Loading...
Minutes-PC 1998/11/23SUMMARY,ACTION A~ENDA GITY C~F ANAHEIM PLA~INII~G C0~lMISSION MEETING MQNDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1 ~~98 10:30 A.M. • PLANNII~G CJMMISSION PLAN READING WORKSHOP • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNlNG COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.M. • PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOSi1NICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, ESPING, KOOS, NAPOLES, WILLIAMS STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Greg Hastings Cheryl Flores Linda Johnson Don Yourstone Tom Engle Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Senior Planner Senior Code Enforcement O~cer Vice Detail Acting PC Support Supervisor Senior Secretary 1 11-23-98 Page 1 .. ITEMS OF PI,ISLIC INTEREST: None 1. REPORTS AtdD RECOMM~NDATIONS A. (a) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 311 (Previously-Certifiedl Approved (b) FINAL SIT~ PLAN N0. 98-14 - REQUEST FOR REVIE'JJ AND Approved APPROVAL OF A FINAL SITE PLAN: Walt Disney Gompany, Attn: John Graves,1401 Flcwer Street, Glendale, CA 91221-5020, requests review and approval of the Final Site Plan for The Disneyland Resort Specific Pian Theme Park, Hotel and Parking District setback areas adjacent to portions of Disneyland Drive and Ball Road. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, tha: the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified EIR No. 311 is adequate to serve as the requi~e,~ ~nvironmental documpntation for subject request. Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Site Plan (identified as Exhibits Nos.1 through 10 on file i+~ the Planning Department), based upon a firiding that the Final Site Plan is ir co~formance with The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1. SR7352DH.DOC t_inda Johnson, Senior Planner: This is a Finai Site Plan review for The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan Theme Park, Hotel and Parking District setback areas adjacent to portions of Disneyland Drive and Ball Road. The Walt Disney Company has submitted landscape plans and cross sections showing the proposed landscape concept for the 19 to 20 foot wide s:tback areas. Staff has reviewed the plans and d~termined that the plans have been prepared in conformance wi!h The Disneyland Rescrt Specific Plan Zoning and Design Guideline Requirements. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Final Site Plans. 11-23-98 Page 2 B, a) CEQA NEGATIVE ~~~LARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3711 - REClUEST FOR Approved Determined to be in DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CON"r"ORMANCE: Patrick substantial Fiedler, Fred Fiedler and Associates, 2322 W. Third Street, Los Angeles, conformance, but if CA 90057-1906, requests determination of substantial conformance to Code violations modify an existing freestanding sign. Property is located ~3t 5650 East La continue then the Paima Avenue - Texaco service station. this use permit will be set for ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by modification or Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City termination. Planning Commission does hereby determine that #he previously appraved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that subject request is in s~ostantial conformance with previously-approved plans based on the following: (i) That the proposed modification reduces the overall size c~f the sign. (ii) The sign as proposed reduces sign clutter by reducing the overall square footage and replaces a sign panei that is very visible from both a distance and up close, with one that is lower on the sign struct~ ~e and less visible from a distance. It was noted that if Code violations continue to exist on this property, the Planning Commission will set Conditional Use Permit No. 3711 for modificatior~ or termination. SR1082JK.DOC Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: This is a request pertaining to an existing freestanding sign. The request is to reduce a panel on the sign from 40Yz square feet to 28.1 square feek. Staffs recommendation is that Commission determine the specific request to be in substant~al conformance, however ihere have been some code violations on the property. Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer: As noted by stah's memo to ihe Commission, there have made numerous contacts and code violations at this address. M^st of them are regarding signage violation or outdoor displays. After their initiai contact and/or notice of violations or criminal citations that are issued, the applicant has come into compliance. Presently there is a van that the owner of the business keeps moving around at the shopping center to the south and west of his service station which advertises the car wash (for $3.95). Staff is currently working on that problem. Chairman Bristol: According to the staff report, it appears that there have been problems in the past but the current action will bring the property more into conformance th~an what has been the case in the past. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: There was a request pertaining to the same sign that was denied by the Commission on July 20, 1998. That was due to an intensification of the sign area on the non-~onforming sign. The current request will actually reduce the signage on the existing sign. Public Testimony: Isa Bahu, 5700 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA: Stated he is representing the AM/PM across the street from this site. The reason for the opposition is that as of now they have a rather large car wash sign. To go from that to a smalfer sign with the gas pricing which leads the consumer to be deceived 11-23-98 Page 3 _ . c. Y ~,.......i . . . . . .: ~ ~. . . . . . : f'..: ~ ~.. ~ . . . . . ~ , . ~ because it ends up having five gas prices on the sign and the car wash is far less expensive than anyone can sell gas for. Driving by at a glance gives the appearance that thefr pric(ng is less. Commissioner Bostwick: It is not Commission's purpose to ~et his prices or how he arranges the prfcing. Their purpose is anly to make sure that the sign square footage conforms. How he markets his product is his business. If it is dsceiving it is something entirely different. The words on the sign are not under thg Planning Commission's purview. Commission can apprave his sign as it is becauso it now confarms to what the applicanYs original approval. If the applicant continues to vioi~~te the code th~n he can request that his CUP be returned for a public rehearing before the Commission. Isa Bahu: Asked if they know whether in the State of California are they only allowed to post the four gas prices (unleaded, super, mid-grade and diesel) on the sign and not five? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: The State does regulate the requirements for gas station prices and signage. It is all very clear in the Business and Professions Code and that is regulated. It is separate from the issue that Commission has before it. Chairman Bristol: Commission's objective today was the size of the sign and it is in conformance with what Commission required. There was further discussion between Mr. Bahu and Commission regarding information on the signage and it was Mr. Bahu's opinion that the applicant is using deceptive advertisinc~. During the voting: Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Asked ii' they wanted a specific mention of the information in paragraph 12 to alert the applicant that the Commission has noted the pattern of continued violations and the possibility of modification or termination of the entire CUP may be something thac could be considPred in the future. Commissioner Bostwick: Yes, and asked if that would be conveyed to the owner in writing? Chery1 Flores, Senior Planner: They can make that a part of the decis:~n that is se~t to the applicant. Commissioner Bosiwick: Fle asked that it be put in writing to the owner indicating that if violations continued that Commission will review his entire CUP. Cheryl Flores, Senior Pianner: Confirmed that it would be done. 11-23-98 Page 4 C. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION {PREV: APRROVEDI b) CONDITIONAL US~ PERMIT NO. 4000 - REQUEST REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS: Kaufman and Broad, Attn: David Hutchins, 36 Technology, Suite 150, .rvine, CA 92618, requests review and approval of final landscape, fencing, building elevation, sigri locatior., playground equipment, and window treatment plans for a previously-approved 57-unit detached condominium development. Property is 112-218 South Broukhurst Street. Continued Ti om the Commission meeting of October 26,1998. