The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1999/06/07SI~MMARYACT101~ A~~~VDA CiTY OF AN/~I~~IM PLANNING COI~I~ISSI~~I MEETING MONDAY, JIJNE 7, 1999 11:OQ A.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLA~INING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.M. • PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY CHAIRPERSON PRO-TEMPORE: BOYDSTUN COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOSTWICK, BvYDSTUN, KOOS, NAPOLES, VANDERBILT ABSENT: BRISTUL, ESPING STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Joel Fick Mary McCloskey Greg Hastings Judy Dadant Kevin Bass Niki Cutler Susan Kim Don Yourstone Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Edith Harris Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Planning Director Deputy Planning Directc; Zoning Division Manager Associate Planner Associate Planner Associate Planner Assistant Planner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Principal Transportation Planner Associafe Civil Engineer PC Support Supervisor Planning Commission Secretary Senior Secretary Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 1 ITEMS OF PI BLIC INTEREST: None 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDA710NS A. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) AND Approved CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4047 - l2EQUEST FOR REVIEW AND Approved final APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS: Cox Communication,18200 Von Karman plans Avenue, Irvine, CA 92612, requesis review and approval of final plans for location, elevations, and materials for screening (inciuding all proposed landscaping) of ground-mounted equipment. Property is located at 6900 East Canyon Rim Road. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bristol and Esping at,sent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission daes 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 Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bristol and Esping absent), that the Anaheim ~ity Planr~ing Commission does hereby apprnve the final ground- mounied equipment location, landscaping and equipment screening plans in conjunct~on ul~th the previousiy-approved telecommunications facility. SR1116TW.DOC Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Stated this is a request for final landscape approval of a lattice tower area where there is ground mounted equipment. Staff has reviewed the plans and recammends approval. Cily of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 2 B. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARA'PION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) AND ApproV~d CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4098 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND Approved final APPROVAL OF FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS: Paul Hwang,1726 S. Angel tandscape plans Court, Anaheim, CA 92802, requests review and approval of final landscape plans for a previously-approved church. Property is located at 1565 West Katella Avenue. CL~ TION: Commissioner Koos offered a mo#ion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRfED (Commissioners Bristol and Esping ab~ent), that ihe Anaheim City Planning C~mmission does hereby determine that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmentai documentation for subJect request. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bristol and Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final landscaping plans for the previously-approved church because the final plans demonstrate compliance with the staff s recommendations for a suitable landscape pallet with the foilowing stipulation: (i) That all trees shall be a minimum size of 24-inch box. This item was not discussed. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 3 C. NUNC PRO TUNC RESOLUTIONS TO CORRECT PLANNING Approved COMMISSION ~1) RESOLUTION NO. PC99-77 ADOPTED IN (Vote: 5-0, CONNECTION WITH CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE Commissioners DECLARATIONIMITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 004: (2) Bristol and Esping RESQLUTION N0. PC99-79 ADOPTED IN CONNECTION WITH absent) AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-1. (INCLUDING AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. THE DESIGN PLAN AND THE PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANI: AND (, RESOLUTION N0. PC99•80 ADOPTED IN CONNECTION WITH WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4078 (Pointe'Anaheim) The Planning Commission Secretary requests adoption of three nunc pro tunc resolutions to correct clerical errors and omissions to Planning Commission Resolution Nos. PC99-77, PC99-79 and PC99-80 adopted on May 19, 1999, in connection CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004 (PC99-77), Amendment No. 4 to The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 (PC99-79), (including Amendments to the Zoning and Development Standards, the Design Plan and the Public Facilities Plan, Waiver of Code Requirement and Co~iditional Use Permit No. 4078 (PC99-80). The propeRy is an irreguiarly-sh2ped project area consisting of ten parcels totaling approximately 29.1 acres with frontages of approximately 585 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard, 1,483 feet on the south side of Freedman Way (future Disney Way), 887 feet on the west side of Clementine Street (future Freedman Way) arid 726 feet on the north side c,f Katella Avenue. Subject property is within the City of Anaheim's Anaheim Resort area and encompasses the boundaries of The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 District A(18.9 acres) and a portion of the Parking District (East Parking Area)/C-R Overlay south of Freedman Way (10.2 acres). NUNC PRO TUNC RESOLUTION N0. PC99-92 CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONIMITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 004) NUNC PRO TUNC RESOLUTION NO. FC99•93 (AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE DISNEYLAND RESORT SPEClFIC PLAN NO. 92-1) - W/TH THE ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION THAT ANY INCONSISTENCIES FOUND IN THE APPLICANT'S EX?LANAT/ON WlTH TNE EXISTIIVG APPROVALS, THE cX(STING APPROVALS PREVAILj NUNC PRO TUNC RESOLUTION N0. PC99-94 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4078) (fhe following was discussion irom Item Nas. 1-A and 2 which were heard together.J Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: Read an additional Nunc Pro Tunc into the record, "The Planning Commission Resolution No. PC99-79 recommending approval of Amendment No. 4 to the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan incorporates the applicant's explanation for the proposed amendments in making the finding that the amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Several of the applicanYs justifications addressed items which are no longer applicable since they differ from the Planning Commissions final action and for clarity to the degree that there are inconsistencies between the applicanYs explanation and the existing approvals, the existing approvals prevail:' City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 4 Joel Fick, Planning Director: Stated Item No. 2 is a request for consideration of Development Agreement No. 99-07, between the City of Anaheim and Pointe Anaheim LLC. The Planning Commission's role today is to look at the land use aspects of the agreement and spec(ally whether to make a recommendation to the City Council that the eligibility criteria has been meet and whether the findings in the City's procedures resolution can be made. In 1982 the legisiature of the State of California adopted legislation that authorized the city and an applicant for a development to enter into a development agreement to estabiish with certainty which reguiations actually would govern the construction of tlie development proJect, Pursuant to the City's proced~res resolution, the Planning Commission is reauired to make a recommendation of the Council relative to certain aspects of the development agreement which are outlined in the staff report. The Development Agreement implements Amer~dment No. 4 to the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and the findings that were made by the Planning Commission Resolution PC99-79 demonstrate that the development agreement is consistent with above noted criteria and specifically that the agreement is consistent with the General Plan and the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan as proposed for amendment compatible with the uses authorized in and the regulations prescribed for in the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, as proposed for amendment. Also it is compatible with orderly development of property in the surrounding area. The staff recommends that the Planning Commission, by resolution, recommend to the City Council that the appiicant has demonstrated the eligibility to enter into Development Agreement No. 99-01 and also it meets the criteria set forth in the procedures resolutio~ 3s noted in the staff report. He referred to the point that Mary McCloskey made on the Nunc Pro Tunc resolution which is that the Planning C~mmission Resolution PC99-79 that recommended approval of Amendment No. 4 did incorporate the applicanYs explanation for the proposed amendments and several of the applicanYs justifications, as Ms. McCloskey note, did address items which through the approval process became no longer applicable since they differed from the Planning Commission's final actions and, as in the prior item, just for clarity to the degree tha4 there are any inconsistencies between !he applicants explanation and the existing approvals, the existing approvals do prevail. (1"he applicant chose not to address the Planning Commission. There was also no one irom the public who gave public tesfimony.] THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick: Stated this is a good development agreement for the fact thet there is no request for City participation in this agreement or concessions by the City. It is obviously going to add to the TOT tax. It will add to the sales tax and it will take pruperty that has been under utilized and underserved and bring it back into the property tax rolls for the City of Anaheim at a higher and better use. He felt it was a great step forward. Chairman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: It is going to give many services in the City that are needed for the tourist. Currently they are being bused to other piaces and now they will have a place to go in Anaheim. Commissioner Bostwick: The project is in compliance with the required square footage and it is consistent with the General Pian of the City of Anaheim and the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, it is compatible with the uses authorized and the regulations prescribEd fer in the applicable zoning district. it is compatible with the orderly development of the property and the surrou~ding area and is not otherwise detrimental to the health, safety and c~eneral welfare of the citizens of Anaheim. He offered a resolution that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigated Monitoring Plan No. 004 snall serve as the appropriate environmental document for 1his. Maggie Solorio, Planning Commission Secretary: Resolution passed with 5 yes votes. Commissioner Bostwick: He offered a resolution recommending that Development Agreement No. 99-01 be sent to Council for their review and approval. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 5 : ~;: Maggie Solorio, Pfanning Commission Secretary: Resolution passed with 5~es votes _ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey: Th(s :nattei wiil be forwa~ded to the City Council for consideration. The Planning Commission has determined that the Mitigoted Nsgative Qeclaratfan and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 004 are adequate to senie as the ernironmental documentation for this project and it has made ~he finding in fhe staff report and recammended to the City Councii that the appllcant has demonstrated eligibility to enter into Development Agreement No. 99-01 as set forth in paragraph 13 of the staff report and that the agreement meets the criteria set forth in paragraph 14 of the staff report, based upon the analysis set forth therein. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 6 PUBL,IC HEARIPIG 1TEMS: 2a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONIMITIGATION Approved MONITORING PLAN N0. 004 (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 2b. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 99-01 Recommended approval to City AGENT: Anaheim Center for Enteitainment, LLC, Attn: Robert Council Shzlton, 30 Via Lucca, No. F-102, Irvine, CA 92612 Western Asset Management Arizona, Ll.C, Attn: W. Guy Scott, P,esident, 3875 t~. 44th Street, Suite 350, Phoenix, AZ 85018 LOCATION: The irregularly-shaped Pointe`Anaheim project area consists of ten parcels totaling approximately 29.1 acres with frontages of approximately 585 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard,1,483 feet on the south side of Freedman Way (future Disney 6'Vay), 8P7 feet on the west side of Clsmen!ine Street (future Freeoman Way) and 726 feet on the north side of Kateila Avenue. REQUEST: Request for consideration of Development Agreement No. 99-01 between the City of Anaheim and Pointe'Anaheim, LLC to vest certair, project entitlements and further address the implementatior. of the Pointe•Anaheim project. The Planning Commission's role will be to look at the land use aspects of the Agreement, specifically whether to make a recommendation to the City Council that the el~gibility criteria has been met, and whether the findings in Section 2.3 of Exhibit A of Ftesolution No. 8~R-565 can be made. The Pointe`Anaheim oroject includes the following up to 565,000 gross square feet of retail/dining/entertainment uses; two to three hotels comprising a maximum af 1,050 hotel rooms/suites with approximately 86,985 gross square feet of related accessory uses (the hotel rooms/accessory uses would encompass a maximum of 923,800 c~ross square feet) and an approximate 141,200 gross square foot area on ;he top floor of the parking structure to be used to provide parking and/or hotel amenities seriing guests and paYrons of the Pointe'Anaheim hotels only; up to three theaters with a total of 4,600 seats for live perFormances or, alternatively, a 24-screen movie theater with 4,757 seats; and, a 1,600,000 gross square foot parking structure with 4,800 striped parking spaces and 25 bus spaces with provision to park ar~ additional 400 ~iehicles which would bring the total number of vehicles that can be accornmodated in the garage t~ 5,200 cars and including a 21,600 ~ross square foot bus terminal/facility for airport transport and to/from sightseeing venues. Continued from the Commission meeting of May 19,19~9. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONIMITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 004 RESOLUTION N0. PC99-95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RESOUJTION N0. PC99•96 SR7461 LJ.DOC City of Anaheim Planning Cornmission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 7 (The fo/lowing was discussion from Item Nos. 1 A and 2 which were heard together.J Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: Read an additional Nunc Pro Tunc into the record, "The Planning Commfssion Resolution No. PC99-79 recommending approval of Amendment No. 4 to the Disneyland Resort Soecific Plan incorporates the applicanYs expfanation for the proposed amendments in making the finding that the amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Several of the applicanYs justifications addressed items H~hich are no longer applicable since they differ from the Planning Commissions final actian and for clarity tp the degree that there are inconsistencies between the applicanYs explanation and the existing approvals, the existing approvals prevail:' Joel Fick, Planning Director: Stated Item No. 2 is a request for consideration of Development Agreement No. 99-01, between the City of Anaheim and Pointe Anaheim LLC. The Planning Commission's role today is to look at the land use aspects of the agreement and specially whether to make a recommendation to the City Council that the eligibility criteria has been meet and whether the findings in the City's procedures r~solution can be made. In 1982 the legislature of the State of California adopted legislation that authorized the city and an applicant for a development to enter into a development agreement to establish with certainty which regulations actually would govern ihe construction of the development project. Pursuant to the City's procedures resolution, the Planning Commission is required to make a recommendation of the Council relative to certain aspects of the development agreement which are outlined in the steff report. The Development Agreement im~lements Amendment No. 4 to the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and the findings that were made by the Planning Commission Resolution PC99-79 demonstrate that the developmen! agreement is consisteizt with above noted criteria and specifically that the agreement is consistent with the General Plan and the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan as proposed for amendment compatible with the uses authorized in and the regulations prescribed for in the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, as proposed for amendment. Afso it is compatible with orderly development of property in the surrounding area. The stafr recommends that the Planning Commission, by resolution, recommend to the City Council that the applicant has demonstrated the eligibility to enter inio Development Agreement No. 99-01 and also it meets the criteria set forth in thE procedures resolution as noted in the staff report. He referred to the point that Mary McCieskey made on the Nunc Pro Tunc resolution which is that the Planning Commission Resolution PC99•~79 that recommended approval of Amendment No. 4 did incorporate the applicanYs explanation for the proposed amendments and several of the applicanYs justifications, as Ms. McCloskey note, did address items which through the approval process became no longer applicable since they differed from the Planning Commission's final actions and, as in the prior item, just for clarity to the degree that there are any inconsistencies between the applicants explanation and the existing approvals, the existing approvals do prevail. (The applicant chose not to address the Planning Commission. There was also no one from the pubfic who gave public testimony.J THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick: Stated this is a good development agreement for the fact that there is no request for City pa~ticipation in this agreement or concessions by the City. It is obviously going to add to the TOT tax. It will add to the sales tax and it will take property that has been under utilized and underserved and bring ;t back into the property tax rolis for the City of Anaheim at a higher and better use. He felt it was a great step forward. Chairrnan Pro-Tempore Boydstun: It is going to give many services in the Ciry that are needed for the tourist. Currently they are being bused to other places and now they wili have a place to go in Anaheim. Commissioner Bostwick: The project is in compliance with the required square footage and it is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Anaheim and the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, it is compatible with the uses authorized and the regulations prescribed for in the applicable zoning district. {t is compatibie City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda OS-07-99 Page 8 wfth the orderly development of the propefty and the surrounding area and is not otherwise detrimental to the health, safery and general welfare of the citizens of Anaheim. He offered a resolution that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigated Monitoring Plan No. 004 shall serve as the appropriate environmental document for this. Maggie Solorio, Planning Commission Secretary: Resolution passed with 5 yes votes. Commissioner Bostwick: He offered a resolution recommending that Development Agreement No. 99-01 be sent to Council for their review and approval. Maggie Solorio, Planning Commission Secretary: Resolution passed with 5 yes votes. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: This matter wiil be forwarded to the City Cauncii for consideration. The Planning Commission has determined that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program PJo. 004 are adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for this project and it has made th~ finding in the staff report and recommended to the City Councii that the applicant has demonstrated eligibility to enter inio DevPiopmerit Agreement No. 99-01 as set fo~th in paragraph 13 of the staff report and that the agreement meets the criteria set forth in paragraph 14 of the staff report, based upon the analysis set forth therein. ''. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY O~ THE PLANNINGCOMMISSION ACTIO.N OPPQSITION: None ACTION: By resolution, determined that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004, including the associated Errata, are adequate to serve as tt~e required environmental documentation for the proposed Development Agreement. By Resoiution, recommended to the City Council that the applicant has demonstrated eligibility to enter into Development Agreement No. 99-01 as set forth in paragraph (13) of the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated June 7,1999 and that the Ag~eement meets the criteria set forth in paragraph (14) of the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated June 7,1999, based upon the analysis set forth therein. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bristol and Esping absent) 3elma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated this matter will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. DlSCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (1:45-1:51) City o~ Anaheim Planning Commission Sumrnary Actfon Agenda 06-07-99 Page 9 3a. CEQA MITiGATED NEGATNE DECl:ARATION Continued to ~b. GEhERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 364 : 6-21-99 3c. ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN N0. 92•2. ~MENGlNENT NO. 3 INI ~ tATED BY: City of Anaheim (Planning Depa~tment), 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1175 -1193 Casa Grande Avenue - Best Western Pavillions Motel. Property fs 0.73-acre (4 parcels) loceted at the northwest corner of Casa Grande Avenue and Casa Vista Street. Planning Commissfon-initiated request to consider the following: (a) An amendment to the Land Use Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan to redesignate the subject property from the existing "Medium Density Residential" to the "Commercial Recreation" land use designation; and, (b) An amendment to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 incorporating and reclassifying the subject property ftom the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone to the SP32-2 (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2) Zone, and to amend the Spacific Plan text, exhibits and Zoning and Development Standards (Chapter 18.48 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) to re8ect said reciassification. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION N0. .._ SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDh1ENT RESOLUTION N0. Sa7459KD.DOC a • s • • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the June 21,1999 Pianning Commission meeting in order to allow sufficient time for staff io complete an analysis of the proposal. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bristol and Esping absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 10 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATIOtJ 4b. GEN~RAL PLAN AMENDMEN7 (GPA) NQ. 363•A. B C. D& E INITiATED BY: City of Anaheim (Planning Department), 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 GPA 363-A: A City initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan redesignating fhis area from the Commercial Professional land use designation to the Low Density Residential land use designation. Location: Property has a frontage of approximately 535 feet on the east side of Euclid Street, located belween Crone Avenue to the north and extending 140 feet south of the centerline of Beacon Avenue, also extending approximately 100 feet east of the centerline Euclid Street (.61 acre). GPA 363•B: A City initiat~d amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan redesignating this area from the Medium DensiFj Residential land use designation to the Low Density Residential land use designation. Location: Property is located on the east side of Hampstead Street between Beacon Avenue to the north and Ball Road to the south, extending approximately 140 feet east of the centerline of Hamostead Street, and property located on the south side of Beacon Avenue between Walnut Street to the east and Hampstead Street to the west, extending approximately 157 feet south of the centerline of Beacon Avenue (4.88 acres). GPA 363-C: A City initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan redesignating this area from the General Commercial land use designation to the Low Density Residential land use designation. Locateor~: Property extends approximately 357 feet west of the centerline of Iris Street between the public alley I~cated south of Ball Road to the nortti and Hill Avenue to the south (1.38 acres). GPA 363-D: A City initiated amendm~nt to the Land Use Element of the General Plan redesignating this area from the Medium Density Residential land use designation to the Low Density Residential land use designation. Location: Property extends approximately 640 feet south ef the centerline of Orar.gewood Avenue, east of Dana Street and west of Oert-ey Drive (1.89 acres). GPA 363-E: A City initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan redesignating this area from the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation to the Low Density Residential land use designation. Location: Property is located on the north side of Bluebell Place, at the terminus of Vern StreEt (.75 acre). GENEI~AL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NOS. PC99•97 Approved Recommer,~ed approvr! of Exhibit A to the Ci.y Council Susan Kim, Assistant Planner: Stated this request was initiated by the Planning Commission on March 15,1999, as part of the Anaheim Resort Neighborhood Action Plan which was developed in conjunction with the Community Planning Program. "fhe Generai Plan amendment brings forth a portion of the action items from the section of the action plan entitled, "Preserving Single-Family Neighborhoods:' This action City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 11 plan recommends an amendment to the land use element to the General Plan to redesignated subject properties to the Low Density Residential fand use designation. The subject properties are located as following: Genera! Plan Amendment No. 363-A is located on the east side of Euclid Street south of Crone Avenue. General ~lan Amendment No. 363-B fs located on the east side of Hampstead Street and on the south side af Beacon Avenue. General Plan Amendment No. 363-C is IocateG on the northwest of Hiil Avenue and Iris Sfreet on the Margate Dri~ e. General Plan Amendment No 363-C) is located south of Orangewood Avenue between Dana Street and Oertley Drive. General Plan Amendment No. 363-E fs on the north side of Bluebeil Place on the terminus of Vern Streat. Ali the properties are currently developed with weil maintained single-family residences zoned RS-7200 (Residential Single-Family) and are part of neighborhoods with similar single-family residences, however, the General Plan designates A for Commercial Professional land uses, B& D for Medium Density Residential land uses, C for General Commercial land uses and E for Low Medium Uensity Residential land uses. The proposed Low Density F2esidential desiynation would serve to preserve the single-family character of pach area by preciuding cnmmercial development and residential development at densities higher that those that currently exist. Public 7estimony: Rafael Gonzalez: He asked for an explanation on how this request is going to affect the properties on Bluebell Place. Susan Kim: This would preserve the single-family res;dences that 2~e there. In the lonc~ term, in the General Plan, these residences were designated for Low Medium Density Residential Development and they want to ensure that the single-family residences at the end of that street do remain. Therefore, this request is preserving what is already there. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked if these are all currently developed as single-family residence? Susan Kim: Responded yes. ' •FOCLOWINGJS'-A:SUMMARY OF THE'PLANNING COMMISSION ACTfON: OPPOSITION: Noneli c~ncerned person spoke. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Recommended to the City Council approval of the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 363 - A, B, C, D and E(Exhibit A) redesignating subject properties from the Commercial Professional, General Commercial, Medium Dens~ty Residential and Low-Medium Density Residential designation to the Low Density Residential designation based on the following: (a) These properties consist of single-family residences that are generally well- maintained and exhibit a sense of pride and stability. These General Pian Amendments are intended to preserve #hese neighborhoods by amending the General Plan ta encourage the continued use of these properties for Low Density ? ~idential land uses. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bristol and Esping absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated the matter before you will be set for an advertised public hearing fcr consideration by the City Council. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (1:52-1:56) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 12 I 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved I 5b. GENERAL PLAN AM~NDMENT N0. 365 Recommended approval of Exhibit A, to INITIATED BY: Ci!y of Anaheim (Planning Department), 200 S. Anaheim City Council 81vd., Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: Property is 2.53 acres, located on the north sfde of Rowland Avenue, extending 603 feet east of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue. A Ciry-initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Pian redesignating this area from the General Commercial land use designation to the Low Density Residential land use designation. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NQ. PC99-98 Niki Cutler, Associate Planner: General Plan No. 365 proposed to redeslgnate 2.53 acres on the north side of Rowland Avenue from a General Commercial Designation to the Low Density Residential Designation. The proposed amendment was included as an action item in the West Anaheim Action Plan which was developed in conjunction with the Community Planning Program under the category "Preserving Single-Family Neighborhood~'. It was discoverEd that while the properties are developed with single-family homes and zoned RS-720U which is a single-family residential designation. The General Plan designates them for General Commerciai uses. The proposed amendment would provide consistency between the General Plan designation, the properties existing land use and zoning designations and would encourage the preservation of this quality single-family neighborhood. THE PUf3LIC HEARINv WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boshrrick: Asked if these are aIl currently develop~~ as single-family residence? Niki Cutler: Responded yes. •' FOLLOWING ~~' SUMMARY.OF THE FLANNING COMMISSI~N ACTION'. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approvad Negative Declaration Recommended approval of the adoption of General P(an Amendment No. 365 (Exhibit A) to the City Council redesignating the subject area from the General Commerciai to the Low Density Residentiai desiynation based on the foliowing: (1) That approval of this General Plan Amendment would provide cansistency between the area's General Plan and zoning designations and existing land use, and would be consistent with the Low Density Residential General Plan designation and character of surrounding neighborhoods. (2} That the proposed amendment would encourage the preservation and continued use of this area for quality single-family residences. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 73 VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bristol and Esping absent) Selma Mann, Assistant•City Attomey, stated the matter before you will be set for an adverfissd public hearing for consideration by the City Council. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (1:57-1:59) City of Anaheim Planning Commissfon Summary Action Agends~ 06-07-~i9 Page 14 6b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 366 Recommended approval of Exhibit A to INITIATED BY: City of Maheim (Pianning Department), 200 S. Anaheim the City Council Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: Property is 2.15 acres, located on the east side of East Gates Street, extending 988 feet sauth of the centerline of Ball Road. A City-initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan redesignating this area from the Low-Medium Qensity Residential land use designation to the Low Densiry Residential land use designation GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION N0. PC99•99 Niki Cutier, Associate Planner: General Pian No. 366 proposed to ; edesignate 2.15 acres on the east side of east side of East Gate Street from the Low Medium Dens;:y Designation to the Low Density Designation. The proposed amendment was included as an action item in the West Anaheim Action Plan under the category of "Preserving Single Family Neighborhood~' and through Community Planning Program efforts it was discovered that while these properties are developed with single-family homes and zoned RS-7200, the General Plan designates them for Low Medium Density Residential Uses. The proposed amendment would provide consistency between the Generai Plan designation, the properties existing land use and zoning designations and would encourage the preservation of this quality single- family neighborhood. THE PUELIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • e • • s • OPPOSITION: None IN FAVOR: 1 letter was received in favor of this proposal subsequent to Commission's action. Said letter is on fi~e with the Planning Department. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Recommended approval of the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 366 (Exhibit A) to the City Council redesignating the subject area from the Low-Medium Density Residential to the Low Density Residentiai designation based on the following: (1) That approval of this General Plan Amendment would provide consistency between the area's General Plan and zoning designations and existiny land use, and would be consistent with the Low Density Residential G~nerai Plan designation and character of surrounding neighborhoods. (2) That the proposed amendment would encourage the preservation and continued use of this area for quality single-family homes. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bristol and Esping absent) Ciry of Anaheim Planniny Commission 5ummary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 15 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey, stated the matter before you will be set for an advertised public hearing for consideration by the City Council. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (2:00-2:01) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 16 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 6-21-99 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4120 =READVERTISED) OWN[R: Frank Chu and Linger Chu, 9::6 S. Beach Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Stephen Lam and Associates, 900 S. San Gabriel Blvd. #208, San Gabriel, CA 91776 LOCATION: 926 South Beach Boulevard - Lyndy's Motel and Restaurant. Property is 1.1 ac~es located on the east side of Beach Boulevard and on the north side of Ball Road, 200 feet north of the centerline of Bail Road and 245 feet east of the centerline of Beach Boulevard. To establish conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an ~xisting restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption, to expand the existing motel and to construct a commercial retail cgnter on the same property wiih waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Consinued from the Commission meeting of May 24,1999. CONDITlONAL U5E PERMIT RESOLUTIOt~ N0. SR6950DS to • • • • e • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the June 21,1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitianer to meet with various departments to discuss motel operation and economic viability issues in the West Anaheim area. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bristol and Esping absent) DISCUSSION TIME: Ti~is item was not discussed. City of Anaheim Pianning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 17 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 8b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4115 Granted for 1 year OWNER: Melvy~ Lane Henkin Trust,1300 Quail Street #106, (To expire 6-7-2000) Newpo~t Beach, CA 92660 AGENT: Bob Portale, 5242 Arc~osy, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 LOCATION: 5634•5636 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 3.2 acres located south and west of the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway. To permit an amusement device arcade with up to 170 amusement devices within a proposed family entertainment center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC99-100 ApplicanPs Statement: Bob Portale, West Coast Amusement: Stated they currently operate three additional nickel cenf games, family amusement centers in Orange County. There is one in Huntington Beach, Lake Forest and Garden Grove. They feel the business will be a welcome addition to the community since they are providing low cost and safe environment for families to have recreation and overall good time in their off hours. He requested they be granted the following hours of operation: 12:00 Noon to 12 Midnight, Monday through Friday and 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 Midnight, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. Since they are a "paid to enter" facility, during the weekday evenings if they close at 10:00 p.m., as recommended by staff, they are in effect closing their doors at 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. because once a customer pays their admission fee they want to receive their value for their money. Regarding Condition No. 10 related to security - they volunteered fo have security on the premises everyday during their first 90 days of operation, from 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. until closing. The staff recommended to have a security person until the Police Department deems it not necessary. He asked how this is determined. Regarding Condition No.14 ~elated to the number of employees - it is suggested they have a minimum of three employees at premises at all times. They feei that during the weekdays between approximately 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. they have few customers and therefore having 3 or 4 employees would be an undue burden for them. He suggested instead having 2 employees at all time or require that after 4:00 p.m. that they have 3 or more people there at all timea. He feels either of the two options are workable. Sheri Gartley, 5635 East La Palma Ave., Anaheim, CA: She stated that she manages Cinemapolis located across the street from the proposed business. She had some questions and concerns. If it is a family business where it is catering to young children and birthday parties then she is in favor of this. They have always had a concern about a game arcade that would become a teen hangout or a loitering problem in the area. Thus far these typES of business have not been in that area. The crime rate in that area has gone down and she wanted to ensure it remains that way. She is not certain why they would need to be open until 12:00 Midnight, if they are catering to families with children. It sounds more of a teen business which is a concern. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 18 She wondered if allowing this use would open the door for the ottier type of arcades also that does cater to the t~ens and the adults with more violent themed games. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Bob Portale: Although they are primarily a family entertainment center they also cater to everyone else in the community, all ages. Depending on the type of day will determine when those customers come. In the afternoons and weekends they serve families, chiidren and teenagers. After 8:00 p.m. the majority of their business is with adults. Since they cater to all ages they are open to the nou~ s that they are suggestinc~. Commissioner Vanderbilt: Asked how long has Mr. Portale been in business? Bob Portale: They opened in November of 1998. Commissioner Vanderbilt: He suggested conditioning this for a year to see how the b~~siness operates then at that time return to CoTmission for consideration of extending the h~zirs. Bob Portale: He agreed it would give a good idea of how they operate. Commissioner Vanderbilt: The Police Department ~iisited their other locations and were impressed with their operations. THE PUBLIC HEARING V'/AS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos: Asked what type of games cost a nickel? Bob Portale: It is a paid facility and costs $1.95 for entrance. Once the customer enters there are 170 games, 40 are free play (video type games), simulators, pinball machines, and 30 to 40 redemption machines that give tickets which are exchanged for prizes. The cost of the games are either one, two or three nickels depending on the games. Commissioner Koos: He understands the applicanYs request for the extended hours and wondered what the other Commissioners and the applicant thought if they approved the hours until 11:00 p.m. or 12:00 midnight but limit him for excepting customers that walk in up until 9:00 p.m. that would mean there would not be people arriving at 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. He felt this would be a trade off. Bob P~rtale: Most of their patrons stay within the oremises and leave at 12:00 midnight, although there are some patrons that stay for one hour then leave. He indicated customers do not have the able to go in and out othennrise without paying again. Chairman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: She thought extending tha hours from 12:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 a.m. through 12:00 rnidnight on Friday, Saturday and holidays the first year then see how the business goes. Commissioner Koos: He suggested adding a condition that states no in and out privileges allowed Chairman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: At the morning session the Police Department indicated that they do not have a listing of approved security guard companies, as long as the securiry guard is licensed by the State and is a bonafide security company. She suggested Condition No.10 be reworded to reflect that. She notified the applicant needs to be aware that it is illegai for skateboarding and is posted at that center. Regarding Condition No.14 related to the number of employees. It is suggested they have a minimum of three employees at premises at all times. They feel that during the weekdays between approximately 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. they have fPw customers and therefore having 3 or 4 employaes would be an City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 19 undue burden for them. He suggested instead having 2 employees at all times or require that after 4:00 p.m. that they provide 3 or more employees. He feels either of the two options are workable. Public Testimony: Sheri Gartley, 5635 East La Palma Ave., Anaheim, CA: She stated that she manages Cinenooolis located across the street from subject site. She had some questions and concems. They have always had a concern about a game arcade tliat would become a teen hangaut or a loitering problem in the area. So far these types of business have not been in this area. The crimo rate in the area has gone down and wanted to ensure that it stays th~t way. She is not certain why they would need to be open unti112:00 Midnight, if they are catering to fam~lies with childrer.. It sounds more of a teen business which is a concern. She wondered if allowing this use would open the door for the other type of arcade also that does cater to the teens and the adults with mor2 violent type of games. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Bob Por!ale: Although they are primarily a family entertain.ment center they also cater to everyone in the community, all ages. Depending on the type of day will determine when those customers come. In the afternoons and weekends they serve families, children and teenagers. After 5:00 p.m. their majority of customers are adults. Since they cater to all ages they are open the hours that they are suggesting. Commissioner Vanderbilt: Asked how long has Mr. Portale been in business? Bob Portale: They opened in November of 1998. At another site, after 6 months he received the hours that he had requested through the City of Garden Grove. Commissioner Vanderbilt: This might be the same suggestion in this request, to see how the ~usiness operates then perhaps an extension of hours could be considered after a period of time. Bob Po~tale: He agreed that after several months it would give an idea of how they operate plus their record at other locations. Commissioner Vanderbilt: The Police Department visited their other locations and were impressed with their operations. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos: Asked what type of games cost a nickel? Bob Portale: It is a paid facility which they charge $1.95 for entranr,e. Once the customer enters there are 170 games, 40 are free play (video type games), simulators, pinball machines, and 30 to 40 redemption machines that give tickets which are exchanged for prizes. The cost of the games are either one, two or three nickels depending on the games. Commissioner Koos: He understands the applicanYs request for the extended hours and wondered what the other Commissioners and the applicant thought if they approved the hours until 11:00 p.m. or 12:00 midnight but limit him to allow paying customers to come in until 9:00 p.m. He felt this would be a trade off. Bob Portale: Most of their patrons stay within the premises and leave at 12:00 midnight, although there are some patrons that stay for one hour then leave. He indicated the customers do not have the able to go in and out otherwise they would have to pay again to get back in. Chairman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: She suggested extending the hours from 12:OQ Noon until 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday;11;00 a.m. through 12:00 midnight on Friday, Saturday and holidays the first year then see how the business goes. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 20 Commissioner Koos: He suggested having adding a c;ondition stating "no in and out privileges" allowed Chairman Pro-Tempnre Boydstun: At the morning session the Police Department indicated that they do not have a iisting of approved security guard companies. The company would be acceptable as Iong as the security guard is licensed by the State and is from a banafide security company. She suggested Condition No. 10 be reworded to reflect that. She notified the applicant they he needs to be aware that it is illegal for skateboarding and it is posted at that center. Regarding Condition No.14, that there be two employees before 4;00 p.m. and after 4:00 p.m. the applicant should provide no fewer than 3 empioyees. FOLLOWING IS A:SUMMARY OF THE PL` NNINGCOMMISSION ACTION: ' OPPOSiTION: Nonzl1 pers~n spoke with concerns ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4115 for 1 year with the following changes to conditions: Modified Condition Nos.1, 10 and 14 to read as follows: 1. That the hours of operation for the family e.