avenue that presently does not exist providing a crossing opportuniry for some of the patrons. It will be manned by the Police Department during events as well. Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner: The Mitigation Monitoring Program also has the requirement to finalize the draft traffic management p~an tha! includes everyth~ng from lane assignmenls, to assignment of emptoyees, to how everything is structured during events. So that is something that wiil be required prior to an issuance of a building permit. Alfred Yalda: Staff has been working with the Police Department and the developer to finalize the traffic manage:nent plan prior to issuance of the first phase of the building permit. There are several phases to this project. Obviously, one plan is not going to work, it has to be continuously evaluated and changed accordingly. They are prepared to do for the first one and whenever the phasing change or circumstances change then they would be adjusted accordingly. Commissiorier Bostwick: Asked ~~vhere the traffic light is in the phasing and at what point is that required? Alfred Yalda: The first phase of the building permit. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked Mr. Rose if he felt that c~ives them enough assurances that the traffic mitigation plan, etc. that this is going to give them time rather than having a continuance? David Rose: The issue for Mr. Moore has been that he has been very concerned that he does not know what is going to happen. His concern was to look at that from a technical aspect not knowing what was going to happen. If he ever does develop this site and the only signal that is going to happen between Katella and Arena Center Drive is that one, you're left with 70% of the distance ali the way to Katella and potentially another commercial development, not to mention the aspect of going into lot. Lot 3 would be the access to the Ogden owned and nperated facility for the Arrowhead Pond. So the majority of the traffic coming to thP site is actually coming off of Katella. Mr. Moore's concern is in order to address that technically, he has not done that, on his advice because he did not know if the request for the continuance would granted and that would not be done over the last week when he found out about it. Vestar did have their internal staff review it and was wanting to do some other design aspects, but that is for a developmeni ihat ma~~ or may not happen in the future. To answer Commissioner Bostwick's question, it provides some comfort but if it happens it may happen; but if it does not happen it may not happen. So there is still a concern there. Mr. Moore is very concerned about his property; not as a parking lot operator but potentially as a commercial ~evelopment and is very concerned if he only develops some portion of his site it is going to have to be that tail end site and that light is going to be dic;ating how he develops his property. Three percent of Mr. Moore's property is north of that and 97% of his property is south of it. Chairman Bristol: How long has Mr. Moore owned this property? David Rose: He has had a lease on it since 1993. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked Mr. Yalda about the corner of Cerritos and Douglass, with the widening of Douglas is there any proposal to soften that definite right angle, to make it more of a sweeping turn then what is there, in order to make the traffic easier to flow7 Alfred Yalda: They are going to look at that location but because the nther parcel, Tejas, has not come forward with a new development. At this time they can not do anything about it. As far as the event OS-17-98 Page 40 parking is concemed, it is definitely a part of the traffic management plan to make sure that everything operates properly and there are several conditions in the mitigation measures that will address every one of those driveways and how it is going to operate according. They have weekly meetings with the property owners and Police Department and get together and review the type of events and know what type of crowd and traffic is also anticipated and plan accordingly. Yes, there is a concern but there is a traffic management plan in place. Chairman Bristol: Asked if there was anyone present from the school district. (There was no response]. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: She added that the City of Anaheim does not have a general plan requirement that mandates mitigation of school impacts. Unlike the situation in the Hart-Mira-Murrietta cases, which school districts argue this point is still viable law, but the City of Anaheim is in a distinguishable position. As has been mentioned in connection with other projects the City of Anaheim provides many benefits to school districts that are over and above anything that is mandated by State law, in addition to the school fees that are provided by developers. A summary of these benefits was provided some years ago and these benefits are still continuing to be provided. The Community Development Department has provided much in the way of funds to school districts for school facilities from the increment moneys that the Redevelopmenf Agency obtains and it has worked with various school dis:ricts in identifying potential sites and continues to do that here and also to work with districts to identify grants that may be of assistance to the various districts. The Fire Department provides inspsction services and public education programs to the school districts, including providing materials for these. The Library Department operates in conjunction with many schools in assisting student, with homework. Parks and Recreation provides joint use of parks, and many programs. The Planning Department notifies schools of projects and new development and the Planning Department has always taken the position that khe primary impacts would be coming from residential developments. The Police Department has quite a number of programs including the D.A.R.E. programs and the various program such as crossing guards for the various schools that are over and above anything that is mandated by law. The Utilities Department has a number of programs that help school districts to maximize their resources with regard to energy saving facilities and providing free items where appropriate to assist the schools. She felt that summarized the benefits. Chairman Bristol: That is quite extersive. Alfred Yaida: Mr. Chairman, just adding to that the City has a school traffic safety committee which meets bi-monthly with all the school districts including elementary, junior high and high school and work very closely with them. To give you an example, they are installing a pedestrian traffic signal for Orangeview Junior High School. They are relocating the traffic signal on Dale and Broadway in front of Dr. Albert Schweitzer Elementary School. They provide them with installation of the sidewaiks. They also modified some of their signals for some of the school districts ti7at are changing the routes to the schools and they c~ntinue to work with them very closely. Tf~ese are ongoing programs that they have with them on a bi- monthly basis. They meet with them and go over all of their concerns. Chairman Br'stol: Thank you. Are there any other questions7 Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: Annika Santalahti with the Planning Department. As the applicant noted there