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Corrmissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final landscaping, fencing, plans, buildirg plevation, sign location, playground equipment, and window treatmen: plans based on Commission's concurrence with staff that the final plans demonst~ate ~compliance with the corresponding conditions of appruval identified ir this report and in conjunction with this permit and based on the following: (i) That 24-inch box sized street trees be added in the parkway (right-of•~vay) planter adjacent to Brookhurst Street. Stre~t tree type and spacing shall be reviewed and approved by the Commi~:~~~y Development De~artment. Approved Approved N~ith the addition of 24"-box street trees in the parkway (right-of-way) planter adjacentto Brookhurst Street and the modification of the CC&R's to include the maintenance of the front yard landscaping by the homeowners association (ii) That the CC&F~'s be amended to include ihe maintenance of the front yards by the homeowners asscciation in that it was the Council's intention to have all landscaping vis?ble to public or private street~ be maintained by the association and not just the common area. SR6914DS.DOC Cheryl Flore~, Ser~:~r Planner: This was continued from the October 26th meeting for the petitioner to submit plans to come into compliance with all of the conditions of approval. Those pians have now been submitted. in paragraphs 15 through 20, that the plans do reFlect compiiance with conditions of approval. Staff is recommending approval of the final landscauing fencing, building elevation, sign location, playground equipment, and window treatment plans. She also asked that 24-inch boxed size trees be added in the parkway right-of-way adjacent to Brookhurst Street as a stipulation being thai they can not add a condition of approva~ on this. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if the applicant will stipulate to ihe 24-inch boxed trees? David Hutchins, Kaufman and Broad, 36 Tectinology, In~ine, CA: Yes, they will add them to the plans. Chairman Bristol: The rear elevations on the plans indicated units 1 to 5 and 26 to 38. Staff thought that it included ~ot 25 as ~vell. David Hutchins: The rear of lot 25 does not face the adjacent residentiai area. It is the side. They have enhanced all the elevations facing Brookhurst and all the elevations facing rear and side facing the southerly property line. The rear of lot 25 faces to the east. 11-23-98 Page 5 Chairman Bristol: Asked about the side facing the south elevationT David Hutchins: It is also many feet from the southerly property line, more so than the others. The side of that house will have the obscure windows as required and the side of that elevation is enhanced with window surrounds. There will be some siding visible, some outlookers, etc. There is siding visible in that side. !t is broken up with four different distinct roof lines. Siding, window surrounds and the window grids will also be utilized in the side of that house. They did not do the rear because it was the side of the house that faces the southerly property line that they were required to enhance. They also havP three of the screening trees in that side yard. This house will not be visible after a year. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: At the last meeting there were some concerns about the front yards and who would maintain them. At the morning session she read from the Cify Council meeting minutes of May 12, 1998, when the condition was placed on this resolution, some information that pertains to the condition: Major Daly stated that he shares Councifinember TaiYs interest and cancern relative to the front yards. He has looked at the Lynn Haven project where the front yards are close. If one resident does not maintain the property it ruins the whole landscape. Councilmember Tait thought that, aside from the maintenance issue, these are close quarters to have 50 d~fferent schemes going. David Hutchins: The front yards will not be maintained by the homeowners association. The CC&R's have a provision and regular monitoring by the Association Management Company which requires fhe homeowners to maintain their yards. Commissioner Bostwick: The Council's Condition No. 30 that stated "that all common landscaping including the comman pools, spas, cabana, tot lot area, excepting landscape not visible to the public and private streets shall be installed by the developer and shall be main;ained by the homeowners association." David Hutchins: Ttie "common area" beirg defined as that which is common to all homeowners maintained by the assoc~ation. Comr~~issioner Bostwick: The City's resolution stated that all landscaped areas/common landscaping sha'I 5e instailed and developed and maintained by the homeowners association. He understands they are going to install it but it needs to be maintained by the homeowners association. David Hutchins: They would ~° glad to put that in the CC&R's, if they wish, but it is not common area. Commise?oner Boydstun: It is not conmon but it is viewed from the public or private streets. David Hutchins: They would like to allow their homeowners to maintain iheir own front yards. They find it works quite well. Chairman Bristol: That is not the intent of City Council's decision and they wanted to make sure that the ap~'icant understood that. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked the applicant if he would stipulate to putting it in the CC&R's that the homeowners association maintain the front yards? David Hutchins: They have already submiited the CC&R's but would be glad to change them. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Alternatively, if the applicant wants to obtain clarification or modify the condition so it is absolutely clear that iF was not the intent to have the homeowners association maintain the froni yards, that could be done at a separate public hearing or as the applicant had suggested by changing the CC&R's. David Hutchins: He asked that in their response they clarify that it was the Council's intention to have not just the common area but all visible landscaping and the common area. 11-23-98 Page 6 ~ -- ._ .. F- D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2376. 2396. 2432 AND 2519 - Terminated REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Maris & Edward Vanags,1510 North State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806-1207 and R.S. Hoyt, Jr., Bryan Industrial Properties Inc.146 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801-1208, request termination of the following: Conditional Use Permit No. 2316 - to permit retail sales in the ML Zone (located at 1500 North State Coilege Boulevard). Conditional Use Permit No. 2396 - to permit a veterinary hospital in the ML Zone (located at 1540 North State Coliege Boulevard). Conditional Use Permit No. 2432 - to permit retail food sales in the ML Zone (located at 1506 No~th State College Boulevard). Canditional Use Permit No. 2519 - to permit retail furniture sales in the ML Zone (located at 1542 NoRh State College Boulevard). TERMINATiON RESOLUTION N0. PC98-183 7his item was not discussed. 11-23-96 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVEDj Continued to 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERI'dIT NO. 3269 (READVERTISED) 12-7-98 OWNER: Kyu-Ho Yun and Young S., 9982 Bixby Circle, Villa Park, CA 92861-4107 LOCATION: 501-509 South Brookhurst S!reet - The Ritz. Property is 1.92 acres located on the west side of Brookhurst Street. To amend or delete a condi;ion of approval pertaining to hours of operation at an existing publ:c dance hall with sales of alcoholic beverages for on- premises consumption Iocated within an existing commerciai center. Continued from the Commission meeting of October 26,1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. SR1086JK.DQC • e a • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the December 7, 1~98 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow additional time for the applicant to submit a noise study. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 11-23-98 Page S 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 3b. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 98•99-06 Granted, unconditionally 3c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 3d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4061 G~anted OWNER: Dong S. Kim and Myoung AI Kim, 969 La Paz Road, Placentia, CA 92870 AGENT: Hill and Hill Enterprises, Attn: Tim Hill and Dave Tanner, 1652 West Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 1652 West Lincoln Avenue - Chain Reaction. Property is 1.3 acres located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, 440 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Street. Reclassifiication No. 98-99-06 - to reclassify subject property fram the CH (Commercial Heavy) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. Conditic:~al Use Permit No. 4061 - to establish conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing commercial shopping center and to permit a 3,400 square foot public dance hall with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the Commission meeting of October 12,1998. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION td0. PC98-134 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC98-185 SR7357TN.DOC • a e • • • Aoplicant Statement: Nir. Chris Taylor, reprPSenting the Hill and Hill Enterprises,1652 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA (714} 9%2-4597: Thsy are in concurrence with the staff report, however, he ~sked for the following ciarifications: The Chain Reaction is operating today as a club that serves non-alcoholic be;~erages and provides live music. The request is to allow them to change from a"donor" program fo pay for the entertainmsn~, to an admission charge. The club would continue to operate as it has been operating and that they not go to a actual admission charge but will continue under the existing program until these conditions as identified have been meet. Condition No. 20 - They asked for clarification on this condition. They hoped that they would not have to start the process over and re-apply again in a year. Condition No. 4- Asked for a clarification on this condition. Condition No. 3- They asked for 60 days to comply with the refurbishment of the sign. Condition No. 2- They have a landscape plan. The 10-foot wide landscaped area and the 11 trees were a surprise to them but they certainly want to comply with it. They understood it was going to be an 8-foot wide landscaped planter, which would only remove one row of parking on the site. Going to a 10-foot wide landscaped plar,ter they couid very likely lose another row of parking (parking is 8-feet deep} or they 11-23-98 Page 9 would have to restripe the whole parking lut. In planting trees in that planter they couid plant 10 trees but they cpuld not figure out how to plant the last tree without making an odd spacing or not really doing the better job of landscaping. (He submitted capies of the landscape plan to Commission). THE PUBLI~ HEARING WAS CLUSED. Chairman Bristol: Asked staff to respond on tne issue of landscaping. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: The landscape plan submitted by the applicant shows 8-feet versus the 10-feet that staff had requested. However she felt it would be a significant improvement ir~ front of the establishment to provide the 10 trees and would also aesthetically improve the whole a~ea. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked the applicant if they would have 101 parking spaces with their landscape plan (121 spaces required but 101 are existing)? Chris Taylor: It would be 95 parking spaces with their landscape plan from the 101 because they loose one row of adjacent parking. When the landscape was added they went from 101 spaces to 95. If it needs to be 10-feet instead of 8-feet of landscaping then there is a possibility but they have not had a chance to review il because they just received the information. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: According ta the Tra~c Engineer he said 95 spaces would be sufficient if the applicant was to provide the landscaping. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked staff about the applicanYs request for a 12-foot fence. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: There would not ~e a problem with code having it 12-feet. It would be the same height as the building at the rear where the fence is being proposed which should work fine. Commissioner Bostwick: At the end of the year the applicant should only have the filing fees, and noE all the exoense that they experienced tFiis time. Cheryl Flores, Senior Pianner: She confirmed it is nut as expensive for the reinstatement Fee. Chairman Bristol: Asked staff to speak on the security issue that was discussed at the morning session. Tom Engle, Vice Detail - Police uepartment: They were concerned that the side area being used as an area for smoking is not lit. Therefore, he recommended that the applicant contact Code Enforcement and receive free lights that are available and have them installed on the side in the back of the property. Chris Taylor: He was in agreement. Tom Engle, Vice Detail - Police Department: He has not received any complaints about lheir operation and hoped that it would remain that way. Commissioner Boydstun: Suggested that contlition regarding the number of security guards would be with the approval of the Police Department. Commissioner Bostwick: A minimum of four security guards or as required by the Police Department. Chairman Bristol: Asked what the minimum age is for the customers? Chris Taylor: It is open to anyone because there is nothing here that happens that there is a cause for a restriction. However, if it is a concern of Commission then they are willing to accept some type of control on it. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked staff about the applicant's request for a 90-day period to refurbish the sign. 11-23-98 Page 10 Cheryl Fiores, Senior Planner: She saggested 60 days. Commissioner ~~stwick: Asked staff if there is a need for vines? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: If it is completely screened from the view of the street, the vines are not an issue. There is a chain link fence to the west, if that were screened with PVC, the trash enclosure would not be seen. If that were the case, the vines would not need to bo planted. Chris Taylor: The trash enclosure is masonry with closeable doors on it and it is located behind a chain link fence beyond ihat. It is more behind the unit on the west end. Chairman Bristol: Explained to the applicant ihat the one-year limit is standard for what the Commission typical approves. He suggested that the applicant look at improving the two lights they currently have on the building since it is a safety concern. Commissioner Bostwick: i2ecommended when the sign is refurbished that they instail lighting on the top of the sign thai would light the parking area towards the building. OPF'OSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration. Granted Reclassification No. 98-99-06, uncanditionally. Approved Waiver of Code Requirement for 95 parking spaces instead of ~01 as previously advertised on lhe basis that approval was recommended by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4061 with the fol~owing changes to conditions of approval: Modified Condition Nos. ~, 4, 7 and 22, to read as follows: 2. That a landscape and irrigation plan for subject property shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. Said plan shall include a minimum 8-foot wide landscaped and irrigated planter strip (with a minimum of ten (10), 24-inch box tress) to be installed adjacent to Lincoln Avenue where driveway openings do not exist. Any decision made by the Zoning Division regarding said plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission. 11-23-98 Page 11 . . , ... . ... _ .. ... .. €, l r 4. That trash storage areas shail be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the P~blic Works Department, Streets anc4 Sanitation Division and in acwrdance with approved plans on file with safd Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiabie from adjacent streets or highways. That the chain link fence surrounding the area shall be interwoven with PV~ slats. Said information sha11 be specifically shown on the plans submitted for Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division approval. 7. That at all times that dancing is permitted, adequa:e security measures shall be provided to deter unlawful cprduct on the p4~t of employees or patrons, or to prornote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, or to prevent disturbance of the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises. The business operator shall provide a minimum of four (4) security guards at all times ~r ~ny other number of securiry guards as determined appropriate by the .Anaheim Police Department. 22. That prior to the cor,~mencement of the activity authorized by this resolutian, Conditien Nos.1, 2, 4, 6,11,18, 19 and 21, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Added the following conditions: That Condition No. 3, above-mentioned, shall be completed within a period of sixty (60) days from the date oP this resolution. That the busines~ shall be operated in accordance witli the following rules as stipulated #o by the petitioner: 1. No one under the inFluence of alcohol or drugs will be admitted. 2. Absolutely no alcohol will be served or allowed. 3. No "In and OuP' privileges will be allowed. 4. No smoking within the premises. 5. No backpacks. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 48 minutes (1:50-2:38) 11-23-98 Page 12 9~~ !.'~~1::. . . . . ~.~'.~...~. . . . 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. WAIi/ER OF CODE REQUIREMEIdT 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4076 OWNER: ELVEE, Inc., 200 W. Midway Drive, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: J~m Marquez (Nextel), P.O. Box 1598, Redondo Beach, CA 90277 LOCATION: 200 West Midway,Drive - Anaheim Resort R.V. Pa~k. Property is 6.65 acres located on the south side of Midway Drive, 400 feet west of the centerline of Anaheim Boulevard. To per;r.it a 52-foofi high telecommunications monopole "palm" tree and accessory yround-mounted equipment with waiver of permitted encroachment into setback area. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to 12-7-98 SR7361TW.DOC • a • ~ o • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the December 7,1998 Planniny Commission meeting as requested by the applicant in order to allow enough time for him to provide staff with further information regarding the development of the proposed te~ecommunications facility. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick declared a conflict of interest) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 11-23-98 Page 13 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATlON (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED} Continued to 5b. CONDITIOPIAL USE PERMIT NO. 3843 (READVER7ISED) 2-17-99 OWNER: Shakour Cyrus, Yahya Cyrus, Lawrence Cyrus, 2600 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92801 LUCATION: 2600 West Lincoln AvQnue - Wheel Service 7exaco. Property is 0.29 acre located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Magnolia Avenue. To permit two separate businesses for one existing automobile sales and repair facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. • • • • • • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: It was corrected in the staff report but on the map it indicates to permit two separate business licenses. It should read "to permit two separate businesses:' Business licenses are issued by the Business License Division and not Planning Commission. ApplicanPs Statement: Yahya Cyrus: He felt their business is doing well. Don Yourstone from Code Enforcement conducts monthly inspections of their business. They are trying to do their best to comply with the conditions of approval. They have completed most of the items requested such as: 1) removing the tree stump, 2) fixing the sprinklers, 3) planting new plants on this east side of the building, 4) painting the wrought iron fence, 5) removing the cars from the property that he could not sell except for a non-operable 1956 Volkswagen and he is working on restoring it but he has been storing it inside, and 6) he is no~N working inside the building. Christopher Lee, 2767 W. Ball Road, Apt. 111, Anaheim, CA: He is applying for the second business, which wowd be at the same location. He is willing to comply with the conditions of approval. He is working on the problem of the trash enclosure with the landlord. Public Testimony: Judith Ann Gollette, representing WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development): They are opposed to allowing the two permits for this facility. The property is not big enough for the two businesses. ApplicanYs Rebuital: Yahya Cyrus: He is nat going to operate the new business. Mr. Lee will operate the repair part of the business and the car sales will be operated by himself. Chairman Bristol: How is the business of selling cars doing? Yahya Cyrus: It is not very good at the moment. He sells abuut two cars a month. The proposal will not affect the traffic in the area. Anne Lee, Christopher Lee's wife: She wanted to respond to Ms. Gollette's comments. There is nothing changing to the uusiness. It is only involving a separate license. 11-23-9~ Page 14 John Ceres (spelling not given): He lives near the business. He passes the business every day and does not feet there will be a problem in granting them a permit. The owner keeps his business inside the garage and the parking lot is not saturated with cars being sold. The property has been upgraded considerably. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Williams: When he drove by the property he noticed a repairman working on the brakes of a car outside the parking bay. Yahya Cyrus: He makes sure that the front of the car is inside and within the bay. Commissioner Williams: The car he observed was not inside at all and there was a car already in ihe bay. Yahya Cyrus: He was not aware of that and will make sure it does not happen again. Chairman Bristoi: Staff is requesting a continuance for three months in order to bring Code violations into conformance. Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer: He has spoken with Mr. Cyrus regarding the trash enciosure. Since the last Commission meeting he indicated that Mr. Cyrus assured him that he was going to move the trash enclosure to the west side of the property. It has not been done yet. Storing of an inoperable vehicle (the Volkswagen) on the property is a violation of the applicant's conditional use permit. He suggested a 90-day continuance to allow the applicant time to come into compliarice. Yahya Cyrus: Asked if the monthly inspections could be reduced to every other month. He is concerned with the expense of $56 monthly. Commissioner Boydstun: Thai was placed as a condition on the conditional use perrr~it in order to ensure that he would compiy with the code violations and he has still not complied. Therefore, it needs to continue on a monthly basis. Commissioner Bostwick: A:ked Mr. Lee if he understood that everything needs to be conducted within the building and there can not be any inoperable vehicles parked in the back? All the vehicles that they are working on need to be stored inside overnight. Mr. ~..ee: Yes, he understood. He assured Commission that if he is allowed to operate the business that he would comply with ali the conditions. This business is going to help him to support his family and therefore a violation is the last thing that he would want to do to jeopardize that. Commissioner Bostwick: Suggested a 60-day continuance to allow the applicant time to comply with the conditions of approval. He asked clarification from Ms. Mann. He understood they are allowed only one continuance under the new law. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: She recommended that they receive a concurrence from the applicant that he is willing to waive or extend the "Permit Streamlining AcP' deadline for the maximum amount of time which is 90 days pending resolution of these issues by the Planning Commission and the applicant. She suggested that the request be in writinc~ from the applicanl. The City is required under the Permit Streamlining Act to issue its decision on the matter within a certain period of time and this extends that period of time for the decision to be made. It is within the Planning C~mmission's authority to decide the period of time the applicant will be granted. Commissioner Williams: Does that mean the applicant can not receive any further extensions? Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Right. There can be no further extensions oF the Permit Slreamlining Act. 11-23-98 Page 15 Commissioner Williams: Explained to the applicant that if he receives an extension that is the last one he can be ~~I~•~ved to have. Yahya Cyrus: He acknowledged that he understood. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked how many automobiles he inte~ded to sell at this location. Yahya Cyrus: He was permitted four cars to be displayed in the front oF the business. Commissioner Bostwick: Approximately four to six weeks ago he noticed that there were six to eight cars. They all had "For Sale" signs on the windows. Yahya Cyrus: There are a maximum of four cars on display, the rest are customer cars. He asked whether he can store the tow truck in the back of the building at night because of possible vandalism? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: The tov~ truck was not part of the original approval. It was unclear whether or r:ot the Commission had given him the privilege of having the tuw truck park behind the service station and asked for a clarification from Commission. Chairman Bristol: He was concerned with the size of the property versus all the uses. He felt it is a vey small property for all the uses. Yahya Cyrus: One night he parked the tow truck on the street and the following day he discovered it had been stolen. It was located three days later by the Police Department. Commissioner Williams: As long as he parks it inside ths fenced area at night then there is no problem. Chairman Bristol: He agreed but made it clear to the applicant that he should not have any inoperable vehicles on the property. Commissioner Bostwick: Offered a motion for a 90-day continuance (to February 17, 1999), seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and motion was carried. Commissioner Boydstun: Emphasized to the applicant that by law Commission can not grant the applicant any more time to comply with the conditions of approvai so it is very important that he come into compliance wiihin the 90-day period. Commissioner Bostwick: Suggeste~ to Mr. Lee that he have r~ good plan and a business agreement as to who is responsible for what, when and where on this property so there will not be problems in the future. Selma PAann, Assistant City Attorney: Explained again to Commission about the Permit Streamlining Act. They can certainly continue this item for 30 or 90 days or whatever amount of days they wish. The applicant and the City are extending by mutual consent the Permit Streamlining Act, which can only be done for one time for 90 days. It is a separate issue from how long they continue this hearing for. Since it takes effect January 1, 1999 and it is almost December, she is notifying Commission c,f the changes so that they do not get caught in a situation where the rules have changed midstream and they do not have that extension of the Permit Stre~mlining Act. For purposes for the Permit Streamlining Act they can have a 90-day extension of the total time that the City has to make its decision but Commission can decide to continue it however long they wish and that is c~mpletely unrelated to the Permit Streamlining Act except that all those continuances would be added up fi figuring how much time had elapsed. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked hypothetically if the applicant was given 60-days and then the applicant needed more time, would 90 days start with January 1 st when that !aw comes into effect or would it start when they started this application? 11-23-98 Page 16 Selma Mann, Assista~t City Atto^±e~: She su~gested goi~g to the more conservative period of time that had elapsed For this particui~r app~lication. IN FAVOR: 1 person spoke in favor of subject proposai. OPPOSITIQN: 1 person spokE~ in opposition to the subject proposal. ACTION: Continued subject request to the February 17,19~J9 Planning Commission meeting in order to give su~cient time for the applicant to correct the Code violations currently existing on his property. VOTE: 7-0 D(SCUSSION TIME: 27 minutes (2:43-3:10) 11-23-98 Page 17 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVEDj Approved 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2750 (READVERTISED) Approved, as readvertised for 2 years OVyNER: Hanford Hotels LLC, Attn: Donald Sadaro, 4 ~orporate Plaza, Suite #102, Newport Beach, CA 92660 (To expire 11-23-00) AGENT: ABCS, Attn: Anne Fox, 28782 Via Buena Vista, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 LOCATION: 201 North Via Cortez - Hanford Hotel. Property is 2.81 acres located on the west side of Via Cortez, 930 feet norih of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road. To permit the complimentary service of alcoholic beverages in meeting rooms within an existing hotel. CONDITI~NAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N~. PC98-186 SR1084JK.DOC jCommissioner Bostwick declared a con/lict of interest.] ApplicanYs Statement: Anne Fox, Hanford Hotels: The only concerns they have with the conditions of approval is Condition No. 19. It is related to some unpremitted antennas. There is a separate lease arrangement with a company called PageNet that her client has a ieasing arrangement for and acquired at the time that they took over ownership of that particuiar hotel site. They were unaware at the time the PageNet had not acquired those permits. It is her understanding that PageNet made some efforts with the Planning Department to find out what the planning requirements are and get that approval. They are going to attempt to come in for their building permits on November 24th and hope to be under construction by December 10;h. So that will comply with all the requirements within 30 days. Asked if ihey commence construction within 90 days would it be considered compiiance wiih the requirement or do they need to add language to Condition No. 27 to make allowance for staff to recognize that they are trying to make efforts to correct a code violation? Condition No. 24 - There seems to have been a miscommunication. She had a follow-up telephone conversation with a member of the Planning staff after they submitted the application. She thought that she was clarifying what rooms alcohol could be served. It appears to have been interpreted that it would only be occurring in meeting rooms in Building B when in fact this type of license is very restrictive. A Type 70 license only allows on-sale consumption and is specifically tied to be a being a hotel yuest. No one from the general public is aliowed to walk in. It is a restriction put on them by the State of California. There is a small meeting room on the first floor of Building C and there is also the lobby area where there is a fireplace and small setting area in Building A. Particularly with Building A, it is typical for them to ~~~~ and operate a complimentary happy hour. It is run generally after check-in time and operate it for ab:°;a.". two hours. She asked if they could tie it to the serving of food, which would be self-service. They have done that at other locations. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Tom Engle, Vice Detail - Police Department: They had this also come up with the Marriott Suites and they went along with it to a point which was that it be supervised. They have them make sure that there was 11-23-98 Page 18 an employee there to make sure that the person that was picking up the alcoholic beverage was in fact 21 years or older. If this is going to be a happy hour for sale or free then they are not really executing an on- sale license. Therefore, technically they should be all right. Anne Fox: The alcohol is specifically tied to the room rate. It is a camplimentary service. It would actually have greater supervision if it were in the lobby because that is generally where there is always a full-time staff member. It w~uld be helpful to also have it supervised or monitored in the other meeting rooms away from the lobby or the viewing area of the lobby. Commissioner Williams: Asked if there are going to have mini bars in the rooms? Anne Fox: This type of license would also be for the controlled access cabinets Tom Engle, Vice Detail - Police Department: Indicated the Police Department wouid be concerned with teenagers having access to the alcohol in the cabinets. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: This request has been advertised for complimentary service of alcoholic beverages. if the alcoholic beverages were provided in conjunction for a meal that was served, staff believed that it would constitute a need for a conditional use permit. Anne Fox: They serve a brunch and there is no fee associated. She thought there was a miscommunication on a follow-up telephone call on this. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: It is covered under Condition Nos. 21 and 22. The Scenic Corridor antennas on the buildings are not allowed. A variance could be acquired. At one time there was a variance request before Commission, it was either withdrawn or terminated. The intent was to move the antennrjs within 30 days. Anne Fox: Asked if the omni whips are the problem for those particular types of antennas? The understanding they had was that they were coming back in with a panel type antenna to mount to the side of the building. Asked whether that was permitted or is the Scenic Corridor the problem? Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: If there is something mounted on the side of the building that blends in with the building then that is something that is actually a permitted accessory use. Anne Fox: If they came back with that typa of design then would they possibly be able to get approval for that? ~reg Hastings: Yes that would be a staff approval. Anne Fox: In th~ meantime would they need to take the omni whips off the top of the roof within 30 days? Greg Hastings: Yes, according to lhe condition. Cheryl Flores: Suggested on the Condition Nos. 25 and 26 that rather than "subject use" that it be clearly stated that the complimentary service of alcoholic beverages in the rooms sEated shall expire two years from the cJate of the resolution. OPPOSITION: None A~TION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved modification of Conditional Use Permit No. 2750 for 2 years (to expire November 23, 2000). Modified Resolution No. PC87-168 by adding the following conditions: 11-23-98 Page 19 ~ ;: T;: `::: .!:. . 19. That the three (3) unpermitted omni-antennas and related accessory equipment shall be removed uniess all Code required permits and approvals are granted to retain the same. 20. That if the outdaor patio adjacent to the meeting rooms is used for areas of service or consumption of alcoholic beverages, the patio must be modified to provide perimeter fencing and any other improvements required by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Controi (ABC). 21. That the service of alcohol shall be limited to hotel guests and participants of hotel events. 22. That permanent bar facilities and sales to the general public shall not be permitted. 23. That there shall be no cover charge or admittance fee for the service of complimentary alcoholic beverages. 24. That the complimentary service of alcoholic beverages shall only be permitted in the meeting rooms located in Buildings B and C, the lobby, and the patio area of Building B as indicated on Exhibit No. 6 for Conditional Use Permit No. 2750. 25. That the complimentary service of alcoholic beverages in meeting rooms shall expire two (2) years from the date of this resolution, on November 23, 2000. 