~te~tainment center/amusement device arcade be limited as follows: Noon to 11:00 p.m. Sunday througti Thursday 11:00 a.m. to midnight on ~riday, Saturday and Holidays 10. That a state licensed and bonded uniform security guard shall be present from dusk to closing in order to specifically provide security, and to discourage vandalism, trespassing and/or loitering upon or adjacent to the subject property for a period of ninety (90) days or as determined to be necessary by the Anaheim Police Department. 14. That there shall be no fewer than two (2) employees present before 4:00 p.m. and no fewer than three (3) employees present after 4:00 p.m., exclusive of securiry personnel. Added the following candition: i hat no in and out privileges for customers shall be permitted. VOTE: 4-1 (Commissioner Vanderbilt voted no, and Commissioners Bristol and Esping absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 16 minutes (2;02-2:18) City oE Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 21 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4114 Granted OWNER: James Tsai, 7002 Moody Street #105, La Palma, CA 90623 (Dance studio granted for 1 year, to expire AGENT: Jose R, Villaflor, 3150 West Lincoln Avenue #128, 6-7-2000) Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 3150 West Lincoln Avenue. Suite 128. Property is 5.8 acres located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Aven~e and Western Avenue. To establish conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing commerciai retail ceriter and an existing liquor store and to permit a dance studio and public dance hall within the same cornmercial center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the Commission meetings of May 10, and May 24,1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-101 ApplicanYs Statement: Jose Villaflor: Stated his business is a ballroom dance studio that offers adult ballroom dance classes. Their students requested a place to practice. Therefore, her requested they be open for public dancing on the dates and times requested. Public Testimony: Mike Israelsky, manager of the shopping center: He is endorsing the operation. There are conditions of approvai (Condition Nos.12 and 19) referring to a liquor store and (Condition Nos. 20 and 41) the shopping center. He wanted to address the issues of the shopping center and does not know if the liquor store operator has been notified to address Condition Nos.12 through 19. Therefore, he requested additional time for the liquor store operator to come before Commission and address those conditions. Commissioner Koos: Indicated this item was continued so the property owner or manager could meet with the tenants and discuss these issues, atherwise they would have acted on this item at that time. Mike !sraelsky: He received a phone call from Dave See last Thursday which was the first time he was notified of the conditions. All prior correspondence had been going through Mr. Villaflor because he had authorized him to be an agent for the owner and all they had approved it for was for the dance facility. He is available to discuss Condition Nos. 20 through 41 today. He will make sure that the liquor store operator is notified for the next meeting. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Boydstun: The liquor store conditions are items that are in the code and should be currently complied with. Mike Israelsky: The history of the shopping center and the of his involvement with the properties is that it has gone through foreciosures and receivership. The new owners came in over a year ago and made some changes to the property which he hoped would benefit the community. He would like the liquor store operator to have iiie opportunity to address those conditions. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 22 Commissioner Bostwick: Indicated he did not see any conditions that are a maJor impact other than the liquor store operator may possibly have some window signage. Mike Israelsky: Condition No.18 is the condition that has caused hardship to some of the convenience markets and liquor stores. The liquor store operator has been there for a least 10 years. Regarding Condition Nos. 20 through 41: • Condition No. 25 - lighting. They have lighting and would like to know if it is sufficient. • Condition No. 26 goes along with no. 35 - the vending machines. He has had some pay phone removed and it is his desire to have all of the pay phones removed. However, there are some existing contracts in effect. He did not know what their position is on demanding they be removed. The only other vending machine that may be there is a water machine, outside of the liquor store. Chairvvoman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Asked if those are pay phones that can be moved inside the building? Mike Israeisky: Most pay phone con!ract are for a specific location. If the City has the righk to demand that then he is more than happy to make the tenant compiy but he does not want to get involved in a lawsuit with the pay phone ccmpany. Condition No. 30 refers to the number of parking spaces which is 18 spaces. Currently that is current. When the shopping center was built in stages the bay deeps are 80 feet. Tfiere are several of the units that are 5,000 to 7,000 square feet that were expanded. They have electrical services set up for about 28 units. The shopping center was foreclosed upon previously and he does not want to see that happen again. More fre~uently he will find tenants who are looking for 1,000 to 2,000 square feet. The shopping center has currently 6 spaces that are 5,a00 square feet and above and he can not think of very many types of uses to put there that is going to make the shopping center successful. Rather than having to get a conditional use permit every time he wanted to add a wall he would like to have that changed to read as "28 units". Condition No. 31 goes along with Condition No. 37 relate to the exist~ng signage at the ~hopping center. The sign that has been requested to be removed is the largest sign that they have. Last year Code Enforcement gave them conditions that they met which cost them over ~u3,000 t~ repair. He just signed a tenant for the 20,000 square foot space and had given that sign space to that tenant as a condition of the lease. The removal of that sic~n will jeopardize the deal and irrefutable damage to the shopping center. Condition No. 39 and 40 tie into some of the other issues that he bro~!ght up. Therefore, with those he wanted to see if he can have those changed. Condition Nos. 39 and 40, tie into some of the ~ther issues and requested to have those changed. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked about Condition No. 25 and whether the applicant will have to prove that the lighting is sufficient? Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: The applicant would be required to submit a plan for the Police Department to review. If there is insufficient lighting, the solution would be to raise the intensity of the light bulbs or to put wall packs on the building which are free from the City. Generaliy, this has not involved much in the way of cost uniess there are no freestanding light standards anywhere in the parking lot, Commissioner Bostwick: Yes, there are light standards out there. It is just a matter of putting down the amount of lume~s in the fixtures. He would take the plan to the police so they could tell him if that was sufficient or not. City of Anaheim Pfanning Commission Summary Action Agenda OB-07-99 Page 23 Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: In the photograph on page 5, it shows the type of lighting standards. It is probably sufficient with the exception behind the building, if there are areas that are too dark the police department would request it to be lit. Mike Israelsky: He wants to promote safety. It is a prohlem behind the shopping center with people dumping illegally and breaking their lights, There are also apartments in the back which make it difficult to install lighting because many times the apartment rosidents complain. Commissioner Bostwick: Code Enforcement has free lighting available in different sizes and intensities. Asked if there is a problem with 28 units regarding Condition Ne. 30. Greg Hastings: No, staff was looking for a number that Planning Commission would be comfortable with and this wa~ :;;~ number of units that were there. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked about the signage. Mike Israelsky: Explained that there are a total of four signs. Three signs on Lincoln and one on Magnolia. Commissioner James Vanderbilt: Asked why Code Enforcement would require those changes to a sign they anticipated would have to be taken dowri at a later date. Greg Hastings: 7here .orobably was not any anticipation that the sign was going to be removed. The signs were permitted with permits when they were built. When signs are in disrepair Code Enforcement requires it be removed or repaired. Now that the CI~P is before Commissian for the entire shopping center, staff is mak`,~g a suggestion that the property along Lincoln Avenue only needs 2 signs and a 3rd sign is nat in character with the other s,igns in the center. Only 1 sign pane! was being used, therefore it was obviaus that ii was in excess of what was required for advertising. Mike Israelsky: The sign being reauested to be removed has 2 sign panels and it was not being used because of a vacant space, new tenants are moving in therefore the sign will now be completeiy utilized. Commissioner Vanderbilt: Asked Mr. Hastings if the tenants are being increased from 18 to 28 cha~ges staff's opinion for the number of signs. Greg Hastings: It would in terms of the amount of signage necessary in order to advertise. S!aff would prefer to get it all on 2 signs instead of 3. The applicant can submit information to staff to show how the 3 signs would be utilized. Two concerns was the overabundance of signs arid the one being out of character with the others. Mike israelsky: The sign is uut of character is because it was there prior to the new tenants moving in. Reducing the size of the sign is not good for tenants since they are set back from the street. Commissioner Koos: The issue is the signs in general, regardless of how they look they do not meet r,ode requirement. Greg Hastings: All three signs have permits, according to today's code, if this were a new site they could have 2 freestanding signs as long as they are 300 feet apart. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Asked if this was 3 parcels. Greg Hastings: According to i~iap it appears there are 4 parcels, however this is a unified shooping center, signage is considered for the entire center instead of one per parcel. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Asked if it could have been built in stages so signs were installed gradually. City of Anaheim Pfanning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 24 Commissioner Koos: Current code states Commission can not approve this with non-conforming uses? Greg Hastings: This is something staff is recommending. There would not be a code variance required for them to maintain the signs the way they are now. Commissioner Koos: Asked if they could approve thfs without doing anything to the signs. Greg Hastings: Responded yes. Greg Hastings: Suggested the westerly sign return to Commission as a Reports and Recommendation item showing how the applicant wouid propose to modify the sign to bring it more into conformance with the other signs, Chairperson Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Restated to the applicant that they could bring it back showing how the sign plan was modified so it fits better and looks uniform. Mike Israelsky: The owner spent a substantial money upgrading and would be willing to make it look appealing. Commissioner Koos: Aske~+ if the applicant, as the properry manager, was present to speaking for the entire property and tenants. Mike Israelsky: Responded yes, for the entire property with the exception of the liquor store at this point. Commissioner Koos: He would like to impose conditions on the liquor store but feels the owner of the liquor store should have been able to present his input and suggested another continuance because of this situation, Commissioner Bosrivick: Liquor store conditions are standard conditions except for the condition regarding the six-pack and four-pack. Greg Has!;ngs: That particular condition is typically used with the se~vice statior: convenience marts. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Boydstun: If Condition No.18 was deleted, the other conditions are necessary and need to be enforced on his property. Commissioner Koos: He agreed beca~se the other conditions are all code requirements. Greg Hastings: Condition Nos. 12,13 and 14 are not code requirements but have been uniforrtily applied to any type of alcohol related uses. Mike Israelsky: He is agreement with Condition Nos.12 and 13 regarding window signage because it makes his job much ~asier. [• FqLU7wING l5 A:SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No, 4114 (dance studio granted for 1 year) with the follcwing changes to the conditions of approval: Deleted Condition No.18. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Surnmary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 25 ~.., ;,, :. ;:' I Deleted Condition No. 37. ModiBed Condition Nos. 30, 31 and 40 to read as follows: 30. That the number of tenant spaces shall be iimited to twenty eight (28) units as reflected on approved exhibits submitted by the p~titioner. 31. That signage for subject facility shall be limited to all legal existing signage as cf the date of this resoiution. A sign plan showing the refurbishment of the westerly sign on the Lincoln Avenue frontage and conformance with the existing signs shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. Any additional signage shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 40. That prior to the commencement of the activiry or prior to final building and zoning inspections whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 5, 7,11, 28, 33, 34, 35 and 38, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bristol and Esping absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 27 minutes (2:19-2:46) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda OB-07-99 Pago 26 10a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 280 (PREV. CE 10b. THE PACIFICENTER SPECIFIC PLAN N0. 88-3 IAMENDMENT N0. 3) AND FINAL SITE PLAN 10c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4119 10d. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 99-129 10e. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 10c and 10d OWNER: Catellus Development, SF Pacific Properties, Inc. 800 N. Riameda, #100, Los Angeles, CA 90012 A3ENT: Fancher Development,1342 Bell Avenue, #3K, Tustin, CA 92780 Planning Co. Associates, Inc., 550 N. Brand Blvd., #530, Glendale, CA 91203 LACA710N: 3610-~720 East La Palma Avenue and 1001-1091 N__orth Tustin Avenue - The Paciflcenter Specific Plan No. 88_3. Property is 25.71 acres located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Tustin Avenue. Specific Plan No. 88-3, Amendment No. 3 and Final Site Plan - Request approval of Amendment No. 3 of the Pacificenter Specific Plan (SP88-3) (amending Exhibit Nos. 4 and 6, consolidation of Development Areas, amending Development Standards, including, but not limited to required parking, landscaping, setbacks, etc., listed permitted and conditionally permitted uses, and the Sign Program Appendix) and a Final Site Plan in order to create a single, unified Development Area for the development of a mixed-use commercial center within the Specific Plan, including the development of retail, office, hotel and other supporting uses. Conditional Use Permit No. 4119 - To permit a drive-through fast food restaurant. Tentative Parcel Map No. 39-129 - To permit a 5-lot commerciel subdivision within the existing mixed-use commercial center (to create a total of 11 parcels within the boundaries of the Pacificenter Specific Plan (SP88-3) Zone). Continued from the Commission meeting of May 24,1999. SPECIFIC PLAId AMENDMENT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-102 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION ~10. PC99-103 Recommended approval to Cfty Council GranSed Apprcved Apprc~ved ApplicanPs Statement: Rod Hamilton: Stated he is the appiicant irom Catellus Development, developer of Anaheim Pacific Center, 25 acres highly structured with 3 developed areas in 3 phases. The objective is to build out 18 acres with fand uses appropriate to the surrounding area. They are working with owners of Home Expo (Expo Design Center), a home improvement concept. City of Anaheim Pianning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 27 The revised plan has a mix of office, hotel, restaurant and commercial uses, but primary feature is to introduce flexibility in terms of what uses can be put where in what phases. The plan entaiis extending reciprocal easement agreements and CC & R's so that even if there is multiple ownership over time, there wili be consistent site controls and good maintenance of the site. Catelius is in agreement with the staff report but a few items require clarification or reconsideration. (He passed out a handout to facilitate discussion.J ~ First item is to clarify issue about signal that has been contemplated for some time to qo in at the project driveway on Tustin Avenue. A signai permit would allow a left turn exit out of the project. In terms of the viability of the project, the ability to take a left turn out is important. There needs to be a cooperation between Catellus and the property owner to have the intersection line up. • Qualification on uses that are mentioned in item 29 (page 12). Staff suggested bowling, pool, billiards centers be a prohibited use. It is not currently an irtention of Catellus to develop those uses, however, they are often uses that are included within the concept of entertainment centers also included within the list of uses. The staff report states entertainment centers can be allowed as a conditional use. Catellus would like to see bowling, pool and billiard use be subject to the samecaveat as pinball and electronic game arcades. That is to only conditionally permit it as an accessory use to another permitted or conditionally permitted business. • Requested a clarification to item 29 (page 12) which recommends that the phrase "no alcohol beverages permitted' be added to delicatessen and sandwich shops. They suggest the same clarification that is recommended to be added for restaurants "alcoholic beverage sales should be conditionally permitted" replaces this phrase. They do not believe that it was staff s intention to prohibit alcoholic sales at this use even with the conditional use permit, • item 30 which is a recommendation of a minimum of a 10 foot wide landscape setback area adjacent to rail right-of-way. The area in discussion is the entire railway right-of-way, the entire length of the property. Staff recommends a minimum of a 10 foot landscape setback area be created. The original spe~ific plan did not require any landscaping in this area, but Catellus added landscaping to this area on their own. For the last lwo years, Catellus has also been maintaining landscaping on the slope of the railway right-of -way which services Metrolink. Catellus is looking to entering into agreements with the City and Redevelopment Agency to continue to maintain that area. That area itself is 15 to 20 feet. If it is added to the 7-8 feet of landscaping on the Catellus property, there is an excess of 20 feet of landscape setback. The alternative is for Catellus to rip out curbing, drainage and tree wells and restripe the whole parking area for the sake of gaining 2 to 3 feet of setback. • Recc:~~mendation 3(on page 9) regarding a gated area at the project driveway. That gated area was an attempt with Home Expo to address a concern as to whether or not office users would pre-empt the parking for Home Expo. Neither Catellus of Home Expo know if it will be an issue but it was a subject of significant concern that they sought to create a solution. They propose to have an understanding as part of the Specific Plan Ordinance that they have a mechanism to return to the Planning Department if a situation develops over parking to balance the parking availability for the various users, provided that such workout was consistent with the CC&R's, reciprocal agreements on the site, that they are consistent with the shared parking analysis for the Specific Plan. • Item 30, staff recommends amending ihe landscaping program to have 24" bexed trees instead of 15- gallon trees. Catellus feels smaller tree specimens do better in a transplanted situation and 15-gallon trees grow more quickly that 24 gallon. They would like to retain 15-gallon trees. • The freeway oriented sign to be placed at the corner of the 91 freeway and Tustin Avenue. The elevation of this site at this corner is 24 feet below the elevation of Tustin Avenue, therefore a full 70 feet is not visible. The parapet of the Home Expo building barely peeks above the elevation of Tustin Avenue making wall signage at that location unavailing. It is difficult to see the Home Expo store on the westbound freetivay and they want to maximize the visibility on westbound. City code allows City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 28 freeway oriented sign of 70 feet, curcent Specific Plan approved a 44-foot sign for this corner. Staff report is confusing because on page 14 it recommends elimination of consideration of that sign but on page 19 staff sets conditions for a sign limiting it to identifying the project, Metrolink station and 3 major tenants. Mike Jensen: Conected Rod's refe~ence to Home Expa is actually Expo Design Center, a division of Home Depot. (He presented a 4-minute video of the store concept.) He discussed the marketing strategy and IayouUconcept of store. Commissioner Koos: Clarified that Home Depot will refer higher end customers to this store. Commissioner Vanderbilt: Asked if there will be furniture sales. Mike Jensen: Advised it will be patio oriented furniture. It will be the hardscape of the interior design, appliances, high end light fixtures, marble, tiles. It is a complimentary use to Levitr. Francis Chew, Architect for Expo Design Centec: Addressed (page 14) Condition No. 33(b) relating to wall signage. Staff recommends a maximum ~vall area of 175 square feet. Proposed sign on ele~: ation is the only sign on the entire 9000 square foot wall area and they are proposing 244 square foot sign. He requested to get that approved. Commissioner Bostwick: There is another sign on the rendering and asked if they were going to delete that. Francis Chew: Advised they would like to have sign exposure on Tustin Avenue. They need signage for northbound traffic on Tustin. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Asked if it would be possible to have the name on the monument sign at the entrance on the street. Rod Hamilton: The staff report recommends that the major retail tenant be allowed to have 175 feet of a primary sign on the front and only one sign and 87.5 feet on each of the other elevations. Expo Design Center has requested that they be able to execute their sign program that they found to be successful in the other locations. The 245 foot sign on the front relates positively to the code ratio of signage to frontage. The clarification is the scaie of the sign rather than how many signs. Expo Design wants one classic sign on each face. Commissioner Vanderbilt: Asked if Expo Design was placed on the east facade would the freeway be able to see the sign. Rod Hamilton: The top of the Expo Design building can hardly be seen. Commissioner Vanderbilt: There are no other struciures in the area and the color would make the sign stand out to people on freeway. Rod Hamilton: The view could be obstructed by trucks. There is a very small window of time, approximately a 5-second exposure, ~vhen signs are viewed, especially when there is a major curve in the road. Scott Duffne representative of Taco Bell: Requested additional consideration for a sign and clarification of page 13, of the staff report. They have prcoosed what is in the second amendment that presently exists and was approved in 1991, that is a monumsnt sign of 6 feet and sign area of 28 square feet. Their freestanding sign complies with what is presently approved for the center. They will screen the project as staff recommends, an~ due to the ground clutter, they need easy identification of the location. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 29 ~ommissioner Koos: Asked if there was a planned ints~ section there and if the Traffic and Transportation Division was comfortable with the traffic analysis. Aifred Yalda: Responded yes they were comfortable with the analysis but it was not included in the staff report. It shouid be constructed prior to issuance of building permit for structures that are approved by amendment no. 3 or as approved by City Engineer. It needs to be inc(uded in conditions. It is nnt in the mitigation measures and he has spoken with staff about adding the following verbiage in, "Tra~c signal will be installed at main entrance of Pacific Center between Riverside Freeway and i ustin Avenue including the modification and r:iedian island and alignment of driveways on east side of Tustin Avenue:' There will be a fully operational left turn signal. Mr. Hamilton: Asked Mr. Yaida for a clarification since he thought it was the Riverside Fwy. and La Palma Avenue on Tustin Av~nue. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: Responded the correct location is on Tustin Avenue between La Palma and Riverside Fwy. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Boydstun: She had a concern about the parking and suggested the parking should be open to everyone in the complex. Normally there is a recorded document cn a project such as this one. Mr. Hamilton: They currently have covenants and requirements. The CC&R's for the project relate to maintenance of the center including the parking. They are in the process of requiring aarking to remain open. Rather than propose any particular operational sol~~tion, they would like to have a mecharism in the Specific Plan to ensure if that becomes a problem, they can return with a proposal that would be subject to Commissiun's approval consistent with the shared parking and CC&R's for the site. As part of an agreement between OCTA, the City and Catellus, as parf of the compensation for the Catellus properly thaE would be dedicated to the MetroLink parking, it was agreed that the City would install the traffic signal at the project driveway. His understanding witFi the Redevelopment Agency is that they are revising the agreement to reduce the number of spaces because the City does not need that many spaces for MetroLink. As part of that agreement, it is very explicit that it is the City's obligation to install as well as pay for signal and it is the applicanPs responsibility to pull building permits orC of 0's is not dependent on the City pertorming what the City has agreed to do. The City fully expects to have the traffic improvements done well before Expo Design is ready to occupy. Alfred Yalda: Suggested Redevelopment Agency concur with that statement because they are yoing to be paying for it, Bob Gorson, Redevelopment Agency: Confirmed that was correct. The obligation of the agency is provide $150,000 towards the traffic signal. It does not include a median in the new agreement. However, he felt the Redevelopment Agency will probably modify their position to include up to ~225,000 which woulcl cover the median. Commissioner Koos: They need the inters~ction for that development to occur but if it is the City's responsibility, they can not make them accountable for it ahead of time. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked Ms. Mann if there is not agreement yet, how does Commission hold Catellus responsible, in their mitigation monitoring plan, if the City is going to pay for it. Selma Mann: Comm~ssion's responsibility is to look at this as a land use matter and impose such conditions that are appropriate to mitigate whatever impacts there are. It is up to Catellus to negotiate. It is up to the Planning Commission to review the merits as a land use matter. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 30 Chairperson Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Suggested leaving conditions in until they get rid of them. Asked Mr. Hamilton if they have space for parking garages. Mr. Hamilton: They could build parking but economics ars challenging in a project of this size but thought there is sufficient space as shown on the shared parking analysis. He thought there is no need or parking garages. Commissioner Esping: MetroLink is only leasing 70 spaces but if they add a monument sign it may increase demand for train station, in doing that will a greater parking demand negatively affect the plan as it stands now. Mr. Hamilton: There are more people coming to work into this northeast area rather than people driving, therefore the parking demand is reverse as originally thought. Shuttles pick up inbound passengers to various businesses in the area then bring them back to take the train out. Ridership has increased but parking demand has not, it is primarily an inbound commuter service rather than outbound. Greg Hastings: Responded to Commissioner Koos concerning the landscaping issues. Staff routinely request commuter rail areas be improved. Commissioner Koos: Asked to confirm whether commuter rail corridors are being considered the same way major arterials are considered and it going to be ongoing. Greg Hastings: They are going in that direction. It will not be identical but they are improving. Kevin Bass, Associate Planner: Responded the CUP section for alcoholic beverages was designed to cover al! uses that may elect on-sale or off-sale alcohol uses. It was intended to cover delicatessens and sandwich shops. It was not intended to prohibit them, but rather have them to obtain a CUP. Commissioner Koos: Asked about the bowling and billiards. Kevin Bass: They were anticipating a traditional entertainment center that encompasses the laser tag, children play area, bowling etc., as opposed to a traditional bowling alley. Staff feels a bowling is not appropriate at this office, mixed use complex. Mr. Hami~ton: Their request was to have bowling, billiards and pool treated like arcade games in the context of an entertainment center. Commissioner Esping: Staff is requesting MetroLink sign be on top of 70 foot sign. If train is inbound location why is there a need to have MetroLink so prnminently posted on the sign. Alfred Yalda: We are trying to encourage more people who are driving to use MetroLink instead of driving into Anaheim area. Commissioner Bostwick: Agrees with applicant about removing all curb, gutter and parking for 2 feet of additional landscaping along the railroad track. Asked iF they could condition the applicant to continue maintaining landscaping on Santa Fe right-of-way from Riverside Freeway to La Palma. Greg Hastings: Five feet in combination with that would work but he was not certain how far the Ciry can go in requiring the landscaping to be maintained in that right-of-way. The Specific Plan does not haae a requirement such as that. Ten feet would be better because if a building was built that close it would be a problem with trees, but 5 feet is better than what there is currently. He reminded Commission, if there are changes to the final plans those changes would have to return. Commissioner Bostwick: If they leave the 5 ieEt, there is not going to be a building built within that 5 feet City of Anaheim Planning Commissfon Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 31 Greg Hastings: An envelope is being established with the development standards but the applicant can return and ask to go all the way up to the envelope. Mr. Hamilton: The setback is 7 to 8 feet the entire length of the part that is built out not 5 feet. The agreement with regard to right-of-way stems from Metrolink's ownership of right to use that track. They put the obligation to maintain that station on the Redevelopment Agency and the applicant is agreei~g to perform the City's obiigation with respect to maintaining the slope in connection with this amendment of their agreement of the MetroLink agreement. There is a mechanism for them to be required to maintain that landscaping. Greg Hastings: Staff is proposing Condition No. 23 in the Specific Plan which requires the applicant to maintain that area. That should be sufficient landscape area from view of the railroad. Commissioner Bostwick: He thought tha maximum sign height shouid be 50 feet tall. The hotel can be seen from a distance in all directions and therefore does not need to be on sign giving more room for tenants. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Suggested adding a condition that the hotel can have 2 wall signs to be seen i~ either direction. Commissioner Bostwick: Clarified that sign the Expo Design Center is requesting 245 square feet. Rob Hamilton: Originally pians asked for primary and secondary signs on each elevation; three signs per elevation. The staff report indicates one sign per elevation, larger sign on main facade and smaller signs on other three facades. Expo Design Center requests 245 feet instead of 175 feet on main entrance; instead of 87,5 feet on other elevations have 100 feet. Mr. Hamilton: The 100 feet needs to be on southerly exposure, so easterly traffic can see it. The northerly exposure needs to be 245 feet. Greg Hastings: Landscaping will probably hide the back of building. Mr. Hamilton: The major concern is as going east on 91 a client has opportunity to make a decision to get off at that exit, thus mitigating traffic and not having them drive by the site, and turn around and have to come back. Commissioner Koos: Asked staff when was the last time Ciry approved a sign that high. Greg Hastings: The last sign was Frye's and it was denied but code has been changed twice. Code allows freeway signs for certain types of uses up io 70 feet with a CUP provided applicant indicates a need to have that height. This is not allowed in this area. Commissioner Koos: Asked if the sign can be approved with out a waiver. Greg Hastings: This Specific Plan allows you to. It will cause request for variances in the area from the other Specific Plans that surround this property. Mr. Hamilton: The bottom of sign is 24 feet below where you begin to see anything. We would be willing to have a 50 foot sign. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Asked if 55 feet would be acceptable. Mr. I-lamilton: Responded yes. There is a challenge in the graphics and materials to make sure they maximize readability of sign, City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 32 Greg Hastings: Staff would Uke to have clarification as to maximum number of tenants. There is need for signage to be successful but need to make sure they have exhaus.ted all altematives including wali signage. It is going to be impossible to be able to get traffic to know where to get off by the time a customer gets to the property. They are looking for identification not direction from the next off-ramp. Commissioner Koos: Asked if there could be a south elevation wall sign not covered by landscaping as a substitute. Greg Hastings: If headed eastbound that might work, however westbound is a different story. Commissioner Esping: Asked if Metrol.ink have to be on the top of th~ sign? M~. Hamilton: Their interest was to maximize visibility of MetroLink as a use that was of general regional appeal. They are open to how best portray MetroLink. Commissioner Esping: Asked if MetroLink be changed to Pacific Center MetroLink as opposed to Anaheim Canyon MetroLink? Commissioner Koos: Asked if as part of Reports and Recommendation, landscaping, would that include potential pedestrian striping between hotel and other uses or would it be part of the that package or wouid it have to be here today? Kevin Bass: The master landscape plan does not specifically address pedestrian lanes throughout the center. Even if there are waikways along the major interior circulation elements, people take the shortest route. Greg Hastings: Regarding the freestanding Taco Beil sign, the 1991 versian of the Specific Plan allows for one freestanding sign for fast food restaurant but that addresses the Carl's Junior sign that was previously approved. There is no current aliowance for a freestanding sign for another fast food. Staff feels the location of the building itself without anything in front blocking it along the street frontage is visible enough and people know what it is without the tall sign. During the voting: Greg Hastings: Inquired as to guidance to the number of panels for the 55-foot high pylon sign. Commissioner Bostwick: Responded four panels. Greg Hastings: To be clear, four panels with the mixture of tenants and or MetroLink and name of center Commissioner Bostwick: On signage, Expo Design Center has 245 square foot over main entry and one 100 square foot sign on the Tustin Avenue side. Greg Hastings: Recommended adding to the resolution removal of the gates within the parking lot as outlined in paragraph 34 and submittal of final plans for the proposed hotel and 5000 square foot retail restaurant facility and traffic signal mitigation measure as specified by the Traffic and Transportation Manager. Commissioner Koos wanted to go on record that he was not in support of the sign aspects but would vote in the affirmative. City of Anaheim Pianning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 33 • • • • • ~ • ORPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the prevfously-certi~ed EIR 280 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Recommended to the City Council approval of Amendment No. 3 of the Pacificenter Specific Plan No. 88-3, in part, as follows: (1) Approved the 5-foot wide landscaped area along the western property line adjacent to the railroad right-of-way; (2) All trees planted throughout the Pacificenter shall be a minimum size of 24-inch box planted on 20-foot centers; (3) All drive-through restaurant activities shall be screened from Tustin Avenue using a combination of a 3-foot high landscaped berm with a 3-foot high r:~asonry wall (with vines); (4) Approved a 55-foot high, freeway oriented pylon sign with four (4) panels with a mixture of tenants including Metrolink and the name of the center. (5) Approved a 6.5-foot high, 96 square foot freestanding monument sign adjacent to Tustin Avenue to advertise the proposed Taco Bell drive-through restaurant. (6) Approved a two hundred forty five (245) square foot sign over the main entry and a 100••square foot sign on the Tustin Avenue side of the buiiding. (7} No gates shall be permitted to enclose any parking lot area. (8) Prior to issuance of any building permits for either the hotel site or the 5,000 square foot retail/restaurant pad, the Planning Commission shall review and approve final plans as a Reports and Recommendation item. (9) Added the following conditior: That the property owneddeveloper shall submit plans for the design and installation of a traffic signal located at the main Tustin Avenue driveway entrance. The traffic signal and median improvements for Tustin Avenue shall be installed prior to the issuance of a building permit for structures located within the Final Site Plan or as approved by the City Engineer. ('10) Modified the list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses identified as Attachment No.1 to the June 7, 1999 Planning Commission staff report, as follows: Permitted Uses: 13. Catering Establishments (off-site service only) [No storage of vehicles or commissaries shall be permitted] 24. Delicatessens/Sandwich Shops [Alccholic beverages conditionally permitted] 34. Fast Food Restaurants (No drive-through or w~alk-up service) [Enciosed or semi-enclosed permitted with Planning Commission review of final plans) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 34 42. Hotels (pro~~ided certain conditions are met, see Appendix 12) [Up to 150 roomsJ 64. Restaurants [Drive-through or walk-up service, and alcoholic beverages sales shall be conditionally permitted; enclosed and semi-enclosed permitted with Planning Commission review of final plans~ 65. Retail Supply Stores (including, but not limited to r,ehicle accessories and pa~ts) [No automotive servicing or repair permittedj 69. Supermarkets, markets and groceries [Conditionally permittecJ use] 73. Veterinary Clinics, non-boa.*ding [Conditionally permitted use if overnight boarding is included] Condi-.ional Uses: 4. Convenience markets ir, ~onnection with gasoline sales [Service Station facilities and accessory convenience markets shall be prohibited uses] 9. hledical/Dental Labs [Pzrmitted use] N/A. Entertainment Centers including, but not limited to Bowling, Pool or Billiard Centers, Pinball and Electronic Games Arcades. [Conditionally permitted usej N/A. Fiotels (over 150 rooms shall be a con~itionaily permitted use] [Commissioner Koos went on the record stating he is not in support of the sign aspect approval] APPROVED THE FINAL SITE PLAN AS BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF AMENDMENT N0. 3 OF THF PACIFICcNTER SPECIFIC PLAN. GRANTED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4119 TO PERMIT A DRIVE- THROUGH RESTAURANT, AS CONDiTIONED IN THE JUNE 7, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT. APPROVED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0. 99-129 (TO PERMIT A 5-LOT COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION WITHIN THE EXISTING MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL CENTER TO CREATE A TOTAL OF 11 PARCELS WITHIN THE ~ACIFICENTER SPECIFIC PLAN N0. 88-3), AS FOLLOVYS: ivIOTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bri~tol and Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposed subdivision, toc~ether with its design and improvement, is consistent with the City of Anaheim Genera~ Plan, pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5; and does, therefore, approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 99-129 for a 5-lot, commercial subdivision within the existing mixed-use commercial center to create a tota~ of 11 parcels within the Pacificenter Specific Plan No. 88-3 subject to the conditions, as listed in the June, 7, 1999 Planning Commission staff report. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bristol and Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend City Council review of the Final Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit No. 4119 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 99-129 along with the requested Specific Plan Amendment. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bristol and Esping absent) Ciry of Anaheim Fiann~ng Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 35 [THERE WAS A BREAK FOLLOWING THIS ITEM.] City of Anaheim Planning ~:ommission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 36 11a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 Concurred with 11b. VARiANCE NO. 4349 (READVERTISEQ) Granted, in part OWNER: John H. and Donna M. Currie, 7570 Martella Lane, Anaheim, CA 92808 INITIATED BY: City of A^aheim, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: Po~tion A: 7570 East Martella Lane. Property is 1.0 acre, located 627 feet east of the centerline of Martin Place. Portian B: 151.161.171 South Canvon Crest Drive. 120 South Nlartin Place. 7540. 7550. 7551. 7560 7561 7570, 7571. 7580. 7581 and 7590 East Martelia Lane and 180.181.190 and 191 South Possom Hollow. Property is 17 acres, located 270 feet south of the centerline of Canyon Crest Drive. Waiver of (a) minimum private street wicth and (b) minimum front yard setback (on Portion A only) to construct an 811 square foot garagP addition for an existing single-famiiy residence. Continued from the Commission meeting of May 10, 1999. i/ARlANCE RESOLUTION N0. PC99•104 SR7454KB.DOC ApplicanYs Statement: ~~.^..^.a Currie: At ihe last meeting they asked for a continuance to seek legal assistance regardin~ easements versus variance and they decided to approach the addition as a variance only r~ther th~n to waive the private road standards. She submitted a letter signed by all neighbors on Martella Lane. She read the letter into the record. Th;~ garage has been re~uced from 811 square feet to 485 square fee! and the setback encroachment has been reduced 50°/a and they are only comir,g out 10 feet instead of 20 feet. They have had their architect try to reposition the garage on various areas of the property and this plan being submitted today is the only design and angle that works. She disagreed with the staff report that indicates they could try to place garage e~sewhere. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~'Commissioner Vanderbilt: ARer discussion with the City Attorney, and given the fac! he had not attended the previous meeting and was not part of the Planning Commission, he felt it is not appropriafe to take part in the action or discussion of this item.J ~^ . r~~~vwiNG 15 A SuMMARY OF~IHE PLAt~NINC GOMryIISSION ACTION: ~ IN FAVOR: A petition with 20 signatures in favor of subject proposal was submitted at the public hearing. OPPOSlTION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical rity of Anaheim Pfanning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 37 ;;; ;?- . , ., ;,,,.. ExempUons, Class 1, as defined in the State FiR Gufdelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the irequirements to prepar~ an EIR. Granted Variance No. 4349, in part, as follows: Denied waiver (a) pertaining to minimum private street width on the basis that the petitioner wi4hdrew this part of the request following public notiBcation. Approved waiver (b) pertafning to minimum front yard setback (on Portion A oniy) on the basis that there are specla! circumstances applicable to the property such as topography which does not apply to other identir,ally zoned properties in the vicinity, that there is no intention for the City to widen street in front , that given the nature of the hili and Canyon Area desiring to keep their streets fairiy narrow that this will not encroach into the public rights-of-way and a variance is appropriate. VOTE: 3-1 (Commissioner Koos Votes No, Commissioner Vanderbilt abs .,ined and Commissioners Bristol and Esping absent) Seima Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 15 rr~inutes (4:40-4:55) City of Anaheim Planning Commissfon Summary Action Agenda 06-07-y9 Page 38 . ' ~ ~,~ .;t 7 ~r ~: e 4; . . . . . ~ F . ~ 12a. CEQA NHGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 12b. CONDRIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4121 ~ R-21-99 OWNER: Landrey Properties, LLP, P.0. Box 1306, Santa Monica, CA 90406 AGENT: Paui Kott,1225 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 2861 East Miraloma Avenue - California Auto Dealers Exchanae. Property is 4.65 acres located on the no~th side of Miraloma Avenue, 980 feet west of the centeriine of Red Gum Street. To permit and retain an existing automobile storage lot. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NQ. 120TW.DOC • • •• • • s • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the June 21,1999 ^~anning Commission meeting in order to readvertise this request to permit and retain a modular office unit in conJunction with the proposed automobile storage lot. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bristol and Esping absent) DISCllSSIQN TIME: This item was not discussed. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda OS-07-99 Page 39 13a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGA7IVE DECLAFtATION Continued to 13b. VARIANCE N0. 