were six additional conditions (listed on page 43 and 44 under the Actionj that staff has con!e up with in reviewing the report after they finished it. For the record, the applicant received a copy of the following ir,`~rmation: New Condition No. 40 would pertain to construction of the phases in a pattern that the first phase to begin 18 months zfter approval and thereafter the two subsequent phases commence within two years after completion of the prior phase and if the developer has di~culty meeting those phases, they can come back to the Commission and request a time extension which would allow Commission an opportunity to review these concerns. Commissioner Bostwick: Is that the sheet she passed out to Commission? This is marked 36, 37 and 38 but it should be 40, 41 and 42? oa-~~.ss Page ~l1 Annika Santalahti: Yes, it would be a new Condition Nos. 40, 41 and 42 in that case. No. 41 will pertsin to approval and accordance with the approved exhibits to the extent that any changes shail be reviewed and may or may not be approved. Condition No. 40 is that the parking requirements for each phase shall compiy with Code at the time of the phase being constructed. New No. 43 is one that you have seen a lot in other ite~s. That is regarding the water backflow equipment being constructed in a fashion that is visually screened from the public street when they have the pipes, etc. No. 44 requires installation of street lights along Douglass Road and that a bond be posted fn connection wi~h the first phase of development to guarantee completion in connection with the first phase. The final one fs no. 45, that the property is to be served by underground utilities. These conditions wili necessitate some modifications in nos. 37 and 38 which are the timing conditions. Commissioner Boydstun: Offered a motion for approval of Environmental Impact Report No. 322, as recommended in the staff report. Commissioner Bostwick: Second. Chairman Bristol: There is a motion and a second for approval of EnvironmPntal Impact Report No. 322. All those in favor say AYE? Commissioners: AYE Chairman Bristol: Opposed? (None) Motion is carried. Commissioner Boydstun: Offered a resolution approving Reclassification No. 98-99-04. Commissioner Williams: Second. Chairman Bristol: This is a resolution anci a button vote. Maggie Solorio, Acting PC Support Supervisor: Resolution passed with 5 yes votes. Commissioner Boydstun: Offered a motion approving Section 1, Nos.1841 and 1841.063, 030 and 040 which is the minimum landscape s~tback adjacent to the south and east interior property lines. Delete Section No. 2 which is which is the minimum parking lot landscaping. Commission Bostwick: Second. Chairman Bristol: All those in favor say AYE? Commissioners: AYE. Chairman Bristol: Opposed? (None.) Motion is carried. Commissioner Boydstun: 10(d) is Tantative Parcel Map No. 97-187 to establish a 9-lot commercial subdivision, motion to approve that waiver. Commissioner Soshvick: Second. Chairman Bristol: We have a motion to approve. All those in favor say AYE? Cammissioners: AYE. Chairman Bristol: Opposed? (None.) Motion is carried. Commissioner Boydstun: Offered a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 4034, with lhe 6 added conditions that Ms. Santalhati summarized into the record. Chairman Bristol: That is a resolution and a button vote. 08-17-98 Page 42 Maggie Solorio, Acting PC Support Supervisor: Resolution passed with 5 yes votes Selma Mann: The Planning Commission's action with regard tG ihe Tentative Parcel Map will be considered final in 10 days unless an appeal to the City Council if filed within that time. The Planning Commission's actions with regard to the balance of the items before the Commission will be considered final in 22 days unless an appeal to the Ciry Council is filed within that time. The Pianning Commission has approved certified Environmental Impact Report No. 322 subject to the findings as stated in the staff report and as indicated In the recommendation section of the staff report. The Planning Commission has approved Reclassificatiun No. 98-99-04. Pianning Commission has approved part 1 of the requested waivers and denied part 2, the minimum parking lot landscaping which was deleted and it has approved Conditional Use Permit No. 4034, subject the conditions of approval as summarized into the record by Ms. Santalahti. OPPOSITION: None/1 person spoke with concerns. ACTION: Certified Environmental Impact Report No. 322 Granted Reclassification No. 98-99-04 Appruved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement as follows: Approved Waiver (a) on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to this property consisting of size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity which would justify a variance from Code requirements; and, denied the waiver of minimum parking lot landscaping on the basis that it was deleted following public notification. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 4034 with the following added conditions: 40. That construction of Phase 2 shail commence nu later than two (2) years after the completion of Phase 1 and that Phase 3 shall commence no later than two (2) years after the completion of Phase 2. Any revisions to this schedule shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a"Reports and Recommendations" item subject to the provisions of Code Section 18.03.090. The Planning Commission may, at its discretion, set any such revision for a public hearing. 41. That, except as specified herein, all uses shall be specified on the approved exhibits. If additional uses or significant changes to the building footprints and square footages are proposed, new conditional use permit(s) may be submitted and approved for such specific use(s) and/or ~hange(s). 42. That the parking requirements of lhe Code shall be complied with during each phase of the project. 43. That the water backflow equipment and any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Utility Division in either underground vaul!s or behind the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets. The precise location and method of screening shall be approved by the Planning Department. 44. That street lights shall be installed along Douglass Road in locations specified by the ~lectrical Engineering Division and in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of the Utilities General Manger. Prior to issuance of the first 08-17-98 Page 43 5}k . . . . .. . ~..a~ . ~ .. . . ~ .. . ~ ~ , . ~ . ~ . ~ . .. ~ -. -. `` building permit, the street ifghts shali be installed or a bond shall be posted in an amount approved by the Electrical Engineering Division and a form approved by the City Attomey to guarantee installation prlor to final building and zoning inspection for the first dsvelopment phase. 45. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. Approved TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 97-187. VOTE: 5-0 (Commfssioner Peraza absent and 1 var.~nt seat) Selma Mann, Assistant Ciry Attomey, presented the 10-day appeal rights for Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-187. DISCUSSION TIME: 59 minutes (4:46-5:45) 08-77-98 Page 44 ~~ ~ ~:'< i~: MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:45 P.M. TO MONDAY, Al1GUST 31,1998 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Submitted by: ~ ~~ Ossie Edmundson ~°Senior Secretary 08-17-98 Page 45