Loading...
Minutes-PC 1999/06/21•. t SUMM/~RYA~TION AGEND/~ CfTY OF ANAHEIi~ PLAN~IING ~OMMISSI0~1 ~IEETING MaNDAY, JUNE 21, 1999 11:00 A.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISS.ION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUE~ (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.M. • PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESE~lT: BOYDS7UN, BRISTOL, ESPING, KOOS, NAPOL[S, VANDERBILT ABSENT: BOSTWICK STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Assistant City Attorney Annika Santalahti Zoning Administrator Greg Hastings Zoning Division N~anager Cheryl Flores Senior Planner Lirda Johnson Senior Planner Greg McCafferty Associate Planner Don Yourstone Senior Code Enforcement Officer Alfred Yalda Principal Transportation Planner Melanie Adams Associate Civil Engineer Margarita Solorio Planning Commission Secretary ~ssie Edmundson Senior Secretary City of Anaheim Planning Commissfon Surnmary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 1 .:or~ /4 ~ ~'-'-.~:..~..~~` 1~ ~, ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None . REPORTS AND RFCOMMENDATIONS A. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVEDI AN~ Approved CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.1731 - REQUEST DETERMINATION OF Determined to be SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: Southwest Strategies, Attn: Larry Lazar in substantial and Andrea Brown, P.O. Box 53311, Irvine, CA 92619, request a conformance with determination of substantial conformance to re-open a former bar area for the original use as a coffee and cappuccino area. Property is located at 406 South approval Brookhurst Street - La Langosta Mexican Restaurant. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously- approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Koas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the request to re-open a former bar area for use as a coffee and cappuccino area is in substantial conformance with the original approval of Co7ditional Use Permit No.1731 based on the following: (i) That the proposed modification is a minor alteration to ihe previously- approved floor plan and that the intent of the original approval will remain unchanged. (ii) That the E?roposed modificatioii will contribute to, and enhance, the existing operations for the restaurant and will allow fer the better use of this former bar area, and further that the use will only be for a cappuccino and coffee bar, as stipulated to by the petitioner, SR1114JD.DOC Applir,anPs Statement: Andrea Brown, Southwest Strategies, 64 Rainwood, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656: Stated she is representing Mr. Lee, the operator and owner of the La Langosta Restaurant. Mr. Lee has a bar that was closed off about 3 years ago, not currently being operated. It is a 45 square foot area. He would like to reopen it as a coffee service area only. There would be no alcoholic beverages served. Responded to Chairman Bristol by indicatir.g that the area is not very large, it is only a 108 square foot area, the bar itself is 45 square feet. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CL05ED. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 2 B. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY•APPROVE, AND Approved CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3966 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND Approved final APPROVAL OF FINAL ELEVATION. 51GNAGE AND LANDSCQPE plans except PLANS: Mark Scheuerman,105 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806, requests review and approval of elevation signage and freestanding si , landscape plans. Property is located at 105 South State Coilege Boulev~rd - gnage Insta-Tune. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously- approvzd negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Koos offersd a motion, seconded by ~ommissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final eievation, wall sign and landscape plans. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, stated for the record that the trio pattern Flywood with the texture as applied as shown by the applicant at the meeting is a suitable alternative to the T 1-11 Building exterior that is shown on the plans submitted by the applicant. ApplicanYs Statement: C.M. Thompson,1660 North Main Street, Orange, CA: Stated they are the designers of this project. The exterior is light blue, will be texture 111. He showed a sarrple of a roof panel, which is simulated stucco exterior. The alfernative would be to stucco the building but the problem with that is the steel frame and stucco d~es not expand at the same rate when the temperature increases. 1'i ~~y would prefer 303 plywood with the material sample shown to get the rough texture and color. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if they are changing their sign located in the front planter at the corner to meet code? Mark Scheuerman, business owner,105 South State College Blvd., Anaheim, CA: Eventually they want to in~tall a monument sign out front, left, where the bushes are currently. Kathie Pfcst, the planner, indicated they could do that at a later dafe. There is no sign on the premises at all with the exception of the billboard, but the nole sign has been taken down. Commissioner Boydstun: When was the pole sign taken down? Mark Scheuerman: Three or four months ago, which are noted on the staff report. Chairman Bristol: Indicated there was a discrepancy in the morning session. Mark Scheuerman: Reiterated the pole sign ha~ been taken down and they would like to install a monument sign at a future date. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 3 e-~~ T:' Chairman Br(stal: Asked if they had another temporary signage in the area? ~ Mark Scheduerman: There are only bushes !here. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Clarified that the 30-pattem plywood wlth the texture as shown by the applicant Is a suitable aitemat(ve to the building exterior that Is shown on the plans. Ciry of Anaheim Plannfng Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 4 PUBLIC IiEARING ITEMS: 2a. GEqA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 2b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 364 Recommended approval of Exhibit A to Ciry Council 2c. ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2. Recommended AMENDMENT N0. 3 approval to City Council INITIATED BY: Ciry of Anaheir:i (Planning Department), 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Araheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1175 -1193 Casa Grande Avenue - Best Western Pavillions Motel. Property is 0.73-acre (4 parcels) located at the northwest corner of Casa Grande Avenue and Casa Vista Street. Pianning Commission-initiated request to consider the foilowing: (a) An amendment to the Land Use Element of the City of Anaheim Generai 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 from the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone to the SP92-2 (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2) Zone, and to amend the Specific Plan text, exhibits and Zoning and Development Standards (Chapter 18.48 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) to reflect said reclassification. Continued from the Commission meeting of June 7,1999. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-108 SPECIFIG PLAN AMENDMEIVT RESOLUTION N0. PG99-109 Linda Johnson, Senior Planner: This item pertains to four parcels on the north side of Case Grande Avenue, which total .73 acres. These parcels are currently developed with 44 hotel guest rooms, which are part of the 100 rooms Best Western Pavillons Motel. These parcels are also designated for Medium Density Land Uses on the General Plan Land Use Element and are zoned RM-1200. The balance of the hotel site is designated for Commercial Recreation land uses and is in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Zone. In order to provide a consistent General Pian u~e designation zoning classification for the entire motel complex, the General Plan Amendment is proposed to redesignate the site from Medium Density Zone to Commercial Recreation Zone and a zone change is proposed to reclassify the property from the RM-1200 Zone to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Zone. As indicated in the staff report, the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan identifies the maximum development density in each development area in the Specific Plan Zone. The proposed density designation for the .73 acres would be 75 hotel rooms per gross acre. This designation would allow potentiai development of up to 54 rooms on the 4 parcels, which would be 10 more rooms than currently exist on the property. In addition, one set5ack standard would be addEd ;o the Anaheim Resor~ Specific Plan, which would require a minimum of 20 foot fully landscaped setback area adjacent to Casa Grande Avenue for new development. The proposed setback is consistent with existing setback on the property. City of Anaheim Planning Commissian Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 5 , As indicated tn the staff recommendations on page 8 of the staff report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the associated Mitigated Monitoring Program No. 0108 and approved General Plan Amendmenf No. 364 and Amendment No. 3 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Bristol: Asked if the property owner is fully aware of these actions. Linda Johnson, Senior Planner: Responded yes. FOLLOVI~ING:IS A SUMMARY OF 7HEPLANNING COMMISSION ACTION` OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitori~g Program No. 0106. Recommend to the City Council the adoption of General Plan ~mendment No. 364, Exhibit A, to redesi~nate the subject property from "Medium Density Residential" to "Commerciai Recreation". Recommended to the City Council the adoption of Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2, Amendment No. 3, including amandments to the text and exhibits as set forth in the Summary of Resulting Changes (Attachment C to the Planning Corrimission Staff Report dated June 21,1999), and amendments to the Zoning and Development Standards (Chapter 18.48 of the Anaheim Municipal (;ode) of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, to reclassify the subject property from the RM-1200 (Residentiai, Multiple-Family) Zcne to the SP92-2 (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan) Zone, C-R District, with a Low-Medium Density designation. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated this matter will be set for a public hearing bEFore the City Council. DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (1:43-1:52) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 6 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4116 Withdrawn OWNER: American National Properties Inc., P.O. Box 10077, Santa Ana,CA 92711-0077 AGENT: Jeff Jonsson, 23120 Alicia Pkwy., Mission Viejo, CA 92692 LOCATION: 1516 West Embassy Street. Property is 5.8 acres at the terminus of Embassy Street. To establish a rental/leas;ng facility, and outdoor storage for approximately 100 tractor trailers. Continued from the Commission meeting of May 10,1999. I CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLIlTION N0. • • • a e • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Comm!ssioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Varderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request to withdraw Conditional Use Permit No. 4116. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (1:35-1:37) City of Anaheim Pianning Commission Summary Action Agenda OF;-21-99 Page 7 4b. OWNER: Jack Cuip Jr. and Nancy Culp, 6614 Ocean View, Carlsbad, CA 92009 AGENT: Emie f~uiJada, 2898 East Miraloma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 2898 East Miraloma Avenue - Ideal Equipment Rental Property is 0.86 acre located on the south side of Miraloma Avenue, 620 feet west of the cen!erline of Red Gum Street. To permit an on-site/outdoor construction equipment rental and storage facility including the washing and maintenance of the equipment. Continued from the Commission meeting of May 10, 1999 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. July 19,1999 SR1 ApplicanYs Statement: Jack Culp, 6614 Oceanview, Carlsbad, CA; Stated in 1983 they were issued a conditional use pennit that covers all the rental business that is currently at the property and did not understand why the action today has to ba duplicated. Chairman Bristol: Explained they are increasing the use. Jack Culp: Responded they were not. They requested a permit to install a wash rack so that the equipment could be washed which they were granted. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Staff did review the old conditional use permit as opposed to the new one. The site pian is different and the types of uses are different. Staff felt that some of the o~d conditions have never been complied with that it would be easier to do a ne~N conditional use permit for this exact use so the conditions would apply to the uses currently being requested rather than uses no longer exist on the property or have changed. Jack Culp: ThP only change on the property has been the wash rack. They had almost the identical business in the past and could not think of anything eise that has been changed. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: For example, he did not believe the pest control business was in operation any longer. It was originally a contractor's storage yard whereas now it is considered construction. Jack Culp: Yes, he ran a business for 27 years. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: There are a number of changes. Chairman Bristol: Asked why tnis returned to Commission? City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 8 Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: This came through Code Enforcement when they were doing inspections for business licenses in the area and found that this business did not have a license. Jack Culp: Indicated the appiicant has been applying for a business Ifcense for approximately 1%z to 2 years. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: The Code Enforcement Officer indicated that this has been trailing for some time in an effort to obtain the conditional use permit situaiion resolved which is what is before Commission today. This h~s been advertised for the use that is currently there and all of the conditions of approval ar~~ based upon the use as is existing and proposed to remain. Chairman 8ristol: This permit will expire on December 1, 2000 concurrent with the lease. It appears the tenant has spent basically most of the 8-year lease trying to get a conditional use permit and/or a business Iicense. Jack Culp: Why would it expire if he were granted another conditional use permit. He has a conditional use permit includes ali the uses that are being discussed. Greg Hastings, Zoning DiVision Manager: The business license has not been issued because there has not been a conditional use permit on the property that matches their use. Code Enforcement has likely been working with him to make sure the conditional use permit before Commission today has been brought forward with the information needed to take action. Paragraph 17 of the s4aff report outlines what some of the differences are in the proposal. Jack Culp: Acknowledged he had read it. Commissioner Esping: In paragraph 17 it states, the differences are new structures and uses of the property, longer hours of operation, increased number of employees which would not make the current request eligibie to 5e in substantial conformance with these approvals. He asked Mr. Culp if that was accurate? Jack Culp: He could not answer that. He knows that when Horizontal High Reach was in there. They had more equipment than whaf is there at the present time. All the buildings were there when the original permit was approved. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: If Commission denies this request today then the old conditional use permit on the property is still valid and the applicant can return to those uses and maintain the property in accordance wiih those conditions including the site plan. After looking at the propeRy including the plans and file, staff does not feel that this use is in conformance with that conditional use permit. If Commission wishes, staff could return with further information outlininc~ the changes. Commissioner Koos: It appears that the applicant is confused about the CUP process in general terms. Asked Mr. Culp if he discussed his concerns with staff? Jack Culp: Staffs reply was that things have changed, i.e. the wash rack. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Perhaps the applicants business never clearly mirrored the ori,c,inal approval. Staff did find different uses and there is a different arrangement on the property. Jaci; Culp: Mr. Hastings may be referring to his business that he had at the property for 27 years. Greg Hastings, Zonin~ Division Manager: The conditional use permit was granted in 1980 and there was a second permit granted in 1983. The first was to permit a contractor's storage yard and a pest control City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 9 business. The second was to expand an existing contractor's storage yard. The current request is to permit an outdoor construction equipment rental and storage facility inciuding washing and maintenance of equipment. Chairman Bristol: He reference page 7, Condition Nos.14,15 and ~ 6 regarding painting trash enclosure gates. He recently visited the site and noticed they are painted and look fine. He did not see any evidence of anv graffiti. The front landscape area regarding the vehicular and pedestrian visibility, he noticed there are actually more trees than what is stated in the staff report. The staff report also states that it is in the right-of-way and they need to be set in further. Asked if he has meet with the applicant and staff? Mr: Culp: Responded yes, he had. Chairman Bristol: Commission would like him to meet again with the apalicant and staff to resolve some of these issues. Commissioner Koos: Asked Mr. Culp which conditions he had a concern with? Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: In reviewing the original plan the property does not mirror the approval under the old conditional use permit. The applicant has the opportuniry to change the property to reflect the plan Commission approved, that is ~ne option. Staff tho~ght it might be easier to reflect what th~ applicant is actually doing at the site onto the plan and make some recommendations for improvements to the aesthetics and the function of the site. Chairman Bristol: Asked Mr. Culp if he had any specific conditions in the staff report that he wanted to discuss? Jack Culp: On Condition No.16. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: The original plan s~iows 10 feet of landscaping on site, however, that never occurred. The landscaping appears of be in the public right-of-way area. Staff suggesting that the landscaping be installed in according to r,ode since there has never been a waiver and the original plan was never followed to insta(I the landscaping. Chairman Bristoi: Asked whether there will be a widening of the street in the near future? Melanie Adams. ",ssociate Civil Engineer: Responded the street will not be widened. The curb is in its ultimate location. it appears the sidewalk has not been installed. Miraloma is a secondary highway on the Circulation Element and the parkway (which includes the street trees and sidewalk) is 13 feet wide. There are currently trees there but it appears as though at one time the property was given a sidewalk waiver. Therefore, the public sidewalk does not appear to be installed on this property. Routinely, in the 70's and 80's industrial ~roperties were given sidewalk waivers. At that time it was felt that sidewalks were not needed since there was not much public transportation but conditions are now changing. They are looking at pulling some sidewalk waivers but they will do it in a comprehensive and phased manner. Commissioner Boydstun: If the street is to its ultimately then is the applicant is actually in the right-of-way or did he landscape the parkway? Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer: It is the public parkway that is landscaped; a great portion of it is the public parkway. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Ac~enda 06-21-99 Page 10 Jack Culp: The entire front is concrete and on both s(des there is landscaping that goes back to the gates. On the left-hand side there is a wide landscape area that goes back to the buildings. There is also landscape in front of each building. Commissioner Koos: Asked Mr. Hastings for a clarification of Mr. Culp'x ~,ptions, If Commission does not approve this then Mr. Culp needs to live by his ~riginal CUP, which he ~s either in violation of code and in violation of his original CUP. That is more of a concern; otherwise Commission can correct this today. Greg Hastin~s, Zoning Division Manager: That is correct. Staff did have the choice of retuming the original conditi~nal use permit before Commission because of ali of the changes that were made; they would have had a long list of the changes that the Commission would have to consider. It was easier to bring forward what the applicant actually wants to do out there. He suc~gested a 4-week continuance so staff could outline all of the changes for the Planning Commission. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked Ms. P.dams what the setback was at the property? Melanie Adams, Associate Civi~ Engineer: Based on the drawings, it appears there is 27 feet from the back of the right-of-way line to his building. He does have landscape on that portion but the other portion he has parking stalls with the remainder of the front setback area. Commissioner Koos: Wondered why Mr. CuIF applied for a new CUP if he did not agree with their staffs recommendations? Jack Culp: He thought staff wanted something add~tional and after several trips to the city offices he started looking into what his conditional use permit consisted of and discovered that it was identical and wondered why he needs to go through the process again. The original plan did not included the landscaping or the concrete and that is why it is not like the drawing he submitted recently. Commissioner Boydstun: Offered a motion for a continuance to J~ly 19,1999, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and motion was carried. ~. :-hOCLUWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING;.COMMI5510N ACTION; . OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the July 19, 1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for the appiicant to meet with staff and get a better understanding of why he had to file for a conditional use permit and for staff to outline the changes that have taken place on the property since the oric~inal approval of the existing conditional use permits. VATE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 25 minutes (1:53-2:18) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 11 5a. CEQA NEGA7IVE DEGLARATION Approved 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4121 Granted OWNER: Landrey Properties, LLP, P.O. Box 1306, Santa Monica, CA (To expire 1-31-2003) 90406 AGENT: Paul Kott,1225 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 2861 East Miraloma Avenue - California Auto Dealers Exchanae. Prope~ty is 4.65 acres located at the north side of Miraloma Avenue, 980 feet west of the centerline of Red Gum Street. To permit and retain an existing automobile storage facility with a modular offic~ unit. Continued from the Commission meeting of June 7,1999. CONDi i IONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-110 SR1122TW ApplicanPs Statement: Paul Kott, 1225 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA: Stated the petitioner is requesting to permit and reiain an existing automobile storage facility. The property is approximately 4.65 acres of land on the north side of Miraloma Avenue. The petitioner and architect are also present to answer any questions They are willing to comply with all of the conditions except for Condition No. 1, which states that subject use permit shall expire one year from the date of the resolution. They will not work for them. It does not make sense to condition this for only one year and their lease does not expire fully until January 31, 2008 Therefore, he requested that the CUP be in conjunction with the lease that they have and expire upon the termination of the lease agreement. Commissioner Esping: Asked Mr. Hastings wtiy the conditional use permit was recommended for one year? Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: In this particular case this is a use which staff has not experienced before and would like to see if these conditions are adequate. If they are then the Planning Commission can look favorably upon this. Staff was concerned what affect this use would hava on the area? Paul Kott: Stressed this is not a new business but an existing business for over one year. If there were any problems they would be known. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Bristol: He wondered what the term "interim" meant in the Community DevelopmenPs letter and also referenced on page 3 of the staff report? Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: He was not sure where that came from. Chairman Bristol: He mentioned he was at the site on Saturday and brought up the issue of security. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 12 Commissioner Vanderbiit: He indicated he visiled the site on Tuesday and he wondered in reviewing photos they depicted a security person at the gate. He asked Mr. Kott it the 3 employees on shift considered the security guard? Paul Kott: No, security is separate all together. There is security 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Chairman Bristol: In the staff report it indicated that this use would alleviate some problems at the Tustin Avenue location related to traffic problems and that is going to resolve Condition No.19. Asked if the operation has been in existence have the traffic problems improved? Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement: Officer acknowledged (from the audience) that the site has improved. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: The statement came from the petitioner that the use of this site would alleviate congestion from the main facility. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Staff recommended the following changes: • Condition No. 9 related to the trash enclosure. It was not staff's intent to require plant materials to screen the trash enclosure as long as that enclosure is behind the fence out of public view. a Recommended a condition requiring paving and striping defining circulatian of the entire lot (within 90 days) that will be used for the storage of automobiles since code does require it anyway. • Encouraged that the gates be closed at such time that they are not bringing cars in and out to prevent view into the storage yard. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaratiora Granted Conditi~nal Use Permit No. ~}121 with the following changes to conditions: Modified Condition Nos.1 and 9 to read as f~llows: That the subject use permit shall expire on January 31, 2003. 9. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Pubiic Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and scrEenpd so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. Said information shali be specifically shown on the plans submitted for Planning Department and Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division approval. Added the following conditiens: That within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of this resolution, the property owner shall (a) stripe the lot to define vehicular circulation and, (b) pave the lot where the automotive vehicles will be stored. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Rction Agenda 06-21-99 Page 13 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 11 minutes (2:19-2:30) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 14 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4023 (READVERTISED) 8-2-99 OWNER: Kea Whan Ha, P.O. Box T61039, Los Angeles, CA 90076 AGENT: Santiago Cervantes, 837 East Orangethorpe Ave., Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 837 East Orangethorae Avenue - S. Cervantes Tires. Property is 0.8 acre located at the northwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Orangethorpe Park (a private street). To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (approved on May 27,1998 until May 27,1999) to retain a tire safes, repair and installation facilit~ and to amend conditions of approval pertaining to hours of operation, number of empioyee~, and timing pertaining to submittai of landscape and irrigation plans. Continued from the Commission meeting of May 24,1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. SR7468KP. • e e • e • OPPOSITIOtJ: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the August 2,1999 Planning Commission meeting in order ~or Fhe applicant to comply with conditions of approval (landscape plan submittal). VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-98 Page 15 . -,~ 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION_ Contin 7b. WAIVER OP CODE REQUIREMENT 7-7-99 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4120 (READVERTISED) OWNER: Frank Chu and Linger Chu, 926 S. Beach Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Stephen Lam and Associates, 900 S. San Gabriel Bivd. #'208, San Gabriel, CA 91776 LOCATION: 926 South Beach Boulevard - Lyndy's Motel and Restaurant. Properry is 1.1 acres located on the east side of Beach Boulevard and on the north side of Ball Road, 200 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road and 245 feet east of the centerline of Beach Boulevard. To establish conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption, to expand the existing motel and to construct a commerciai retail center on the same property with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the Commission meetings of May 24, and June 7,1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. • • • • o • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the July 7,1999 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the petitioner to meet with various departments and the West ,4naheim Neighborhood Development Council, to discuss motei operation and economic viability issues in the West Anaheim area. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. City of Anaheim Pl~nning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 16 . . . .. . . . . . . r1 ~ - . ' ~ . ~ , - ~ , ~ , .. .. ~ . . . ..if 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATI0~1 (PREVIOIJ~LY-APPROVED) Contin 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3269 (R~ADVERTISED)` 7-?-89 OWNER: Kyu-Ho-Yun,12852 Palm Street, #202, Garden Grove, CA 92840 AGENT: Darren PJc~uyen, 501-509 S. Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA 92u04 LOCATION: 501-509 South Brookhurst Street - The Ritz. Property is 1.92 acres located on the west side of Brookhurst Street, 390 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue. 7o amend or delete conditions of approvai to add three additiona! holidays to the previously-approved days of operation for a dance hall. Continued from the Commission meeting of June 7,1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Chairman Bristol: Asked if there was anyone present in the audience for Item No. 8. There was one person (who did not identify himselfl that chose not to give testimony at this time and would return on July 7,1'999. • • • • s • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the July 7,1999 Planning Commission meeting, as requested by the appiicant. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 17 9a. 9b. Concuned Granted OWNER: SBD Grouo, Inc. 505 South Villa Real, Suite 100, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Yuji E. Naito, 505 S. Villa Real, Suite 100, Ar~aheim, CA 92807 . LOCATION: 505 South Villa Real Drive - Vista Nahl Plaza. Property is 2.6 acres located at the southwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Villa Real Drive. To permit the subdivision of existing floor area in a commercial and affice center to create 9 additional tenant spaces, for a total of 35 tenant spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99•111 ApplicanYs Statement: Yuji Naito, developer: Requested additional units by separating the suites into 35 units as o~ce space. He is requesting elimination of Condition Nos. 3 regarding the removal of all compact parking spaces in the parking lot because he feels there is a need for compact spaces. Commissioner Boydstun: Advised that is no4 in the code anymore. Through experience, the City found it to not work well and is now eliminating compact spaces throughout the City. Chairman Bristol: That front area is a tight area and advised he does not know how cars can be parked in compact spaces. Yuji Naito: Followed building codes from 10 y$ars ago and those were the numbers given at that time. it will be difficult for them to remove the landscape and concrete and is a hardship for something that has been there for 10 years. THE PUBUC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Bristol: At the morning session, it was noted that the ~vording "previously-approved respective of the CEQA Negative Declaration" would be deleted because it was an error, There has never been a CEQA on this particular matter. Cheryl Flores: Staff did some checking to see how it was advertised and it was actually advertised as a Categorical Exemption and does fit within a Class 1, which is existing facilities, so any environmental determination that Commission makes would be appropriate to consider as Categorical Exemption Class Yuji Naito: It is the cost associated with this that concerns him. There is no problem if people observe the signs and park in the size space they need for their car. Commissioner Boydstun: That is why it has been changed. People do not observe the signs and p;:iti ?n the compact spaces. They have not approved compact paricing spaces for several years. The Traffic and Transportation Division also wants eliminated. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 18 Alfred Yalda: Sometimes the length can not be achieved, but as long as the spaces are 8% feet by 18 feet then it works. He offered to work with the applicant on this. Commissioner Koos: Given that they are 40 spaces above code, there will not be that heavy a loss; it is rather a financial issue. Yuji Naito: There is a lot of work involved. He did not know if it is not hurting anyone why he can't leave it ~s is. Alfred Yalda: The properry owner does not receive the complaints; the City receives the complaints. Today there are many SUV's (Sport Utiliry Vehicles) and it oniy takes one car to get out of line, also many peopie avoid parking in compact spaces. In the long run it will be beneficial and there will be more spaces. Commissioner Boydstun: Indicated the applicant is not being asking to tear anything out, just to restripe. Chairman Bristol: Asked applicant if there were any other issues besides the parkirg? Yuji Naito: He indicated he accepts all other conditions except the parking issue. Commissioner Boydstun: It has to be complied with subject to Traffic and Transportation's approval. If the applicant does not want to do that then Commission cannot approve this. Yuji Naito: He can ~viden the parking stalis and work with the Tra~c and Transportation on the length. The problem is that nothing was mentioned to him about this when he met with the staff. Commissioner Boydstun: They probably had not been out to look at it and did not realize there were compact spaces. Mentioned there Conditional Use Permit No. 3343 is for a 5200 square foot gourmet market on the property and since if is not longer there, they would like a letter from him requesting a termination that will be added as a condition. Yuji Naito: it was in Suite 100, which is now an o~ce. He asked about the other CUP that he had (for a Japanese massage). Greg tiastings: Noted it already expired by way of the conditions. During the Voting: Chairman Bristol: Asked Ms, Flores if she wanted to change CEQA wording7 Cheryl Flores: Responded that the wording ir the staff report pertaining to environ.mental should be referenced to the Categorical Exemption, ~lass 1. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 19 . . • . .~. . ~. ~ • ~. ~ ~ •.. ~ . ~ , OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls.within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4127 with the following changes: Modified Condition No. 3 to read as follows: 3. That the parking lot shall be restriped to widen the compact parking spaces. That plans shail be submitted to the City 7raffic and Transportation Manager for his review and approval. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. Added the following condition: That the owner of subject propefij shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditionai Use Permit No. 3343 (to permft a 5,290 square foot gourmet market with take-out prepared food with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces) to the Zoning Division. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 14 minutes (2:31-2:45) City of Anaheim Pianning Commiss(on Summary P,ction Agenda 06-21-99 Page 20 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4129 Granted OWNER: The Cifford Companies, Attn: Loren Brucker,1451 Quaii Street, #210, Newport Beach, CA 92660 AGENT: Pacific Design Directions, 8 Corporate Park, #200, Irvine, CA 92606 . LOCATION: 8030 East Crystal Drive, - Building K Property is 21.62 acres located on the west side of Pullman Street, 38 feet west of the centerline of Cr,~stal Drive. To permit a retail and wholesale flocring company within an industrial compiex. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-112 S Applir,anYs Statement: Susan Stoneburner: Pacific Design Directions, 8 Corporate Park, Suite 200 Irvine 92602: Stated after reviewing the staff report, they had a concern with Condition No. 9 regarding the hours of operation. They would Iike the hours to be modified. Their current hours are 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday and on ~n appointment only basis in the evenings. She questioned the length of CUP because and asked that it continue indefinitely since they plan passing business down through the family. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Staff could go along with petitioners request to delete the Conditions pertaining to hours of operation. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Staff is not concerned about this particular use in this area. Chairman Bristol: He mentioned there is no time limit on the CUP. THE PUBLIC 1-IEARING WAS CLOSED. Cheryl Flores: The plan indicate that there will be tenant improvements needed to de~~elop this building according to the submitted plans. Staff recommends that Condition Nos.11 and 13 read, "either prior to the issuance of the building permit or part of the commencement of the activity whichever occurs first". Susan Stoneburner: Concurred. ~~a•»~e~~~~m~~e~tiye~.Y~i~~~i~ar_~:ai•»r:i~a~-a.i~u~~e~K•~~~d~at[.~.y[•~~n .. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4129 with the foilowing changes to conditions: Deleted Condition Nos. 9 and 13. City of Anaheim Planning Cummission Summary Actian Agenda 06-21-99 Page 21 , ., .. , . . ~ ;;;: : Modifled Condition No.11 to read as follows: 11. ThaC prior to issuanae of a building permit or prior to the commencement of activity, whichever occurs first, Conditlon Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 10, above mentioned, shall be compl;ed with. Extensions for further time to compiete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Sectiun 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (2:46-2:50) City of Anaheim Pianning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 22 11a. ENVIRONMENTAL IN 11b. INCREASE IN FLOOF 11c. VARIANCE N0. 4363 OWNER: Stadium View Anaheim, LP,145 Commerce Way, Unit B, Walnut, CA 91789 AGENT: B~uce Ayres, 355 Bristol Street, Suite A, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 LOCATION: 2560 East Katelia Avenue. Property is 2.04 acres located at the southwest corner of Katella Avenue and Dougiass Road. To increase the permitted Floor Area Ratio for the subject property from 0.45 to 0.91 with waiver of (a) minimum parking lot landscaping (deleted) and (b) minimum landscape setback adjacent io the SR-57 (Orange) Freeway, to construct a 4-story,140-room hotel with pool, meeting and breakfast areas. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC99-113 Granted, in part (Chairman Bristol: Announced Item No. 11 would be trailed since someone relafed to this item had not arrived yet.) ApplicanYs Statement: Douglas Ayres (agent): Requested the Countryside Inn at Katella at 2560 East Katella Aver.ue be ap~roved, including the two variances. He indicated he read the staff report and had no questions, Chairman Bristol: THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLO~ED. Commissioner Koos: The site plan shows no pedestrian way bet~rieen building a~d Katella/Douglas sidewalk and asked ir they plan on putting one in. Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan is encouraging clear pedestrian oriented development. This is within walking distance to Pond and restaurant, therefore a sidewalk should be added. Douglas Ayers: It could be done and would be advantageous because Pond is across the street. Chairman Bristol: Advised elevations were raversed on north and south and the sidewalk was not shown. Annika Santalahti: The Planning Commission mentioned the issue of the sidewalk at their morning work session. To that extent, they have drafted an amendment to Condition No. 28 which specifically notes that a sidewalk to each street shall be provided in a location and at a width as approved by the Planning Department. Location can be decided later and checked with Traffic Engineering. ADA requirements need to be adhered to with circulation to the Pond and Stadium. Regarding the variance on the setback from the 57 Freeway, Greg McCafferty drove by the property and checked the distance between the roadway of the freeway off-ramp to the edge of the property and discovered their landscaping is further back than in more typical situations. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 23 Greg McCafferty, Association Planner: There is 20 to 25 feet minimum from the roadbed to the ectual property line at northbound exit at Katella Avenue, then a 5 foot setback, parking area, and'then the building. Commissior.er Vanderbiit: Asked if the entrance on north side of Katella will be open 24 hours a day and asked if the pines wiil be removed? Douglas Hyers: Responded if there is a pedestrian who has not checked in yet they will have to take a pathway to the front door, otherwise ther~ will be card access. The pines will probably be removed. Greg McCafferty: Suggested boxing the pines and using them in the parking area and landscape setback. ~ouglas Ayers: Will have an arborist look at the trees to make ensure they stay healthy if moved. Annika Santalahti: Advised that a Condition could be added to indicate that based on the decision of a Iicensed arborist selected by the petitioner as to the feasibility of boxing and relocating the existing pine trees, !he trees shall be boxed and relocated to the landscaped areas within the narking lot or other non- public right-of-way areas. Greg McCafferty: Recommended an amendment to Condition No. 29, that one pedestrian sidewalk shaii be provided to the pubic sid~walk along Katella Avenue and one sidewalk shall be provided to the public sidewalk, aiong Douglass Road, the locations and width shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. ~`. .,¢. . kOLLQWING 15 A SUMMARY OF~E P.CANNINGCOMMI$SION ACTION ` ' - OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-certified EIR 321 ~s adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved the increase in F~oor Area Ratio from 0.45 to 0.91 for ihis specific development proposal on this buiiding site located in the Arrowhead Pond District of the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan. Granked Variance No. 4363, in part, as follows: Denied waiver (a) minimum parking lot landscaping because the ;~etEtioner eliminated the waiver by incorporating the required landscaping in the parking lot; and Granted waiver (b), minimum landscaped setback along the freeway, based on hardships on this property that deprive the property owner of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. Modified Condition No. 29 to read as follows: City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 24 i .,_ , . ..., . . . . . . . . . , . . .. . . . . ... .. ..-. .. . ..~ .,,~ , .; .. . ` .. ~~ '. . . . . . . . ' - . 29. 7hat subject ~roperty shell be developed substanHaily in accordance with pians and speciflcations submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which pians are on file with the Planning Departrrent mariced Exhibit Nos.1 through 25; fncluding that at least one pedesMan sidewalk shall be provided to the public sidewalk along Katella Avenue and one sidewalk shaU be provided to the public sidewalk along Douglass Road and that the locatior.s and widths shall be reviewed arid approved by the Planning Department, and as conditioned herein. Added the follov~ing condition: That based on the decision of a licensed arborist selected by the petitioner as to the fe~sibiliry of boxing and relocating the existing pine trees, such trees shall be boxed and relocated to the landscaped areas within the parking lot or other non-public right- of-way areas. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) Seima Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 11 minutes (3:03-3:14) C;ty of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 25 12b. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0. 99-126 ~Approved OWNER: Gary P. And Joyce A. Bedrosian; Janice Bedrosian, Larry E. And Joan Q. Bedrosian, 710 E. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Walden and Associates,18012 Cowan, Suite 210, Irvine, Ca 92614 LOCATION: 2890 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 19.5 acres located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and White Star Avenue. To establish an 8-numbered lot,1-lettered lot industrial subdivision. .DOC ApplicanYs Statement: Ralph Hastings, Hastings Partners Architects, 5031 Birch St. Newport Beach, CA: Stated he was present to answer any questions on behalf of the Bedrosian family trust. Chairman Bristol: Asked if Mr. Hastings had any concerns regarding the staff report? Mr. Hastings: Responded he had none. Publi~: Testimony: John Meresca, Bryan Industrial Properties,146 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, CA: Stated Brian Industrial is ari owner/managedpartner of approximately 8 industrial buildings along La Palma Avenue and Blue Star. They along with other property owners offer tneir support and approval of this industrial project. THE f~UBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Recommended adding the following wording to Condition No. 2, "for reciprocal access" after vehicular circulation because some of the parcels take access off of the new pr;vate street that is proposed. Also on Condition No. 4, after the words "individual parcel" add the words "or if an administrative adjustment is not approved" to give the applicant another way to provide parking prior to having to have a reciprocal access and parking agreement. Ralph Hastings: Acicnowledge they understood and accepted the conditions recommended. • FOCLOWING'FS A•SUMMARY• OF THE-PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. ' IN FAVOR: 1 person representing Eryan Industrial °roperties spoke in favor of subject praposal. OPP~5ITION: None ACTIt~N: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 99-126 with the following changes to conditions: City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda ~6-21-99 Page 26 Modified Condition Nos. 2 and 4 to read as follows: 2. That prior to final map approval, a maintenance covenant shall be submitted to the Subdivfsion Section of the Public Works f)epartment and approved by the City Attomey's office. The covenant shall inc'ude provisions for maintenance of private facilities including compiiance with the~ approved Water Quality Management Plan, and a maintenance exhib?t. This shall include the maintenance of the private street shown on che parcel map as Parcel A. The covenant shall be recorded concurrently with the final map. In addition, provisions shail be made in the covenant to guarantee that the entire complex shall be managed and maintained as one (1) integral parcei for purposes of vehicular circulation, reciprocal access, signage, maintenance, land usage and architectural control, and that the covenant shall be referenced in all deeds transferring all or any part of the interest in the property. 4. That, in the event that Code required parking cannot be provided for each individual parcel or if an Administrative Adjustment is not approved, an unsubordinated reciprocal access and parking agreement, in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, shall be recorded with the Office of the Orange County Recorder. A copy of the recorded agreement shall be submitted to the Zoning Division. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (2:57-3:02) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 27 13b. WAIVER OF CODE i2EQUIREMENT ~ ~" "'~ ^F+F+~uvcu Approved 13c. CONDITIONAL US~ PERMIT NO 3230 READVERTISED ~ ) Approved, as OWNER: Chung-Chia Chen,11455 Culebra Street, Cypress, CA 90630 readvertised AGENT: Dr. America F. Chouinard, 51 Elderwood, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 LOCATION: 2191 East Lincoln Avenue. Property is 0.13 acre located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, 112 feet west of the centerline of Olana Way. To permit a medicai office in a converted residential structure previously approved for office use with waiver of minimum nt~mber of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-114 SR1125TW.D ApplicanYs Statement: America Chouinard: is requested a conditional use permit to establish a dental office in a converted residenfial structure previously-approved for office use, with waiver of parking spaces. If the waiver is approved she wants to purchase the property and convert it into a dental office, with one receptionist and one assistant. Most of her patients are Hispanic and take the bus and that is why she picked this location because there is a bus stop right in front. She also requested to change her hours of operation in the future. Public Testimony: Carl Heinberger: Stated he lives at 2125 East Lincoln which is on corner of Elena Way and Lincoln. (Distributed photos fo Commission.J His concern is regarding the parking requirements because 6 businesses are located within close proximity of his home, out of which 4 do not meet parking requirements. The photos were taken at 4:15 p.m. in the afternoon which show 6 cars parked in the lot and there is presently no business there, therefore those cars will have to go somewhere. Asked Commission to not approve this because of the oarking issue. However should this be approved he requested a one year limit. Chairman Bristol: Asked several questions about the direction of the businesses in the photos submitted. Commissioner Boydstun: Suggested Code Enforcement check the properties to see what parking requirements are for other propeRies. As far as the vehicles that presently parked on the proposed property, once a no parking sign is installed the vehicles will have to move. Carl Heinberger: His concern is those vehicles will have to park elsewhere and it will probably be on Elena Way. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated that is not the applicanYs problem as long as she provides her parking. Carl Heinberger: It becomes his problem because it is nert to his property. He is concerned there is nc parking on Elena Way due to other cars parking on it. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-95 Page 28 Commissioner Koos and Boydstun: Indicated that is not the applicanPs problem as long as she provides her parking. Carl Heinberger: It becomes his problem because it is next to his property. He can not invite peopla over his house because there is no parking. Chung-Chaia Chen, ~wner of property: Fis previousiy had his business at this property and feels his business wouid be good for subject prope~-ty because it would eliminate the homeless people that are loitering there. This is an oppo~tuniry to convert to a business for medical use which is a benefit for the City. Charlotte Ho: She lives on La Palma Avenue and is a friend of Mr. Chen. The property has been vacant for a long time and there has been a problem with graffiti and homeless people. She is p~ease that the dentist is willing to upgrade property. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt: Asked for clarification on the requirement for handi:ap parking spaces. If six spaces were issued would one of them have to be handicapped? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Advised Commission that Mr. Alfred Yalda is going to respond to the question when he arrives. The extended hours of operation is not a problem with staff, but recommended keeping a time limitation. Chairman Bristol: Asked staff to comment the hours of operation that the applicant requested. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Staff's intent with the hours of operation was to be consistent with what the petitioner was requesting. Therefore, siaff would agree with the hours that the applicant requests. They would like, however, to keep a time limitation since this business would backup to single-family residences. She noted that sign plans were not submitted as part of the request and recommended a condition that any signage would be subject to the requirements of 18.05.065 which has a lirnit of 1 unlighted freestanding sign, 8 square feet, with two posts with a maximum of 5 feet high, requiring 6-inch address numbers. She also requested that the Commission review the sign as a Reports and Recommendations item. Commissioner Boydstun: She suggested to Mr. Heinberger speak with the Traffic an~ Transportation Division to see if perhaps this area needs to be changed to a"permiP' area so the parking is open for Mr. Heinberger as well as his neighbors. Chairman Bristol: He agreed with Commissioner Boydstun and suggested he might also want to speak with Code Enforcement. Commissioner Vanderbilt: Asked for a clarification on the parking and striping. The recommendation states that 6 spaces would be adequate. He asked if one of them needs to be a handicapped space? Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: Confirmed this was correct. The hzndicapped parking is required by the State of California. Commissioner Vanderbilt: Asked about the parking by the applicanPs employees to be used? City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 29 America Chov(nard: Ftespunded one of her employees rides the bus. She knows that one of her employees is going to either use the bus or carpool which means there would only be two spaces used by her employses. Commissioner Vanderbilt: That would leave three spaces for her patients plus one for handicapped. Commissioner fCoos: Asked if she f~resees having more than th~ree patients at the same time at her faciliry? America Chovinard: It wauld be very unlikely because the dental procedures are very time consuming and it becomes very stressful when there are severai customers waiting at one time. Commissioner Napoles: Asked Mr. Yalda if he felt there was sufficient parking at the proposed site? Alfred Ya~da, Principal Transportation Planner: Their recommendation was that parking may not be adequate at certain occasions. There could be times when the applicant does do not have adequate parking which he stated on the parking study but unfortunately that was not included in the staff report, Commission~r Boydstun: She feit the applicant has ample parking for her needs. She also felt the neighborhood has a parking problem but that is not the applicanYs problem. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: The Traffic and Transportation Division has a procedure for permit parking and would be happy to discuss the requirements with Mr. Heinberger. They have handled many parking permit areas throughout the City and this area could be considered as another one. Mr. Heinberger: Stated (irom the audience] he is the only resident there, the rest are businesses. Commissioner Boydstuii: Suggested he speak with Mr. Yalda about his situation to see what can be worked out. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Regarding Condition No. 30 related to the roof-mounted air conditioner. Staff would prefer that the air conditioning equipment be on the ground due to the type of roof on the house, as shown on the applicant's plans. He asked that it be ~onditioned that if the Building Cade does not allow this than it be roof-mounted and screened from the street. America Chovinard: Indicated she is considering replacing the roof and is willing to work with staff. There was screening on the air conditioning unit but she understands it fell off because the building has been empty for 10 years. Commissioner Boydstun: Suggested to Ms. Chovinard if she is going to re-roof then bring the a(r conditioning equipment to the ground. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked whether Ms, Chovinard is leasing or buying the building? America Chovinard: Responded if the variance is approved then she is planning in purchase the building. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Ftecommended that Condition Nos. 27, 28, 29, 30 , 31, 32, 35 and 36 be complied with prior the commencement of this activity. Also that all signage return to Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 30 1, • ' • ~ ~ • • OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke with concems related to parking problems in the area. ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Approved Conditional Use Permit No. 3230, as readvertised. Modified Resolution No. PC90-03 as follows: Amended Condition No. 22 to read as follows: "22. That subject property shall be developed substantiaily in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Revision No,1 of Exhibit No. i:' Added the following conditions of approval: "27. That three (3), minimum 24-inch box trees shall be planted in the setback area adjacent to Lincoln Avenue. 28. That if required by Urban Forestry Division of the Community Services Department, street trees shall be installed, by the property owner, within the public right-of-way adjacent to Lincoln Avenue. The size, type and number of trees shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Urban Forestry Division of the Communiry Services Department. 29. Tha; the on-site landscaping and irrigation system shall be refurbished and maintained in compliance with City standards. 30. That the air conditioning unit shall be ground mounted and properly shielded from view. In such case where ground-mounted equipment is prohibited by Building Code, the air-conditioning unit shall be roof-mounted and screened from view of the public right-of-way and all residentially zo~ied properties in a manner approved by the Planning Department. 31. That the existing trash enclosure shall be landscaped with vines planted in vine pockets on maximum 3-foot centers around the perimeter of the trash enclosure. 32. That the concreta located in front of the handicap access ramp shall be removed and replaced with minimum 5-gallon size shrubs on maximum 3-foot centers. 33. That the hours of operation shall be limited to 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday, as stipulated by the petitioner. 34. That there shall be no more than three (3) employees on site at any one time. 35. That all signage shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 31 E :.. 36. That the existing building shall be refurbished and repainted, as proposed on Exhibit No.1, Revision 1. 37. That the parking lot shall be restriped in conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard P1an Nos. 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. Pians shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval reflecting this condition. The property shall then be developed and maintained according to the approved plan " 38. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this rasolution or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 27, 28, 2g, 30, 31, 32, 35 and 36, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. VOTE: 6-0 (Cammissioner Bostwick absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 31 minutes (3:17-3:48) Gity of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 32 14a. CEQA NEGATIVE DEGLAKA~ ~urv ~rrcnvivu~~i-rarrRVVnu~ ueniea 14b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2992 (READVERTISED) Denied OWNER: Leonard & Cyndie Chaidez,10081 Nighcliffe, Santa Ana, CA 92705 LQCATION: 507 South Lemon Street. Property is 0.56 acre located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Street and Lemon Street. To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (approved on March 16,1998 until January 22,1999) to retain a tree service contractor's yard. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-115 SR7470VK.DOC THE FOLLOWING IS A DETAILED SUMMARY OF ITEM N0.14 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2992 ApplicanYs Statement: Harold Potter: Attorney at law on behalf of the applicant Leonard Chaidez and Chaidez Tree Service, 390 North Brea Blvd., Suite A Brea CA 9282i. The applicant is speaking in opposition to sta(fs recommendation to deny the extension or the CUP which expires on January 22, in the year 2000. IPs based upon a difference of opinion with regard to the findings with what staff has recommended. In particular with regard to the Negative Declaration, staff has indicated that on one occasion on J~!~e 3, 1999 a commercial vehicle was parked on the street and that somehow impacts the traffic surrounding the area due to a commercial vehicle being parked on the street. As in resolution PC 95-19 which was passed some years ago, there was a finding that the traffic generated by th~ proposed use would not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area, thus the one admitted violation of having a commercial vehicle parked on the street does not, should not weigh as a factor in denying tt:e previo~+sly-approved Negative Declaration. To speak to that issue, Mr. Chaidez has the 11 required parking spaces inside the facility and has rented an adjacent neighboring area in order to have employees park their vehicles to remedy all the problems with regard to parking on the street. The second issue with regard to the Negative Declaration is the aesthetics, the site due to the pile of tree debris, the visibility of commercial vehicies and the lack of property maintenance. The problems with reg2rd to the height of the block wall, in that it is approximately 8 feet and some of the vehicles that are parked within the facility can be seen from the street. A simple resolution to that would be to extend, or to place up an extension on the block wall to maybe another one or two feet in order to prevent that site from occurring. His neighbor has that type of extension as well. He has requested in the past to be abie to build the wall higher at the time that this initial CUP was granted. It must be remembered that this property owner has been at this location for over 10 years and denial of this CUP is going to effectively terminate his business at this location. As a result, your ruling today has very serious ramifications for him and tf~e two areas that are brought out by staff with regard to the aesthetics. I don't know if you have had an occasion to take a look at the area but, they're making it sound like this place is, at least on the outside, is not well planted or it doesn't have any vegetation, or th~t there is too much dirt. I have some photographs of what is very nice landscaping City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 33 . . ~ . . .. .. 1 ~ . ~ ., . . along the property with the vines that were requested to be planted, and now the City is coming back and saying they should be deciduous or nondeciduous vines which means the leaves should not fall. At the time the original CUP was granted, the wording was that clinging vines or fast growing shrubbery si~ould be planted adjacent to the masonry block walls. That is exacfly what has occurred and the block wail that is many, many feet long has an entire nice vine across it, has nice shrubbery and is weli planted and is not to the standard, or is not as adjusted by staff that it is somehow unsightly. I'li tell you what is unsightiy, is if you look across the street and see some other shrubbery's that are high shrubbery with nothing but dirt underneath them and they are not low laying shrubbery planted like Mr. Chaidez has on his property. So based upon those, it's our request that the previously-approved Negative Declaration be affirmed by this Commission. With regard to the reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2992, the recommendations of staff is that the full development of the proposed use without causing detriment to the surrounding area due to lack of landscaping. Again, there isn't a lack of landscaping. The only issue that has been brought out is deciduous versus nondeciduous vines. The recommendation at the end of staff is to put three, three nondeciduous vines at that location. That certainly doesn't indicate that this area has a lack of {andscaping. To contrary, the pictures indicating, both on the sides of the business show a beautifully landscaped area. It is not an unsightly,..the only unsightly staff recommendation is that you can see the vehicles from the roadway and we have a suggested remedy for that. They talk about the ongoing code violations, the only code violations we are talking about are the vines. Whether or not they are deciduous or nondeciduous. It seems as if we are splitting hairs with regard to whether you want vines that are falling or not falling. It's landscaped and we're getting into a battle of semantics with regard to what type of shrubbery's one is planting. Another violation was the fact that there was a gate that had been open during the times as required not to be opened, which is basically between 8 and 3 o'clock in the day. The planner went out there and saw the gate open between 1 and 3 o'clock, I think, on June 3, 1999. To remedy that, Mr. Chaidez admits, it has been difficult in keeping the gates closed, but they have installed a timer that will automatically close the gates after a period of time has elapsed. That remedies that situation, and again iYs all to establish that Mr. Chaidez is attempting, and has attempted and continues to attempt to comply with all the conditions of his CUP. In fact, one of the unsightly findings is that there is some type of problem with the type of business that is goiiig on with regard to the trash that is accumulated. Mr. Chaidez has applied for and has been granted approval to build a trash enclosure within the compounds of the facility and anticipates instaliation on July 21, 1999. Another issue is with regard to graffiti. If you take a look at the photographs, the vines that clearly cover most of the walls establish that no graffiti can be placed on the wall because the shrubbery is there. ~s a result, we do admit that there is some graffiti, iYs been attempted to be removed, and Mr. Chaidez is willing to professionally have someone come out to remove the graffiti. Based upon all those factors, we believe that the compelling evidence establishes tha; Mr. Chaidez, has in good faith, attempted to comply with all the terms and conditions of the CUP, and that the use is not contrary to the existing zoning at that location. Although there has been some talk with regard to the Redevelopment Plan, that is not enfo~ ced at this point in time. And so, according to what we have before us and the zoning and the type of business that is there, his use is consistent with the zoning and thus it seems that to deny his CUP at this point in time would be to further the plan which is not yet in existence. We don't think that is sufficieni under the law at this point in time. I would take any questions. Chairman Bristol: Thanks Mr. Potter, let me ask, did you give those pictures? Harold Potter: I want you to see the pictures. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 34 ~Chairman Bristol: If you give them to us they're ours. I just want you to know that. Harold potter: My gift to you. ~ Chairman Bristoi: Is there anybody else who wants to speak? Seeing none, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Esping: If you look at pictures that were taken by Code Enforcement versus pictures that were taken and submitted by the applicant, iYs almost like we are taiking about two entirely different properties. Chairman Sristol: I agree. Commissioner Esping: There is certainly an indication in each one of these pictures taken by Code Enforcement that there are obvious violations of the code and he has not been in compliance. Harold Potter: May I have an opportunity to see the photographs that have been submi!ted, I did not have them in my packet. Commissioner Bovdstun: I drive up and down that street several times a week, right by that property and there are days when it is warm, they have let the stuff pile up in there and the gate is open so you can see it and the stench just knocks you over. You can smell it as you drive by. I don't know what day they took these pictures with nothing in there, but as often as I drive by it, i have never seen nothing in there. I have no problem with seeing the trucks over the top of the fence, but the rest of it is something else. Commissioner Esping: That certainly does not look like the pictures that were submitted. Harold Potter: What we are seeing here is the entrance which is why the gate should be closed because once the gate is closed then you don't see this area. With regard to the business that is ~eing conducted there, it is within the current zoning. i think the automatic timer that is going to shut this gate looking into the yard, the seeing of the operation, or the guts of the operation is going to be less. Commissioner Boydstun: Mr. Potter, I was on the Commission when this was approved for the first time. They told us that the truck had radios and the office had a radio and they only opened th~at gate when a truck was radioed that they were coming in. That has never happened. Harold Potter: I am indicating that there is a problem with regard to the gate. Commissioner Boydstun: It's a continuing problem. Harold Potter: Whatever communication problems they have had, whatever closing of the gate problems tney've ever had, i'm indicating to you that fhey are in good faith atternpting to remedy that problem by having an automatic timer so that there isn't any human error involved and that after a certain perio~± of time, the gate will automatically close. Say for a mechanical failure that is going to be the situation. Commissioner soydstun: But that's what we were told before, how it was going to work. There are truc!<s parked in the gates at times. Haroid Potter: Fven assuming that, is that such a violation that overwhelmingly establishes that there shou~d be a revoking of the Negative Declaration and that this operation of the business is so detrimental to the surrounding area. Commissioner Boydstun: The smell is detrimental to the sur~ounding area. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 35 Chairman Bristol: LeYs hear from Code Enforcement. Harold Potter: There is nothing in the record to indicate smeli. Chairman Bristol: Mr. Potter, hold on, We're going to go to Coda Enforcement for response. Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer: Don Yourstorie wilh Code Enforcement. In your packet you hsve a memo dated June 7,1999 indicating an inspection was conducted on June 3,1999 between 14 and 1500 hours. ~uring that inspection, staff observed the gate on the north side of the property was open. At no time, did the gate close as required, there were no vehicies observed entering or leaving the property. This is in Condition No.11. Number 2, there was graffiti on the blocl: wall immediately south of the east gate approximately 6 inches by 6 inches. The graffiti has heen c+n the wail since at least January 1999. There is a prior memo indicating this on January 19. This is a violation of Condition No. 4. Nondeciduous vines pianted on maximum 3 foot centers al~ng the masonry brick wall on the south Lemon and West Santa Ana streets have not been planted as required. Although the majority of the wall areas are currently covered with foliage except for the wall to the south of the east gate, the plants are deciduous and leave the wails exposed tc potential graffiti opoortunities during the ;all and winter month~ when the plants shed their leaves. See prior memo dated January 191599, photos show the bare walis of Condition No. 6. The iandscaping along the south Lemon and West Santa Ana streets were not sufficient to cover the exposed soils as required by Anaheim Municipai Code Section 18.04.060.C30. Number 5, the parking plan which was approved on 1/30/1988 calis for 11 on-site employee parking spaces along Santa Ana Street. This area was not available for employees parking as rwmerous commercial vehicles were parked in its area. Due t~ the accumulation of debris generated during the course of the business numerous commercial vehicles throughout the property, it is doubtful the required number of employee parking spaces were available on-sfte daily. Number 6 commercial vehicles were used during the course of busines~ are clearly visible above the 6 foot masonry block wall. On June 4, 1999 staff inspected the property several times between 1300 and 1500 hours and observed all of the above violations. Number 7, one of the truck witti chipper in tow bearing the Leonard Chavez tree service identification en the driver and passenger doors, ~Nas parked on the public street immediately south of Santa f~na Street on the east side of South Lemon Street. The viola;ion commer~.°al trucks parked in a residential zone has been observed on numerous occasions with the vehicles cited for violation of Anaheim Municipal Code 14.32.205. Also review of Code Enforcement records indicate that there have been other code violations of the CUP since 1995 consisting of refuge and waste visible from the masonry block walls, Condition N~. 9. Violation of the nuisance code, storage of inoperab~e vehicles within a public view. These specific violations were not evident cluring the course of my inspections of June 3 and June 4,1999. If you have any questions, I'll be here to answer them. Chairman Bristol: Thanks Don, appreciate that. Harold Potter: We would just indicate that the fact that storage of inoperative vehicles within the public vievr and the refuss and waste visible above the masonry block wall Condition No. 9, that were not observable on June 3 an~ June 4 are not relevant to your determination ioday and are further evidence that specific action and good faith has been taken by Mr. Chaidez to correct c^.rtain problems and to comply with the terms and conditions of Yhe CUP. Chairman sristol: Sir, then you agree that he has not complied with the conditions of the CUP and that is why you indicated that he is getting additional parking areasl Harold Potter: He as additional parking areas. City of Anaheim Planning Corr~mission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 36 Chairman Bristol: But he didn't have that before when he got the original CUP, so you agree that he wasn't in compliance with that7 Now he is instailing a timer, which you agree then, that he was not in compliance with his CUP. That's why he is doing it now. Harold °otter: We agree !hat the additional parking was necessary to keep in compliance with the CU~. Chairman 8ristol: With the CUP that he has not been in compliance with. Harold Potter: Additionally, the yate needed to be repaired and has been repaired. But if those are your only two violations... Chairman Bristol: Are they violations or not? !