4364 July 7,1999 13c. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0.15837 OWNER: Mark Chapin Johnson, Trustee, P.O. Box 17729, Anaheim, Ca 92817 AGENT: Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc., Attn:1'ed D. Frattone, 3 Hughes, Irvine, Ca 92618 LOCATION: 195 South Heath Terrace. Property is 7.0 acres located on the south side of Heath Terrace, 331 feet south of the centerline of Rio Grande Drive. With waiver of (a) minimum lot width (deleted) and (b) minimum private accessway requirements, to estabiish an 8 lot i6 numbered and 2 lettered) six-unit single-family residential subdivision. VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. SR1 Applicant's Statement: Jon Head, Woodbridge Development, 27285 Las Ramblas, Mission Viejo, CA: Agreed with the staff report except on page 3 of the Environmental impact Analysis, Item 14. A certified report done by the biologist detennined that the coastal sage on the property was not going to be disturbed and they determined that there would be no reason to mitigate because they are not interfering with the habitat. They would fence off the area during construction so it wouldn't be disturbed. They are not regrading, just recompacting existing grades, for the house pads. All slopes and landscaping will remain on the property, Chairperson Pro-Tempore Boydslun: Asked what type of fees are attached to the mitigation monitoring. Greg Hastings: Advised there were certain agencies which were not notified and we will have to notify them of the proposed tentative tract map. It will also give staff an opportunity to look at the project to see if there is any impact on the coastal sage. At the time of the recommendation, st2ff didn't have the report indicating that it wouldn't be affected. He sugges;ed testimuny be heard today and then come back with any changes that the applicant or Commission asks iur and then they can readvertise. Jon Head: Advised they are in concurrence with the other items, and presented photographs of the existing site. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Boyustun: Advised that the Commission should look at the photographs when the item ~ eturns because they can't vote today anyway. Commissioner Bostwick: Indicated he has a problem with the roadways. It is inadequate for traffic if someone parks along the side of the road and he is not willing to go along with 16-foot paved roadways as proposed and felt it needs to be widened. Jon Head: Stated the goal is to keep the integrity of the street trees, and that the Fire Department has approved it based on existing ruads, and no parking would be allowed on the road. Commissioner Bostwick: There are signs on Heath now which read "no parking" and people park there. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 40 Jon Head: They have agreed to widen Heath Terrace off of Rio Grande to the property, and they wiil create parking spaces within the project. It will be managed by a homeowner's association that will maintain the "no parking" on the street. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked if the homeowner association was going to include the homes below the project. Jon Head: The maintenance and improvement of Heath Terrace will be taken over and they wiil provide for parking, trash pick up, etc. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Asked if the houses could be pushed back more to get more space. Jon Head: They do not have enough depth on the lots to go back without extensive retaining walis and disturbing the existing slope. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Felt from a safety standpoint, she could not vote for a road this narrow. Commissioner Bostwick: Explained Heath Terrace plans show a 20-foot width and asked its ultimate width. Jon Head: Heath Terrace off Rio Grande will be up to 28 feet. Commissioner Koos: Sugge~ted coming back with alternatives for the road. Commissioner Bostwick: If a fire truck is on the road, there is no way for a car to drive by and get out on a 16-fo~t road. Motioned for continuance until July 7th. Steve Scott, 156 Heath Terrace, Anaheim, CA: A major concern of the neighbors is safety, and the street needs to be widened if more homes are built. i he residents talked about a gate at the entrance to the community and realize it would have to be approved, They are concerned where the mailboxes will go for ihe new homes and where and when the trash truck will go through the area. They are concerned about the removal of a horse trail if the street is widened, and they want to keep ambiance of the property. The City would have to abandon the horse trails which connect to other trails. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Parks and Recreation would have to agree to abandon the horse trail and that would be difficult because they are trying to make the trail continuous. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: ~tated there are certain trails that are on the General Plan and it would require a General Plan Amendment to remove them. Steve Scott: Stated if the trail is abandoned, the easement is gone and that is his property. He asked if the road is automatically widened or do they have to ask his permission to widen the road over his property. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Asked if the City already has an easement. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer; Advised that research will be done during the continuance and she wiil review it with P~rks and Recreation, but that she was unaware of the trail on the property. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Announced that notices will not be sent out again. Tricia Nord: 166 Heath Terrace. One concern about project is that one of the entrances to the property has a gate. There is a bend to go into the property, and they were going to put in a hammerhead tum; that it is a blind spot and has little room to maneuver. A gate creates a hindrance to the flow through and if there is a problem, the stack will be in front of their houses. The neighbors would like the gate to be City of Anaheim Planning Commisslon Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 41 eliminated to reduce traffic and move it to the front of the street and make it one community. The mailboxes are going to be in a location where people will be stopping their cars to get the mail. The developers say they will improve the private street access and they want to clarify what street improvements are satisfactory to the City Engineer. Doug Brown, 6254 Santa Canyon Road, Anaheim, CA: Advised that the rolled curb has an additional foot and a half on each side, so if bi-directional fraffic is approaching on that portion of the street, two cars can pull out to the outside of the rolled curb and safely pass. He a~o~aes with the staff s evaluation of the project. If the street was widened, it would probably allow traffic to move more rapidly and destroy the ambiance of the development. Commissioner Bostwick: Encouraged the developer to meet with residents in the neighborhood and come to a consensus as to what will happen v~ith gates and widening. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Advised there are iwo guest parking spaces for six houses, and the people who buy these houses are going to have parties and there will not be enough room to park. Doug Brown: Making it 4 feet wider would tend to make tra~c more rapidly and would probably destroy the ambiance of their development. For the portion behind the existing gates, it would be a"drag" to have them widen it which makes it more of a temptation to speed back there, particularly when they have the additional space per lot which tt~e four lot in the front do not have. The four lots in the front have a problem with parking now. As long as certain safeguards are implemented to slow the traffic down, he thought it would be an extreme hardship on the developers. They seem to be very sensitive to what the front four neighbors on that street want and he could not imagine that they would not continue to be sensitive, particuiarly because they intend to continue the matter. He thought something could be worked out to the satisfaction of all the neighbors in the front and the developer. He could not see how the front or back parcels couid benefit from the widening of the street in the back. Commissioner Bostwick: Suggested the developer meet with the residents and come to a consensus as to what is going to happen to the gates, street widening, etc. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Boydstun: She added that they have two parking places for six houses. She felt on this road they need to find more places for parking because the people who purchase the houses are going to have party guests, particularly if there are two or three who have a party on the same day. With the amount of property available, there should be some area available to provide parking areas. Dave Nord, 166 South East Terrace, Anaheim, CA: They are impacted greatly with the gate and also the lack of parking. He thought the parking spaces inside the project are very warranted and would be a great addition and would cause little traffic problems. With the gate being at the back section next to their house, their fear is that not having a frunt gate, those gates are going to be closed and the problem of stacking. Also, there will be people during the parties who are going to knock on his doors and want to know how to get in. There is a phone to call for assistance but if no one answers it, people would still want to know how to get into the property and tP~ose cars are probably going to park in front of his house and the homes down the road. Therefore, the widening of their road is very important and it is only seven feet in front of his home because of a retaining wall and perhaps the wall needs to be moved back. They do get traffic and he thought of making it one community with those gates open keeps them from having confrontations with peopls going through. He is not opposed to the homes but as long as it is done the right way. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Boydstun: She felt it is a necessity to provide the gate to the front. Commissioner Bostwick: He suggested no gates and instead to prevent stacking and problems with mail service, trash etc. and that speed bumps could be installed if that is a concern. Jon Head: Regarding the horse trail, it is designated as a horse trail but there is no access to it. It is fenced off and has not been used as a horse trail. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 42 Commissioner Kaos: He thought ft could be part of a master plan Someone from the audience (did not ldentify themsel~: They contacted the Parks and Recreation Department and they did not even know that it was there. Jon Head: As far as widening the road, they would be willing to add more parking. Their goal is to try to keep the raad as it is and save as many trees as possible because of the maturiry of the trees and the landscaping that i~ there. The Fire Department has approved it as it is and again they are willing to add parking spaces. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Boydstun: She felt the parking spaces would be a necessity. Jon Head: There are other areas where !hey could add parking. They agreed with the neighbors that if the gate off Rio Grande was approved, there would be no reason why they would need a double gate there and that the gate could be opened. They also saw the gate as a means of slowing down traffic. They had agreed with the Fire Department to not put speed bumps withfn their project because of response time. They agreed to build speed bumps on Heath Terrace adjacent to Rio Grande as it is currently. In order to give the Fire Depa~tment a quicker response time, they agreed not to install them within the project and keap the roacis narrow which would keep the speed down. Dave Nord: Regarding the gates, the front gata is important to them, as residents, because many people want to come there because it is such a unique ~iece of property that has been there so long. He would prefer at least a front gate because when they go out, they are standing in the middle of the road. At least the one gate would keep people out and it would still not prohibit anyo~e from coming in who is supposed to be there. He felt the front gate would be important because it gives security since cars do have a tendency to sow down when they enter from a gate because it is a private community and they seem to have more respect to that. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer: if the developer is proposing a gate at the front of the project, she suggested that they meet with the Traffic and Transportation Division to design the gates so there is no backup onto the public right-of-way. ~;' Fo~LiDWING 15. A SUMMARY OF .THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: :. OPPdSITION: 3 people spake with cancerns ACTION: Continued subject request to the July 7,1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for staff to notify the agencies that were not notified of the proposed Tentative Tract and for further review of the project by staff. VOTE: 5-~ (Commissioners Bristol and Es~ing absent) DISCUSSiON TIME: 35 minutes (4:56-5:31) City of Anaheim Planning Commfssion Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 43 14a. CEGW NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Continu 14b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3269 (READY~RTISED) 6-21-99 OWNER: Kyu-Ho-Yun,1285~ Palm Street, #202, Garden Grove, CA 92840 AGENT: Darren Nguyen, 501-509 S. Brookhurst Street, Maheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 501-509 South Brookhurst Street - The Ritz. Propetty is 1.92 acres located on the west side of Brookhurst Street, 390 feet north of the centeriine of Orange Avenue. To amend or delete conditions of approval to add thres additionai holidays to the previousiy-approved days of operation for a dance hall. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. e • • • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTIOt~: Continued subject request to the June 21, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, as reque~ted by the applicant. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bristol and Esping absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. City of Anaheim Planning Commissio~ Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 44 15a. CEQA NEGA7IVE DECLARATION 15b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 412~' Approve~ Granted for 1 year OWNER: Dan(el P. Zettler,1315 Brasher Street, Anaheim, CA 92807 ~~ (To Expirs 5-7-2000) AGENT: Daniel P. Zettler, 22182 Sunlight Creek, Lake Forest, CA 92630 LOCATION: 1315 North Brasher Street. Property is 0.6 acre located on the west side of Brasher Street, 385 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. To permit a cooking oil recycling facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC99-105 ApplicanPs Statement: Doug Zettler, 22182 Sunlight Creek, EI Toro, CA: He is proposing setting up a cooking oil recycling plant. Cooking oil is taken from various restaurants throughout the county and it is processed through a separation process and most of that cooking oil is then used in animai feed and a small portion of the fat is used in making soap. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSE~ Commissioner Koos: Asked Mr. Zettler is ;~:, had any comments regarding the conditions of approval. Doug Zettler: He had a minor concern on Condition No. 1 that no tent or canopy shall be permitted. His brother owns the building and he has a canopy to cover items such as a forklift, etc. It is a temporary structure. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: The canopy is not a permitted use. The concern is with the Building Division and Fire Department, as well as the Planning Department, concerning the aesthetics of people installing tents and canopies on their properties. Commissioner Boshnrick: He noted that there are many barrels outside which relates to Condition No. 2. Doug Zettler: Responded this was not a problem and he was wiiling to comply. s ~ • • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4124 for 1 year subject to the conditions listed in the staff report dated June 7,1999. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bristol and Esping absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (5:32-5:37) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Actian Agenda 06-07-99 Page 45 16a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 16b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied 16c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4126 Granted, in part, for OWNER: Southern California Edison, Attn: Lou Salas,100 Long 20 years Beach Blvd., #1004, Long Beach, CA 90802 (To expire 6-7-2019j AGENT: Phillip R. Schwartze, 31682 EI Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 LOCATION: 1550-1600 South Lewis Street. Property is 5.71 acres located on the east side of Lewis Street, 615 feet south of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue. To permit a building material storage yard with an accessory modular office unit with waiver of minimum required landscaping for screening of block walis (delefed). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTIQN N0. PC99-106 SR1050KP AppiicanPs Statement: Philip Schwartze: Stated they are generally in agreement with the staff report, although there were concerns regarding a couple of conditions. On page 5, no. 23(b) regarding the time period of 15 years, they leased property from Edison and the adjoining property owner which is a long term manufacturing group in Anaheim and they would like to lease the property from them in order to expand their business for 20 years. Therefore, rather than 15 years he requested it be for 20 years. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Boydstun: She asked for clarification from Mr. Schwartze to verify that they are going to sublease their property. Philip Schwart~e: Yes, sublease the whole property to Santa Fe (a marbie tile company). He referenced the exhibits, and pointed out the access and where they are landscaping. Along the north they are abutted by a number of buildings with zero selbacks, and on the south is where Santa Fe is currently located. On page 6, no. 12, regarding the fencing, he requested the south side fencing be deleted. They have a fence in the zero setback areas along the north, and they are landscaping and putting in a wall and shrubs on the west. On the south they abut Santa Fe, and on the east is where the railroad tracks are located ard :~iey propose to screen that. Therefore, he did not see a need for Condition No. 12. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Asked the length of their lease with Edison? Philip Schwartze: Thirty years. Their request is for 20 years which would satisfy the desires of Santa Fe. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Asked if Santa Fe backs the full length of the property and Mr. Schwartze pointed out the area or'.he exhibits. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Originally the Recommendation Cormittee decided on 10 years and they later reviewed the surrounding uses. There is a lot of outdoor storage in this area and the committee found that 15 years seemed to be the rule of what was permitted. Staff's major concern is that City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary A~tion Agenda 06-07-99 Page 46 it not be a permanent use in case there is an alternate use that would end up in this area in the future. Staff continues to recommend 15 ~ears. It was staff's fntent to screen from view any pubiic rights-of-way including a railroad right-of-way where there would be commuter tra~c, not necessarily freight traffic. If that is the case then staff would agree with the applicant that the screening be on all sides except the south side. Phiiip Schwartze: There are some other properties in the city where something else can be done at the property, but they have the large 60 kV lines above them which limits what can be built there. It is always going to be a location for non-structure activiry. Commissiuner Koos: Asked if there was landscaping on the east side adjac~~nt to the tracks? Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: There is a condition that requires clinging vines, He suggested on the south side that there not be any screening or landscaping required unless this is no longer part of the Santa Fe project. Staff is actually not concerned with the development on this property but it is the development around it, should that ever change. Commissioner Koos: He felt that this corridor needs to be improved to make it look nicer. Philip Schwartze: Responded they would be happy to screen it. • • • • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved ~Jegative Ueclaration Denied Waiver of Code Requirement on the basis that the requested waiver of minimum required landscaping for screening of block walls was deleted following public notification. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 4126 for twenty (20) years with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Modified Condition Nos.1 and 12 to read as follows; That subject use permit shall expire twenty (20) years from the date of this resolutinn, on .~une 7, 2019. 12. That slats (in a material approved by the Planning Department) shall be interwoven into minimum 7 foot high chainlink fencing along the east proper;~+ line and the south property line in the event that the use to the south changes and shall be maintained in good condition at all times. Said fencing shall be planted with clinging vines or shrubs wherever visible to the public, including the railroad right-of-way. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bristol and Esping absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 12 minutes (5:38-5:50) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 47 17a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 17b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.1451 (READVERTISED) 7-7-99 OWNER: The Evangelical United Brethren Church at Anaheim California, f~00 S. Lemcn Street, Anaheim, CA 92905 AGENT: Hope Universiry, Attn: Janice Reyes, 800 S. Lemon Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 800 South Lemon Street - Native American United Methodist ChurchlHone Universitv. Property is 1.86 acres located at the southeast corner of South Street and Lemon Street To permit a fine arts school for developmentally disabled adults in an existing church faci~iry. CONDITIdNAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTIQN N0. (Commissioner Boydstun declared a conBict of interest. Therefore, Commissioner Bostwick acted s chairman for fhis item.] ApplicanYs Statement: Janice Reyes, Executive Director of Hope Universiry; Stated they are appiying for the con~itional use permit for a fine arts schocl for develenmentally disabled adults in the existing church facility. Joan N~arks: Her family lives on Anaheim Boulevard, they have been there for 52 years. Her concern is on page 2, it states there will be 2 full-time teachers and 5 part-time teachers arid 1 administrator. She asked how many adults are going to be supervising every day? There are 33 adults alrEady there and they are go~~g to go up to 50 people which concerns her. She ask~d if there is going to be any kind of confinement. She asked for clarification on the hours of operation and if it will actually be limited to 50 people. Janice Reyes: Two-thirds of thsir students are high functioning. They are required by the State to have a ratio of 8 students to one teacher. On Monday, V'~adnesday, Thursday and Friday they have four teachers and on Tuesday they have six. If they should go up to 50 students, then they would hire more teachers. Commissioner Bostwick: Presently they have 33 students. Janice Reyes: They are only required to have an 8 to 1 ratio on their lowest functioning students which are probably 9 students. Ths others are fairly high functioning. They have 8 students who ride public transportation. The actual school hours are 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., but they indicated 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. because students do start arriving between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. and then the last bus picks up at 3:30 p.m. That is why there are different hours stated. The students are always under supervision and they are always in the facility. The only time they may go out is when the staff walks them to, for example, the Farmers Market. Tfiey do have a perForming group that performs at the Farmers Market. Ms. Reyes responded to Commissioner Bostwick's question by indicating that they do not have studer~ts in wheelchairs, and they are all ambulatorv. City of Anaheim Planning Comrnission Summary Action Agenda v6-07-99 Page 48 She had a couple of quesl~ons regarding the conditions. She asked if it would be their responsibiliry to restripe the parking lot, buiid gates and corform to the trash enclosure st~ndards, since they are the tenants and not the owners? The freestanding sign on Lemon Street was there when they mov;;d in. Commissioner Bostwick: He s~esponded that it is the responsibility of the owner, but ft is tied to their appiication since they are the anes who are applying. Therefore, she needs to work that out with the church. Ms. Reyes: On Condition No.1, requiring the drop-off area shall be approved by the Traffic and Transportation Manager and asked ha~v ihat is accomplished. Commiss3oner Bostwick: She wouid take the drawing of ihe property to ttie Traffic and Transportation Manager. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Indicated tliat the case planner could assist her in each of these conditions. THE i'UBLIC HEARIN(; WAS C~~SED. Commissioner Vanderbilt: Since the school curriculum involves fine arts, music and drama, would there be any sound issues that might concern neighbors. Ms. Reyes: She did not feei they would be increasing their music from what they currently do and they have not had any compiaints from the neighbors. Commissioner Vanderbilt: Informed the Ms. Reyes that there may be an issue in using the word "university" in their organization's name, He thought there was some language in State law that indicated that they need to issue degrees in order to use the word "university' in their name. if anything less fhan an associates degree is not offered, then they can not legaliy use the terr~~ "university." Phyllis Boydstun (speaking as a citizen]: She manages 10 properties that adjoin this property, front and rear, and there is never any noise or traffic and they are a great organization. If there were any problems then she would know about it right away. Commissioner Koos: Given the concerns mentioned by the applicant regarding improvements to the property, he asked Ms. Reyes if she is comfortable if Commission acted on this request today? Ms. Reyes from the audience acknowledged that sha felt comfortable with this. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Suggested tha Cummission may want to consider that if there is any problem with the landlord, the applicant is going to need to come back with a modification of conditions of approval. Therefore, it may be prudent in this instance to actually continue this item rathar than put the applicant in the position of having to return tor a modification which is a costly process. Commissioner Koos: Asked Ms. Reyes how she felt if this item was continued for two weeks to allow her time to speak with ttie landlord before this item is acted on. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: He suggested continuing this item for 4 weeks due to the length of the June 21st agenda and since the applicant is currentl/ operating at the property, it should not be a hardship. Commissioner Koos: Offered a motion for a continuance to July 7,1999, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and motion was carried. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 49 • ~ ' ~ ' • ~ ~ ~ ~` F.4VQR: 1 person spoke in favor of subject proposal. ~PPOSITION: Noneh person spo{:e with concems ACTION: Continued subject request to the July 7,1999 Planning Commission mesting in order for the applicar~t to meet wifh the landowner and discuss the conditions of approval piaced on the use. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioner Boydstun declared a conflict of interest and Commissioners Bristol and Esping absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 11 minutes (5:51-6:02) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 50 7t38. GEQA NEGATIVF DEGLAIZATION (YKtV1UUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 18b. CONDITIONAL U$E PERMIT N0.1795 (READVERTISED) Approved amendment to conditions of OWNER: Karl Kocek,1241 S. Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA 92804 approval AGENT: Valerie Hosford, 250 W. Main Street, #101, Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATlON: 1241 South Brookhurst Street - Bel Air Montessori School. Property is 0.24 acre locatsd on the west side of Brookhurst Street, 800 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road. To amend or delete conditions of approval to permit students up to iwelve years of age for an existing private school. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOI,.UTION N0. PC99-107 (Commissioner Boydstun retumed as Chairperson.) Applicant's Statement: Valerie Hosford: Stated she is representing Karl Kocek. They reviewed the staff recommendations and have no problem with the conditions imposed. She wanted to make a clarification regarding the map attached to the ~taff report. This facility is comprised of two separate lots. The only address the school has is 1241 South Brookhurst Street. The only access to the school is from that particular property. The diagonal line on the ma~ is a fence which corresponds to a property line. The conditional use permit that they are referring today is Cup 1795 and it relates to an address at 1281 South Brookhurst Street and again there is no school access other than through the gates from the 1241 property. The 1281 property is approximately .25 acres and the 1241 property is approximately 1.6 acres and together they comprise the school. The 12 year ol~ students will be on the 1281 preperty. Her client is in agreement with conditions of approval. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: That was what caused the original confusion. The north half was originally the school and th~n it expanded to the south half. it has been advertised to included both properties for clarification. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~~, ' FOLLOWING:IS A.SUMMARY.pF THE PLANNING (~MMISSION AC~JON. ~ .,:~ . <, OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to servs as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved request for amendment to the conditions o~ approvai. Modified Resolution No. PC78-13 by adding the foilowing conditions of approval: That the maximum number of students shall be limited to 120 students up to 12 years of age. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-07-99 Page 51 , .. .. 4. That the hours of operation shall be timited to the current hours of 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. 5. That within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of this revised resolution (by August 6,1999) (a) plant material shall be instalted to cover bare dirt areas in the planters and (b) the slatted fence shall be repainted to be all one color. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bristol and Esping absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (6:03-6:07) ADJOURNED AT 6:10 P.M. TO MONDAY, J!!NE 21,1999 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVlEW. Submitted by: ~ .~a.~ Ossie Edmundson Senior Secratary ,~~,,~'~'iCi ~~'r" " ~~ Edith Harris Planning Commission Support Supervisor `~~-'~. ~G.~~-x.t.-v~--- Simonne Fannin P/T Senior O~ce Specialist Gify of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda ~ 06-07-99 Page 52