11-23-98 Page 20 ~ .. ~ , , ~ . ' / i: s; ': 26. That the complimentary service of alcoholic beverages in meeting rooms shall be limited to that as indicated by the petitioner and as stipulated to in the staff report and letter of operation attached to the staff report dated November 23, 1998 on file wiih the Planning Department. 27. That Goridition No.19, above-mentioned, shall be completed within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution (PC98-186). 28. That the proposed complimentary service of alcoholic beverages shall be conducted substantfally in accordance wifh pians and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 6, and as conditioned herein, inciuding the complimentary service of alcoholic beverages in the lobby and the meeting rooms in Buildings B and C and on the patio area of Buiiding B. 29. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution (PC98- 186), or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 20 and 28, above mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete sa(d conditions may be granted in accordance wi:h Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipai Code. 30. That approval of this application constit~tes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or app; oval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirem2nt. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. pISCUSSION TIME: 14 minutes (3:11-3:25) 11-23-90 Page 21 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 4072 Granted for 5 years OWNER: Melville Associates, 3703 E. Melville Way, Anaheim, CA (To expire 11-23-03) 92806 AGENT: Barbara Sato, Nextel Communica!iens,17275 Derian Ave. #100, Irvine, CA 92614 LOCATION: 3703 East Melville Wav. Property is 0.79 acre located on the north side of Melville Way, 260 feet west of the centerline of Tustin Avenue. To permit a 60-foot high (to 65 foot 9 inches to top of mono-palm) teler,ommunications and a 200 square foot accessory ground-mounted equipment structure. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESQLUTION N0. PC98-187 SR7356KP.DOC FOLLOWING ISA SUMM~IRY OF THE PLANNINGCQMMISSION ACTION. ' ApplicanPs Statement: Barbara Sato, Nextel Communications, 17275 Derian Avenue, Irvine: She submitted two alternatives for this site. One is a"monopalm" where the antenna is disguised to look like a palm tree. The other is an antenna covered with ray-dome, which is the fiberglass panel on the outside of the antennas. According to code, if they were able to hide or screen the antennas they would go through an administrative approval process but the fact that they are not able to screen them is why they are before the Planning Commission. She is not clear what screening is because both of applications would screen the antennas. They did originally offered the ray-domes on the antennas to screen the antennas and were told that it was not sufficient through their pre-applicant process so they then proposed the palm tree. The facility sits back about 400 feet from the Tustin right-of-way so it is not right in the frontage and it is in the back of the secand building on Melville. It is an industriai park with a lot of foliage, in the area there are some monopoles that exist without any screening on the antennas. That is why she did not think their proposal was out of line when they first submitted it. One of the benefits of having the monopoles is that if another carrier came they could add their antennas to that monopole and thereby not having to install another monopole in the nearby area. If they build the palm tree as it is designed, it does not lend itself well to additional antennas by another carrier. So there are advantayes and disadvantages to either one of the designs. She recommended the following changes to the conditions of approval: 1. The size of their array - Kathie Pfost, Associate Planner, did some measurements off of lhe plans which indicated the antenna ray-dome were 12-foot, 9 inches, but it is actually about 14-feQt. 2. It states that they would be installing 15 panel antennas that are 4-feet tall and 1-foot wide. In speaking with their radio frequency engineer and he actually changed the antennas. They are slightly bigger (59 inches tall by 10 inches wide). (Submitted a handout to CommissionJ. 3. Condition No. 5- If the palm tree was to be approved, it references tne painting of the tree. They use a laminated wood pole, which is already brown so that there will not be any painting involved. The reason 11-23-98 Page 22 she brought it up is because they do not want to paint something that will not take paint well and already meets the intent of being colored to look like a tree. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Boydstun: She could not see why the located of this is such a problem and questioned whether it is really going to be seen from anywhere. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: This property is located in the Transit Corridor of the northeast area of Specific Plan. There will be a lot of rail tra~c along these lines. Staff feels that is an important area within the City. The more screening that they can obtain would be better for this site. The ray-dome cover would not be as affective in screening as the monopole option that was presented in Option 1. Grec~ Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: ThaPs actually the Metrolink. Right next to the station. La Palma and Austin are a very major part of the redevelopment effort out in that area. There is a concern from Redevelopment as well. It was his understanding that this will be visible from La Palma and Tustin Ave. as well as Melville Way. Staff is very concerned even if they are going into industrial areas. Commissioner Williams: According to the photographs subm~tted he felt the poles could not be seen from anywhere. Commissioner Koos: Asked that the costs between the two options be explained. Barbara Sato: It is not significant. It does cost more for them to do the palm tree, and they are willing to do the palm tree. Adding the two live palm trees adds to the cost but that is not their rational for one option over the other. It is being able to provide a facility that could be used in the future by other carriers. Chairman Bristol: Ms. Sato indicated in her testimony that she was unclear what screening is because both of applications would screen the antennas. Barbara Sato: As she understands it, according to code if it is screened it requires administrative approval and if it is not screened it comes before the Planning Commission. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: If it blends into an existing structure, for ~nc:ance they do have them on sides of buildings, have had building pieces that have been added architecturally so that the antenna arrays are virtually invisible to anybody viewing the property. However, there is a code requirement that requires any free-standing antenna device like this requires a conditional use permit. The development in this ar•ea is actually, aithough there are industrial uses in this immediate area, this is an office area under Specific Plan, and there could be some major changes over the years. Commissioner Boydstun: she indicated she went to the city of Long Beach to look at one of the palm trees and she thought lhey look sreat. Sfie did not realize it was a pole until someone pointed it. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: The applicant did show staff the rendering of that and thay were very pleased. They have seen other ones that were ~ot very nice looking, that's H<hy staff is supportive of this one because of the attention made to the aesthetics. Chairman Bristol: Being that he was on the Redevelopment Commission in the past, he knows how concerned Redevelopment is of this area. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: She recommended deleting 13 and 14 from Condition No.15. Add 14 to Condition 16. She also asked lhat they consider 2wo 24-inch boxed trees be planted on this property to replace the mature tree tliat will be removed to construct the mono-palm. Barbara Sato, Agent: This is the first she has heard of this. They are planting two live palms in addition to where they are putting their pole. A tree is coming out that you can not even see from the street and adding two additional trees that you could see from the street at 40-feet tafl. 11-23-98 Page 23 Chairman Bristol: He agreed with the applicant because the Olive tree looks totally out of place there and the palm trees are going to look much better there. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: The applicant did bring up Condition No. 5 about the painting. Perhaps, they could just say that the monopole shall be colored brown, so there's no inference of having to paint the ~alm tree trunk or the fronds. Also, on Cor.dition No.14, since there were two options, if the Commission is going with Option 1, they •may wish to irrdicate that. Barbara Sato, Ac~ent: Asked for a clarification of what had just been stated. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: On Condition 15, Conditions 13 and 14 would be deleted so they would not ha~;; to be done prior to the issuance of a building permit. That Condition 14 be added just below it to ~ondition 16 that would require that Condition 14 be completed prior to final building and zoning inspections. OPPOSiTION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4072, Option 1 desian, for a"mono-palm" screened monopole, for 5 years. Denied the Option 2 design for an unscree7ed monopole. Made the following changes to the conditions of approval: Modified Condition Nos. 2, 5, 14, 15 and 16 to read as follows: That a maximum of three,14-foot, 9-inch wide antenna arrays with five (5) 10-inch wide by 59-inch- tall panel antennas attached to each array (15 panel antennas total) may be located on the monopole and that the overall structure shall not exceed a maximum height of sixiy (60) feet for the monopole and antennas, and 65 feet, 9 inches including the mono-palm screening. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. No additional or replacement antennas snall be permitted without the approval of the Planning Commission. 5. That the monopole shall be brown to appear as a palm tree trunk to blend wiih the two natural palm trees included in this request. That the antenna arrays and individual panel antennas shall be green to match the artifcial palm fronds attached to the monopole structure. That the artificial palm fronds shali be finished to match the "rwo natural palm trees. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 14. That tfie subject property shall be developed subsfar~tially in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos.1, 2 and 3, and as conditioned herein; provided, however, that only tha "mono-palm" screened monopole labeled "Option 1" is permitted ~nd that the unscreened monopole is not. 15. That prior to issuance of a buildir,g permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nas. 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 11, above mentioned, shall he c.rmplied with. Exte~sions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 14 -23-98 Page 24 i~ 16. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos.12 and 14, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick declared a conflict of interest) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 19 minutes (3:26-3:45) 11-23-98 Page 25 is:;: : 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 4073 ~"r~~~~u - Granted for 1 year OWNER: Harlow-Kinder Limited Partnership, 8718 E. Imperiai, (To expire 11-23-99) Downey, CA 90242 AGENT: Paul and Maiy Shin,1518 W. Commonwealth, Fullerton, CA 92833 LOGATION: 2054 South Euclid Street Unit H Property is 2.43 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and Euclid Street. To permit an acupressure (massage) facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC98-188 .DOC o • • • o • Applicant's Statement: Wal~y Courtney, Paul Kott Realtors, 1225 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA: Stated he is the agent for the applicant, Paul and Mary Shin. The applicant has read the staff report and agrees with the conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. Tom Engle, Vice Detail - Police Department: Previous operators of this location had problems with the Police Department, however the new owner appear to be fully qualified to do what he says he is going to do at that location. They have done some preliminary investigation with the City of Fullerton where he is currently licPnsed to operate and the City of Fullerton Police Dep~rtment has given the "green IighY' on the operation. As long as the operator agrees to comply with all the conditions stated in his conditional use permit including changes to his layout of the rooms and to the Anaheim Municipal Code, is the Police Department recommends approval. The Police Department will be monitoring their operation and will repor~ back to the Corr,mission if they find him to be operating to the contrary. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: She requested that Condition No. 7 be done prior to final building and zoning inspections and that the signage on the building currently is a wall sign. If they are going to re-do a new copier of sign change on the existing sign cabinet, then that would be fine but if ihey are going to change the sign in its entirety that it return to the Commission as a Reports and Recommendation item. Wally Courtney: He was agreeable to that. There is an existing sign they can use on the building, The only change they are making is to remove the previous name on the sign and place their name on the same sign. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4073 with the following added conditions: That prior to final bi~ilding and zoning inspections, ~ondition No. 7, above-mentioned, 11-23-98 Page 26 i~,~ _ shail be complied with. That oniy a copy change to the existing wall sign shall be permitted. Any additional signage shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. VOTE: 7-0 Seima Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (3:45-3:48) 11-23-98 Page 27 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4074 Granted for 7 years OWNER: Living Stream, A California Non-profit Co~poration, (Andrew (To expire 11-23-05) Yu),1853 W. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Forrest C. Wylder, 2400 E. Katella Ave., Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 2461 West La Palma Avenue - Westwood Colieae of Technoloav. Property is 27.94 acres located at the northwest corner of Gilbert Street and La Palma Avenue. To permit a 22,000 square foot adult career/training center for approximately 200 students within the Anaheim Palms Corporate Center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESQLUTION N0. PC98-189 SR1 • • • • • e ApplicanYs Statement: Christa Jones, Westwood College of Technology: They are in agreement wiih the conditions of approval. Condition No. 4 states "computer training" yet her letter of operation states "computer aided drafting students". The students do not consider tnemselves as computer students they consider themselves drafting students. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Bristol: Recommended that Condition No. 2 be changed to "November 23, 2005" to expire 7 years from the date of the resolution of the current petitioner's lease. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Weiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4074 for 7 years. Modified Condition No. 2 to read as follows: 2. That the subject use permit shall Expire seven (7) years from the da!e of this resolution, on November 23, 2005 to coincide with the expiration of the petitioner's current lease. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (3:49-3:51) 11-23-98 Page 28 ~ ~~_ ti.:,. ;p;. .. . . . . . . 10b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 12-7-98 10c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4075 OWNER: Raymond Runo Trust, Norma Hillman, Dan Neyenhuis, Lillian Runo,1120 Kenw,ood Place, Fullerton, CA 92831 AGENT: David Jackson,100 S. Anaheim Blvd., #125, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1575 West Mable Street - Fairmont Private Schools Property is 0.89 acre located on the north side of Mable Street, 270 feet east of the centerline of Loara Street. To permit the conversion of an existing 14,775 square foot industrial building into a private elementary and junior high school addition to the existing Fairmont Private School with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. t0 085JK.DOC • • • • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the December 7, 1998 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the property owner. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item ~vas not discussed. 11-23-98 Page 29 na. ~C4tH rvtt9Al IVt UtI:LAKAI IUN Approved 11b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 11c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. d077 Granted OWNER: 631 Brookhurst L.P., Attn: Richard Schneider, P.O. Box 1450, Pac~fic Palisades, CA 90272 AGENT: Joel Colombo, P.O. Box 1708, Wrightwood, CA 92397 LOCATION: 631 Sou!h Brookhurst Street - Herita9e Internatior~al. Property is 1.68 acres located on the wesi side of Brookhurst Street, 450 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avenue. To establish a church within a 37,196 square foot office building w•ith waiver of (a) minimum parking Iot landscaping, (b) minimum number of parking spaces and (c) minimum setbacks for institutional uses from residential zones. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC98-190 • • • • • • ApplicanPs Sta;ement: Joel Colombo, architect from Wrightwood, California: Stated he is representing tl~e Heritage International Church. They were in agreement with all the conditions of approval except for Condition No.19 that no roof-mounted equipment shall be permitted. There is existing air conditioning unita that are on the roof but are hid and screened by use of a mansard and there is potential use of a satellite dish, small in nature, that would be used later but aiso screened. He requested that the condition include any unscreened. Art Arregon, pastor of the Heritage International Church: They have been in the City of Anaheim for 9 years, previously they were located on La Palma and Gilbert. They are involved in several different programs for the community that they believe they can add consistently to. They feel at this site that they can be a benefit to the City of Anaheim. Judith Ann Gollette, 649 S. Roanne Street, Anaheim, CA: She is present as a representative cr WAND. They have seen a lot of expansion of churches on Magnolia. The area south of this builcing is an old motel, next to it is a vacant lot. They wouid like to know whether the church is planning to expand into that southerly area. Regarding the driveway, the driveway is very small and shallow. They are concerned with cars going in and out. There is definitely a problem in West Anaheim with youth gang members. There have been youth gang members meeting for Bible study at some of the theaters into early mornings. It would be nice for the church io extend their open arrns to these youths. Applicant Rebuttal: Joel Colombo: In the future regarding the area south of this building, they might consider a future application for a school. They have had informal discussions about some form of a positive use for that area that will benefit the people in the community. 19 -23-98 Page 30 The driveway - The issue has been studfed by an expert. Their h(ghest and most used with the exiting and entrancing hours will never exceed or come close to what the normal traffic is on Brookhurst. The youth gangs - It is a great relationship and they want to have a place for them to meet. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Bristol: Condition No.19, asked if the current air conditioning unit screened on top of the building is in violation? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: No, if it is screened. They could add to this condition that no roof-mounted equipment shall be permitted unless screened in compliance with code requirements. OPPOSITlON: 1 perscn spoke witli concerns. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement - Correction was made to the waiver of minimum number of parking spaces in that there are 121 parking spaces exisiing and approved by the Planning Commission. Granted Conditionai Use Permit No. 4077. Modified Condi;ion No.19 and 23 to read as follows: 19. That no roof-mounted equipment shall be permitted unless screened in compliance with Code requirements. 23. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or prior to the c~mmencement of the activity, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9,10, 11, 15, 16 and 21, above mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Mi micipal Code. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 23 minutes (3:52-4:15) 11-23-98 Paga 31 12a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 81 (PREV.-CERTIFIED) Approved 12b. CONDITIONAL USE PEP.MIT NO. 7369 (READVERTISED) Approved, as readvertised OWNER: Michael T. Bimey and Marcia L. Birney, 1391 S. Allec St., Anaheim, CA 92805-6304 AGENT: The Norco Companies, Attn: Joseph J. Wirth, 1500 E. Babbitt Ave., Anaheim, CA 92803 LOCATION: 851 East Cerritos Avenue. Property is 2.9 acres located at the northwest corner of Cerritos Avenue and Lewis Street. To permit def~:~ary van storage, service, maintenance, and repair in an existing 17,560 square foot industrial building to replace the current approval for a bus storage, service, maintenance, and repair facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC98-191 (To expire 12-13-02) 0 • • • 0 • ApplicanPs ~tatement: Joseph Wirth, The Norco Companies: They have been in Anaheim since 1973 and their business has given them the oppo~ tunity to grow. They have now outgrown thPir present facility and have been fortunate to find another location within the City of Anaheim that ,vould not only handle their current size but also allow the opportunity to grow. They plan to stay in the City for the ~est of their existence. He did not have any problems with the recommendations by the staff report for compliance with the CUP. Qn page 2, No. 9, that the hours of operation are from 5:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. Monday through F~ iday. That is the time that their vehicles actually leave the yard and return within those hours. They have a small staff bPfore and after those hours, 24 hours a day, Monday through Friday. On page 5, No. 18, states that the vans will be scr2ened from view with the chain link fence interwoven with PVC slats. He asked if they could put up a block wall. They are not certain what way they are leaning, towards a chein lirk fencc or biock wall, and would like to have that option. Condition No. 24 - Asked for some clarification on the proposal of the 25-foot pole sign and know they want to terminate the existing CUP permit for that sign that expires in 2002. Asked whether it will expire at 2002 or do they have to take the pole sign down now7 Chairman Bristol: Af: 2002. Joseph Wirth: Could they keep that pole sign until 2002? Chairman Bristol: Y'es. OPPOSlTION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-certified EIR No. 81 is adequata to serve as the required environmentai documentation for subject request. 11-23-98 Page 32 Approved modification to Conditional Use Permit No.1369, as readvertised. Modified Resolutian No. PC73-18, as follows: Amended Condition No.10 to read: "10. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Revision No.1 of Exhibit Nos.1, 2 and 3, and as conditianed herein " Add the following new conditiens: "13. That trash storage areas shall be refurbished to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division to comply with approved plans on file with said Department. 14. That trash enclosure gates shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division to comply with approved plans on file with said Department. 15. That the legal owner of subject property shall provide the City of Anaheim with a public utility easement in varying widths to be determined as electrical design is completed. Said easement shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim prior to issuance of building permits. 16. That the numerical address in 3-foot high number shall be provided on the roof in contrasting colors in a manner not visible to the street, and to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department. 17. That the outdoor van storage area shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and makP easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons in or about the storage area. Any new or existing lighting plan shall be submitted and approved by the Police Department. 18. That the over ;ight storage of vans shall be screened from view with chain- link fencing interwoven with PVC slats to match the existing fence along the west property line or a block wall. 19. That the existing dilapidated chain-link fence with PVC slats along the west property line shall be repaired. 20. That where necessary, the en-site landscaping and irrigation systzm shall be refurbished and maintained in compliance with City standards. 21. That signage for subject facility shall be limited to that shown on the exhibits submitted by the petitioner. Any additional signage shali be subject to approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 22. That prior to the operation of this business, a valid business license shall be obtained from the City of Anaheim, Business License Division of the Finance Department. 23. That the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 3435 (to permit a new and used truck sales lot and repair facility with waiver of required dedication and improvements and required setback) to the Zoning Division. 11-23•98 Page 33 24. That the proposed twenty five (25) foot hlgh pole sign is hereby approved until December 13, 2002. 25. That no outdoor work on vehicles or vehicular parts shall be permitted and further that no outdoor work, including diagnostic services shall be conducted outdoors at any time. 26. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses. 27. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period ot one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos.10, 13,14, 15, 1S, 17,18,19, 20, 22 and 23, above mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.030 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 28. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the zxtent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code ~ and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval oF the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement" VOTE: 7_p Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (4:16-4:20) 11-23-98 Page 34 ADJOURNED AT 4:20 P.M. TO ~VIONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1998 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Submitted by: ~ ~> ~e-•/ Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary ~ Kimberly Caffey Word Processing Operator 11-23-98 Page 35