-larold Potter: WhaPs that? Chairman Bristol: Are they violatior~s or not? Harold Potter: LeYs call them what they are, IeYs call them a violation, but does that significantly prohibit the use so that it is not within the General Pian or not within tfie confines and the answer to that is....You got to remember `.here were 17 Conditions here of approvai, excuse me.13 conditions of approval, and we're hanging our hat on, I see 4. When you take a look at the big picture, the property as it exists currently is not ~ detriment to the surrounding area and when they say due to the lack of landscaping, you've seen the pictures, there is lots of iandscaping. Chairman Bristol: We've gone over that. Commissioner Boydstun: How, by putting in a trasV~ e~closure, are we going to eliminate all the rouc~hage that is stored there that smelis. Harold Potter: ThaYs not before the board, the issue of smell is not before the board. Chairman Bristol: That's an environme~tal issue sir and it is before the board, the Commission, a~aaiuteiy. Harold Potter: Where is the finding that the smell has been somehow detrimental. Chairman Bristol: CEQA Negative Dec. is environmental and odors is one of those issues. It was trough! up here in this Commission back in FEbruary. Commissioner Boydstun: In our February 1 minutes when we approved the storage for the wallboard company, our minutes state right from.... Harold Potter: I understand that it is an environmental issue, but it is not an environmental issue that has been brought before you to determine whether or not tl ~~~ this use as it exists presentiy is somehow detrimental to the surrounding area. We're pulling things out do say I remember way back when , when we talked about this and we talked about that. Chairman Bris;ol: You brought it up that it hadn't been brough, up before and we just say that it had been. Harold Potter: I believe one of the Commissioners brought up the area of smell, I never brought it up. Commissioner Boydstun: I did but it was in our minutes in February when we had this very same discussion. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Fage 37 Commissioner Esping: All of these things were pointed out to him in February. Commissioner Boydstun: At that time. Harold Potter: Where is the negative impact deciaration from the City to indicate that this smell has somehow creating havoc, now your using your independent evaluation because iYs not before you presently, you're using your independent recollection... Commissioner Esping: That is part of our responsibility and part of our job. Hasold Potter: IPs not on the record here. Commissioner Esping: IYs on the record here as far as CodE Enforcernent. Harold Potter: What are we going to do with regard to tree services that primarily wa~:• for other public entities within the southern California area particularly Orange County, where is the i,use going to go? How is it going to be processed unless you have a service and that is exactly what this tree service do~s. It's acting in good faith, complying with the conditions of approval. Chairman Bristol: No iYs not. It isn't sir. We just established that, they have not complied with the conditions of approvai. Harold Potter: Substantial compliance. Chairman Bristol: It doesn't make any difference. Harold Potter: Substantial compl~ance. Chairman Bristol: All right, but you can't say that. Harold Putter: If you think that a gate closing or a gate thaPs open should shut down the entire business that has been there for 10 years then sa be it. Chairman Bristol: Any other questions? Greg Hastings: Mr. Chairman, the applicant indicated that there is some off site parking area that has been added to this. I'm just curious as to where that would be. Harold Potter: There's been a rental for an adjacent piece of property for individuals, employees to use the neighboring area for their parking purposes which has been previously-approved for that particular business. Chairman Bristol: What does that mean Mr. Potter. Harold Potter: It means I'm parking in my neighbors lot next door so that I can iree up areas so that we don't have a parking problem within the interior of the business. Chairman Bristol: You askino for a reciprocal agreement7 Greg Hastings: Staff would have a couple of concerns, first of all iYs an expansion of this use and one of the p~ints we're making is that the size of the property isn't suffcient to support the use and the applicant has indicated that'~ true that he has to use adjacent parcel. if we're speaking about the property that is to City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 38 the south, that is zoned residential which wouldn't allow expansion of the use on there. 'fhat's why I'm curious as to where the actual propert}r is that is being use fo~ the parking lot. Roger Rodriguez: Immediately south of the property is another facility there and we are using some available parking spaces there. Commissioner Koos: Asked to repeat. Roger Rodriguez: Immediately south of 507 South Lemon is another industrial building there and we have an agreement with the gentleman there ;o facilitate some of our parking there when we have an overflow. Chairman Bristol: When you have an overflow? Roger Rodriguez: Yes sir. Chairman Bristoi: When would that be? Rcger Rodriguez: Perhaps we have just a little too much debris on the floor that we do need to utilize another area. Chairman Bristol: Are you the operator/manager of the site. Roger Rodriguez: No I am an employee. Chairman Bristol: How often do you remove the debris that you collect from the t~ee trimming? Roger Rodriguez: On a daily basis. Chairman Bristol: So it wouid never smell then if it were.... Roger Rodriguez: How bad do trees smell? I don't understand, I don't see anything dead there in terms of an animal or any type of food that is spoiling. I don't understand what your understanding of horribie smell is. I've smolled trees before and they just don't smell like any of you folks have represented them fo smell like. Do you folks have trees in your homes? That smell is pretty normai sir. Com~nissioner Koos: Not a lot of dead ones. Greg (Hastings), he has indicated that he has aarking arra:igement on this property that looks like on our map is vacant, but it is zoned residential. You stated that is not a permitted use on that site, obviously we can't use that as part of our decision on this site. Commissioner Esping: If it is residential he can't be renting from or have a contract with those people far parking facilities can he? Greg Hastings: That is correct if that is an industrial use which is an ML Zone, the property to the south is zoned residential and therefore should not have a component of this industriai use on it. The RM-4200 Zone does not allow parking lots for contractor storage yards. Harold Potter: It's low density residential though which could include parking for parking. Greg Hastings: There could be parking for a use that is permitted in the zone which would be typicaliy be apartments or single family homes where you have your accessory parking. This accessory parking belongs to industrial use to the north. Commissioner Vanderbilt: Mr. Potter is the property for sale. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 39 Harold Potter: Yes, you wiil see that it is for sale, you'll see that there is a for sale sign that is in one of the photographs, Tom McAliister, is in the process of selling it but that roally isn't the issue as to what we're seeking here today and that is the ability to continue the operation beyond January 2000 because oftentimes sales fall through. Since this Commission has denied two of the previous uses for the sale of this property iPs difficult for him to actually seil it to a business that has been approved by this commission. ~hairman Bristol: What was denied on this property? Harold Po!ter: There have been lwo denials, perhaps Mr. Rodriguez can come back and talk about it, but a painting company that came in and was going to have scaffolding or something of that nature and I think an auto. Mr. Rodriguez can speak better on that issue. Roger Rodriguez: Previously we had denial on a tow yard and also on a roofing company. Chairman Bristol: What about the most recent one in February, was that denied? Roger Rodriguez: That was approved with conditions of approval and immediately after this Commission leveled about 17 conditions of approval the buyer backed out saying that the land was no longer suitable because they could not operate their business due to the constrictions, his words, constrictions that this Planning Commission had placed on the CUP. In essence thaYs a third but that may involve litigation later on down the line. Chairman Bristol: We have an issue with smell, we have an issue with a conditional use permit that has not been complied with. Comn:issioner Koos: You brought up the CEQA and the findings issues and I have a problem with your interpretation of what our role is with regard to CEQA, just because the staff did not indicate particular findings in the staff report doesn't mean that during the public hearing process we can identify issues. Harold Potter: I did not intend to convey that, what I intend to convey was that a traffic impact is more t~ian one violstion, it has to be a significant impact upon the tra~c and having a car parked there on June 3, 1999, then there is a reference to other violations, but I don't see copies of citations every time that they were cited for parking on the street. What i am logically inferring is that a one time violation does not make a traffic impact. Commissioner Esping: Code Enforcement, woul~ you sav that these are one time violations that we're dealing with here? Don Yourstone: Ivo it appears that this has been going on for quite a long period of time. Commissioner Koos: You brought it up when Commissioner Boydstun brought up the odor issue not the traffic issue. You brought up the+ findings issue with r~spect to Cornmissioner Boydstun's comments oi~ odors. You went into the CEQA findings issues and thaYs not here before us. I'm not sure if CEQA separates odors from aesthetics in general but staff has identified aesthetics in general terms and they did so when this Commission approved the project last time, which I voted against on the CEQA. I was the only one and I can point to the aesthetics, we don't have to get into the smells issue, there are housing units within 1 ~0 feet of this property and this is an open air facility and you got all kinds of stuff being stored. I don'~ want to go into that, but iYs an open air facility with things being stored there in the hot summer months and the gate is open and I would have a hard time not seeing at least some sort of environmental work done beyond a Negakive Declaration. City of Anaheirr: Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 40 I want to go on record saying that, it is consistent with my previous vote. In fairness to something you brought up, and I want to raise with staff on this item with respect to the Redevelopment issues on the housing as identified as an alternative use. Is anyone here from Redevelopment staff? I see none as usual. Maybe the planning staff can comment on the rationale of Redevelopment staff bringing up this issue on a number of properties within this redevelopment area. As if somehow the Commission can hang our hats on this alternative land use issue as if it is some sart of lynch pin to the whole recommended denial. I'd love to ask Redevelopment staff this but they're not here, maybe Greg (Hastings) can help me with their rational on that. The applicant because he did bring this up and I think it is fiair for him to know that. Why are they pointirg to that. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: I'll give it a try. This issue has come up several times in the past with each one of these appiications has come forward. This property is designated on the City's General Plan for low to medium density residentiai. When the redevelopment area was created, the redevelopment plan mirrored our General Plan for the City and the intent of the General Plan is to have this whoie strip of land, all the way from Lemon Street to Anaheim Boulevard, north to Santa Ana Street to resemble the same type of neighborhood density as what we have to the south. It is my understanding that Redevelopment staff is just beginning a process to look into this particular area to see about the feasibility of residential housing, generally speaking in this general area on this side of Lemon Street. Beyond that we would have to bring in someone from Redevelopment staff over to comment on the latest. Commissioner Koos: As we see projects come through this area, one is going before City Council tomorrow night on the other side of Anaheim Boulevard, and Redevelopment staff points to the ambiguous alternative use. It puts us in a bad position because if there is a proactive attempt to change the this area, then we need something and you're saying that they are working on something. We're sort of stuck in the middle, we have a redevelopment designation yet there is nothing there that we czn put our teeth into, as to how we want this area to look. i want to go on record that it is frustrating as a Planning Commissioner when the City staff points to certain things that really don't have a lot of impact on our decision. We can't really hang our hats on some of this stuff. I just want to go on record saying that. It has nothing to do with my CEQA comments at all. Harold Potter: I agree with you in whatever the City General Plan and the redevelopment plan may be that is not what is the controlling issue. The controlling issue is the zoning here and this is properly within that zoning. Perhaps it shows a bias on behalf of staff that they are trying to slant the scales in favor of denial but it really has nothing to do ~vith your decision. Greg Hastings: If I could comment real quickly. Staff is looking at the merits of this particular project at this location rather than looking forward at what potential land uses could be out here. You've heard the testimony today of lack of conformance with the conditions and the fact that it is spilling over into the public street areas and to the adjacent properties. Zoning staff feels that irregardless of what the general plan is for this particular piece of property, this point, the actual use of the property as it is being utilized today may not be appropriate for the exisiing residential components in this area. Commissioner Koos: I would like to concur completely with you Greg. I don't want to makP it sound like iYs lumping the whole staff together or notjust the issues together. They're separate issues here and I would concur with what you just said completely. Harold Potter: It seems ashamed, I've liv~~d long en~ugh to know the general direction, the way the Commission is going but it seems ashamed ihat hanging your hat on 2 or 3 conditions shuts down this business of 10 years within the City of Anaheim when there has been and continues to be good faith attempt to comply with all the requirements and in fact as you know the three other businesses that have attempted to move into this location have been precluded or denied in total. When you take a look at the totality of it and what is occurring out there, and the fact that the debris is moved on a daily basis, there may be a smell of fresh cuttings which one man's trash may be another man's treasure. Maybe a smell to City of Anaheim Planning Commiss~on Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 41 one person, maybe just a nice outdoorsy smell to others, it seems the staff has hung their hat on areas that are not fairly reflected and on futu.~ e goals which are not the basis for your ruling today. Thank you for your time. Chairman Bristol: Thank you Mr. Potter. You want to give it some thought or go? I can't get over these issues of debris because Condition No.10 on 1995 was that tree trimming debris shall not be allowed to compost on site. Selma Mann, Assistant Cily Attomey: Is there anyone else who is interested in testifying? Chairman Bristol: I thought I asked that, is there anybody else who wants to speak on this item? 7hen I"II close the pubiic hearing. One more comment, the fact of the parking, Mr. Potter is very eloquent, I understand that but we had discussions on this site 2 lot, intensification of this site is one of the things. I remember the conversation regarding the parking, whether or not this site couid handle the employees and the fact is that Code (Enfor~ement) you would agree that there is never any p2rking inside that site. Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer: That is correct. Chairman Eristol: And we mentioned that a long time ago, the odor is a concern, I wouldn't want to live next to anything that smells and I think the only reason it would smell is if were there too long. Commissioner Esping: It's also important to rea~;::e that things have changed and the City and City staff and the whole complexion of what is trying to be oone in the City of Anaheim is a step towards making improvements and iYs not going to be the same today and the decisions are not going to be the same today by this Commission as they were 4 or 5 years aro. We're looking to make improvements within the City of Anaheim. Voting: Commissioner Koos: I'm going to offer a motion to deny the previously-approved CEQA Negative Declaration. Commissioner Boydstun: Second. Chairman Bristol: We have a motion to deny previously-approved CEQA negative declaration, all those in favor say aye. (All said aye) Opposed? no response. Motion was carried. Commissioner Koos: I offer a resolution to deny reinstatemer~t of Conditional Use Permit No. 2992. Chairman Bristol: This is a resolution and button vote, yes to deny. Maggie Solorio, Planning Commission Secretary: Resolution for denial passed with 6 yes votes. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Mr. Chairman, the Planning Commission's actions on this item will be considered final in 22 days unless an appeal to the City Council is filed within that time. The Planning Commission has determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is not adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for this project and has in effect denied the previously-approved negative declaration and it has declined to reinstate Conditional Use Permit No. 2992, based upon the information in the staff report and the evidence submitted at the public hearing. Harold Potter: May I ask a question of the City Altr~rney and that is will there be a resolution of finding? City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Acfion Agenda 06-21-99 Page 42 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey: Yes, there will be a resolution. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTfON: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is not adequate ta serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Denied reinstatement o` Conditional Use Permit No. 2992 based on non-compliance with conditions of approval and further that the findings for Reinstatement can not be found based on the following: (i) The size of the property is not sufficient to support the full development of the proposed use without causing a detriment to the surrounding area due to lack of landscaping and the unsightly nature of the operation. (ii) On-going and previous Code Enforcement violations indicate non-compliance with conditions of approval. (iii) The continuation of the use which is not in compliance with conditions of approval, is incompatible with the Commercial/Industrial (South Anaheim Boulevard Area) Redevelopment Project plan. (iv) That the permit granted is being exercised contrary to the terms or conditions of such approval, nr in violation of any statute, ordinance, iaw or regulation. (v) The apparent intensification of the existing use on this properry appzars to be insu~cient to support the existing operation, including the fact that an adjacent residentialiy-zoned property is now being used for overflow parking. (vi) That the use for which the approval was granted has been so exercised as to be detrimental to the area, surrounding land uses and public peace, health, safety, or so as to constitute a nuisance. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) Se;ma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 40 minutes (3:49-4:29) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Aflenda 06-21-99 Page 43 15b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3239 (READVERTISED) Approved amendment to conditions of QWNER: Parr-Bohn Carmenita Ltd., 721 Santa Monica Blvd., Santa approval Monica, CA 90401-2685 (Approved for display of AGENT: Novak & Associates,132 N. Maryland Avenue, Glendale, two (2) boats) CA 91206-4235 LOCATION: 3475 East La Palma Avenue - Anyler's Maine. Property is 1.24 acres located at the northwest corner of La Paima Avenue and Grove Street. To amend or delete conditions of approval to permit the outdoor display of three (3) boats in the existing parking lot area. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-116 ApplicanYs Statement: Paul Novack, Novack and Associates, 32 North Maryland Avenue, Glendale, CA 91203: Stated he is representing both Parr-Bohn Carmentia (the property owner) as well as Angler's Marine, which has been the tenant in this location for more than 10 years. Angler's Marine sells and services specialty boats and related supplies. It is a very unique outlet and customers drive long distances to this site. They reviewed the staff report and are concerned with some of the reasoning that has lead staff to recommend a denial. As indicated in the staff report it states that there is no significant environmentai impacts. The General Plan designates the sites for "General Industrial Land Uses". I! states that the intent of the current zone is to enccurage many uses including retail sales. It also indicates that there are no existing code violations and that the site is well maintained. He believed that the staff report was completed prior to their additional submittal of information which included the landscape plan and some additional testimony from the owner and the applicant. This applicant and property owner have contacted Katherine Spritz and Associates, a prominent landscape architecture firrr, to prepare a landscape plan for this site. It i~ included as Attachment "C" in t'ne correspondence forwarded to Commission (a site plan 2nd colored elevationJ. They are not talking about storing boats or working on boats but rather displaying boats. When the store opens, the boats get towed outside, then when the store closes and the boats towed inside. The only way they could have boats outside would be to have 24-hour securiry which they prefer not to do. Having the boats displayed signifies to peopie that the store is open, stop and shop there. Once the landscapinc~ is completed, this will be one of the better maintained and landscaped properties on La Palma Avenue. There is existing precedence to allow for the outside display of items which may be sold at that location. There are two personal water craft sellers which have received CUP's allowing for outdoor display of personal water craft. There are many businesses in the City which display their wares out front of their business, particularly car dE~alers which he provided in his photos. They feel what they are ~roposing is City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 44 compatible with the surrounding properties and a visual improvement which wili benefit all of the tenants in the area and adjacent property owners. They feel this is a modest request and there is a~ ~ple room for this request, plenty of parking, it does not interfere with ingress or egress, or parking turnaround. This business generates substantial revenue for the City and maintain 15 jobs. The property owners and tenant are very responsible, the property is clean and they will be screening the transformer and pianting landscape. They do not object to the conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Esping: The major concern is the display of boats in front of the property. There is also concerns with the initial drawings submitted in terms of the recommendations made regarding the landscaping do not seem to be in compliance with what was recommended. He acknowiedged it does seem to be a good business which generates revenue. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked how wide was their backup area for the aarking? Paul Kovack: Approximately twenty four or twenty eight feet. The archite~:t measured to makb aure it meet Code requirements. It was submitted to staff and he thought staff concurred in the staff report that it did address all property backup and tuming radius requirements. Commissioner Boydstun: She suggested if he has enough backup room then Fie could put two boats on a platform"rather than three boats against the building. Paul Kovack: He was not certain about the platform because they have to take the boats out every day on a trailer. There is limited maneuvering ~~ ::^omplish that every rnorning, they are trying to make it as simply as possible. They would be happy to wnrk with staff regarding a landscaping plan to their satisfaction. They would rather not get the boat very high. They wouid like them to be seen but the trees on the front landscaping area next to the public right-of-way have a"lollipop" type design and if they get the boats too high then the boats tend to be behind the circle portion of the trees. They do want ihe boats seen but only during business hours. Commissioner Boydstun: Aske~ if they meet the requirements regarding parking? Paul Kovack: They meet the requirements of the earlier CUP. 7hey are required by the earlier conditional use permit approximately 36 or 37 parking spaces of which they exceed that amounY. Mr. Grover's business has 15 employees, most of ihem park in the rear. There are approximateiy 20 parking spaces in front. There are approximately 3 to 6 cars in the front and are busier on weekends. Commissioner Boydstun: Noted there are two parking spaces at the end. Paul Kovack: The problem, in speaking with the Planning Department, is if they took the two spaces at the end and put boats there then they would have to restripe the parking lot which would triggEr other requirements such as landscaping, setbacks, etc. Therefore, they decided to m~nimize the proposal to that which they needed at minimum. Chairman Bristol: Asked if it was that much of a difference displaying three boats or one boat iF their idea is to let pe~ple know they are selling boats. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 45 Paul Kovack: If there was an opportunity to put boats in the other two spaces that Commission Boydstun recommended then they would be willing to segregate them into one or two places if there was Commission felt it looked better. If they are required to restripe the parking lot, landscape and comply wiih other Code requirements then it becomes an expensive proposition. The parking spaces are beyond what is required for their CUP. Paul Kovack: Suggested to Commission that they approve t~~o boats instead of three and orient them in whatever direction Commission prefers. Otherwise they could locate them where the two red cars are shown, on the landscape plan, which they feel is the best location. The utilities company has been undergrounding many utility poles in the area and that alone has been a tremendous impact in terms of construction. Therefore, they want to try to minimize whatever they do to a relatively short period of time but are willing to work with the Commission. Commissioner Boydstun: Suggested if the trees are gcing to be installed the applicant could disp~ay two boats adjacent to, and parallel with, the southern building elevation facing La Palma Avenue with three landscape clusters, as follows: a landscape cluster with trees at the west end, a boat next to it, a landscape cluster with a tree in the middle, a boat next to that and a landscape cluster at the end. Paul Kovack: If they would reduce it to two boats they could put in at least one additional tree and they could work with staff. The landscape architect felt that grass is nice but it does not break up the wall, they are trying to reduce the mass of a very large vertical elevation and the grass is at a horizontal elevation so the feeliny was that it did not really soften the appearance of the building from the street. If they had two boats inere they could probably fit another tree in between which would reduce some of the concerns about !he row of boats. If trees were on either end with one in the middle with two boats between all the trees then that would work to soften the appearance. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Suggested it would look better and that area would be anything in excess of the 24 foot backup area. Paui Kovack: They need to be able to pull the boats in and out but if they had three landscape clusters, one at the west end, a boat, a cluster in the middle, followed by a boat and then a cluster at the end, then they could accomplish that. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Suggested that the boats be displayed only during their normal hours of operation and revise Condition No. 14 to reflect conformance with Exhibit No. 2 and 3 and Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No. 1 with the exception of lhe change that the Planning Commission had suggested. Commissioner Koos: Pointing to other uses that display out in front as examples of uses and using that as reasoning to allow for this use is r.ot a good analogy. He felt Anaheim is moving in a different direction for this area as well. Commissioner Vanderbilt: He also concurred with Commissioner Koos because this might be setting a dangerous precedence. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: The Commission has made the situation better than the applicant was proposing, however, staff continues to have the concern in this Development Area 4 that the display of any type of products outdoors could send the wrong message in terms of this area being perpetuated as a heavier industrial area than what is planned to be. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 46 • • ~ ~' • ~ • ~ ~ • OPPOSIZION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required e~vironmental documentation for subject request. Approved amendment to conditions of approval to permit the display of two (2) boats. Modified Condition Nos.11 and 14 of Resolution No. PC90-19 to read as follows: "11. That no outdoor storage or work on boats or boat parts shall be permitted. 14. That subject property shail be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3, and Revision No.1 of Exhibit No. 1; as revised at the June 21, 1999 Planning Commission public hearing, permitting the display of two (2) boats surrounded by landscaping, and as conditioned herein " Added the following conditions of approval to Resolution No. PC90-19: "18. That prior to outdoor display of boats, the petitioner shall submit a final plan to the Zoning Division showing the display of (2} boats adjacent to, and parallel with, the southern building elevation facing La Palma Avenue with three Iandscape clusters, as follows: a landscape cluster with trees at the west end, a boat ne;~t to it, a landscape cluster with a tree in the middle, a boat next to that and a landscape clus;er at the end. Said plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 19. That no flags, banners or advertising shall be displayed on the boats. 20. That the petitioner shall pay for any Code Enforcement inspections required due to complaints received for verified violations. 21. That the boats shall only be displayed during normal hours of operation. 22. That the display of boats shal~ be accessory to the boat repair, sales and storage facility. The display shall be discontinued in the event that the primary sales function ceases:' VOTE: 4-2 (Commissioners Koos and Vanderbilt voted no and Commissioner Bostwick absent) Selma Ma!~n, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 29 minutes (4:30•4:59) Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 47 16a. CEQA CATEGORICA 16b. VARIANCE N0. 4367 OWNER: AL Cemetery, P,ttn: Bruce Lazenby, 3888 S. Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601 AGENT: Dennis Stout, 871 N. Maplewood Street, Orange, CA 92867 LOCATION: 2303 South Manchester AvEnue - Meirose Abbe~~ Property is 18.82 acres located on the west side of Manchester Avenue, 225 to 450 feet south of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue, Waiver of permitted signs in residential zones, to construct a 45-foot high freestanding freeway-oriented double-~ided pole sign within the RS-A- 43,000 Zone. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC99-117 Granted Applican!'s Statement: ~ennis Stout, 871 North Maplewood Street, Orange, CA 92867: Stated he is the agent representing Melrose Abbey. Melrose Abbey has been in the community for over 50 years and duriny that time have had good visibility along the 5 Fwy, and Manchester. In the past the,y have not done heavy advertisin~. Now with the remodeling of the 5 Fwy. it has posed visibility problems and have received a complaints from people that they can not locate their site. In addition to funeral services they also rent out their chapels for weddinc~ and community events. They are proposing to go up an additional 15 feet frort~ ~he ori~inal sign that was permitted, which currentl~ stands at 30 feet. The staff report indicated 275 square feet and are constrained at blocked the entire sign to arrive at that number. If the actual area of the sign was factored then it wouid be less than 275, perhaps closer to 210 or 225 square feet. They concur with staff's recommendations and canditions. He requested one change to Condition No. 7. Staff wrote that based the information that he proved regarding the hours and he received his information from the sign company. He apologized for the error. The hours that staff was given was based on the cemetery hours and it was brought to his attention that the mortuary is open 24 hours and since they receive delivered from hospitals, other mortuaries throughout the evening and into the early morning. He requested that they be allowed to keep their sign on from dusk to dawn to make it visible for those late night deliveries. THE PUBiIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Bristol: Asked sYaff their opinion on the lighting? Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: He thought that the sign is far away from the residential and buffered by other non-residential uses, iE should not be an issue. It is difficult to tell due to the height of it what can ac:ually be seen through the cemetery down to the south which is a far distance away (over 600 to 700 feet away). City of Anaheim Pfanning Commission Summary Ackion Agenda 06-21-99 Page 48 , . , _ _ _ - ir Commissioner Vanderbilt: Asked if there was some discusslon abo~t staff suggesting the heignt be 12 fset instead of 14, based on the amount of information that the sign shoutd be allowed to display? • Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: The recommendation is +hat tha sign be 12 feet in haight and the sign itself be 20 feat wide. Staff would recommend it be 45 feet (n height for the entire sign,l2 feet high for the sign copy and 20 feet wide. This is approxima!ely 2 feet shorter in height of the sign copy than what the applicant is requesting. Dennis Stout: Agreed to that. They will probably loose ane of the lines but it is important to them to have the association with Rose Hilis on the sign. Commissioner Boydstun: They are loosing their mausoleum which as been their landmark for years and they need to have something to ~eplace it. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: He noted that this brings the square footage of the sign down to what typically would be required to be the maximum on regional signs. ~~~UWING.15 A"SUMMARY OF THE~P'LANNING COMMISSION AGTIC OFPOSIT.•ON: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falis within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, C~;:ss 11, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically axempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Granted Variance No. 4361 as follows: Approved a 12 by 20 foot sign with an overall height of 45 feet. Deleted Condition No. 7. Modified Condition No. 6 to read as follows: "6. That the sign shall not exceed an overall height ofi forty five (45) feet and the sign cabinet sha~l be limited to iwenry (20) feEt wide and twelve (?2) feet high including the rounded top for the logo. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits " VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (5:00-5:07) ~A break was taken fo!lowing this item.] City of Anafieim Planninfl Gommission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 49 . .... ..: .: : . . . .. .. .. .:,:. . .. . .. .:,. ~ 1 . F. ;;~ar ~, 5 :.na,~ .v. . ' _ . . . ,_ .,. . _: . 1 - t - . . .~~ . ... .';F .~1 ~ .i .~~-. . . ~ ~ . ~ .. , `J" ..~ J . . ~ . . ~ . . ': ~~ l . . . . . . ~ 17b. 17c. OWNER: Jon M. Dowell, Nancy E. Dawell, Gabriel Patin, Virginia Pa~in, Shirley Almand, Willfam U. Almand, Willa Jean Comett, Wilton B. Abplanalp, Ruth D. Abplanalp, 3335 W. Lincoin Ave., Anaheim, CA 92801 AuENT: Pacific National Development, Attn: AI Marsha11,1041 W. 18th St. #104-A, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 LOCATION: 3335 - 3345 West Lincoln Avenue - Lazy Livina Mabile Home Park. Property is 2.98 acres located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue,1,070 feet east of the centeriine of Knott Street. To construct a 104-unit affordable senior citizens apartment complex with waiver of (a) permilted encroachmer.ts in setback areas, (b) minimum n~mber of parking spaces, (c) minimum side yard setback, (d) minimum rear yard setback, (e) maximum structural height, (~ required elevators, (g) minimum flour area, (h) location of required private storage areas, and (i} minimum required affordable units. COND'TIONAL llSE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. 7-7-99` • • • i • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the Jufy 7,1999 Planning Corr,rnission meeting in order for the applicant to address development issues identified by the Zoning Division, the Community Clevelopment Department and the West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council (WAND) prior to presentation of this request to the Commission. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) DISCUSSION TIMF.: This item was not discussed. City of Anaheim Planning Commfss(on Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 50 ; _ - ;;; 18a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 18b. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 98•99-14 -- 7-19-~9 18c. CONDITIONAL USE PE62MiT NO. 4128 OWNER: Yassini Living TNSt, Attn: Mortezs Yassina or Dan Van Rosen, P.O. Box 2110, Ventura, CA 93002 AG~NT: Yassini Management, P.O. Box 2110, Ventura, CA 93002 Ciry of Anaheim (Redevelopment Agency), 201 S. Anaheim Bivd., #1003, Anaheim, CA 92805 Lr~ATION: 600-62& North Brookhurst Street. Property is 4.8 acres located at the southeast comer of Brookhurst Street and Gramercy Avenue. Reclassification No. 98-99•14 - To reclassify subject property from the RM-1200 and the ML (Residential, Multiple-Family and Limited Industrial) Zone to thP CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. Conditional Use Permtt No. 4128 - To permit a 10-unit commercial retail center including a detached clock tower, service station with car wash and convenience marlcet, and a separate drive-through fast food restaurant with waiver of (a) permitted location of monument signs, (b) minimum landscape setback and (c) minimum drive-through lane requirements. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NQ. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7477VK.DOC • o • • • • OPPOSITION: None . ACTI~JN: Continued subject request to the July 19, 1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to address stafFs concerns. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 51 , n,- _;~r ~~ ,~. . .: , „ . . ~ , . ; . ._;: 19a. CEQA NEGATIVE DEI;LARATION Continued to 19b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT ~_7~99 19c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4118 OWNER: Susan Manuel, 4314 Marina City Drive, Apt. 516, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 AGENT: Pacific Rim Builders, One City Boulevard, Suite 1105, Oranga, CA 92868 LOCATION: 5031 Oranaethorne Avenue. Property is 3.88 acres located at the northwest comer of Orangethorpe Avenue and Kellogg Drive. 7o establish conformiry with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing commerciai center, including a liquor store, and te further subdivide this center to add 1 tenant space for a total of 16 spaces with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMlT RESOLUTION N0. SR7467KP.DOC • • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the July 7,1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for all property owners associated with this petition to sign the required application forms granting consent to apply for this request. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not d~scussed. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 52 20b. INAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT ••rr~~~~~ 20c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4125 Approved Granted fo; 2 years OWNER: Califomia Drive-In Theaters,120 N. Robertson, Los ('ro expire 6-21-2001) Angeies, CA 90048 AGENT: Howard CDM, Attn: Steve Phillips and Denise Scribner, 2161 Gundry Avenue, Signal Hill, CA 90806 LOCATION: 2150 South State Coileae Boulevard - former Oran~e Drive-In Theater and Swao Meet Property is 8.48 acres located on the east side of State Coliege Boulevard, 280 feet south of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue. To establish an outdoor swap meet faciliry with waiver of required parking lot landscaping. CONDITf~JNAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-118 .DOC ApplicanYs Statement: Jay Swerdlow, Pacific Theaters,120 North Robertson, Los Angeles, CA: Stated the swap meet started at this location in 1963 after Reverend Schuller had raised enough with his drive-in church to start the Crystal Cathedral and operated as a swap meet for over 30 years. The primary swap meet was located in the City of Orange with a portion of it in Anaheim. In anticipation of the Car Max transaction over a year ago, they moved their swap meet to their Lemon Street property near the 91 Fwy. which is completely in the City of Anaheim. Now in anticipation of the Lowes Eagie Hardware property, they wish to move back to the Orange property. The Car Max deal fell through. The swap meet is an interim use and car~tinue to look for the highest and best use of this property but currently there are no development opportunities out their. They were heard before the City of Orange approximately 2 weeks ago and there were conditions imposed which they accepted. Gary Rollings from their Swap Meet Operations Department as well as himself were available to answer any questions regarding the swap meef operations. Mark Miller: Stated hE is the Director of Real Estate for Pacific Theaters Realty. He is responsible for the development of the company's owned propert~es. They v,+ere and may still be the owner of the largest inventory of drive-in theaters in the country, now they have a lot of under utilized land. Therefore his job is to find ;he highest and best use for these properties that are aperating with a variety of uses or no uses an them. This property is one of their best properties in their portfolio and they value the property and want to get the right use on it. They presented the Car Max proposai to both the City of Orange and to Anaheim. The process took two years and it has been about 2 year since the denial occurred and continued to look for other uses of the property. It was made very clear at the denial before the City of Orange Planning Commission that this was a"gateway" property. There ~ere aspects of it that were unusual because it was such a high visibility property. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 53 They have the Home Improvement Shopping Center Development that they hope will be approved in order to start construction on the Lemon Avenue property late this year or early next year. They are trying to fund the development cost, carrying cost, maintenance cost, taxes, etc. by the operation of the swr~p meet. They are a very conseroative company that hold on to their properties and want to put the right use on the property at the appropriate time. They have many drive-in theaters, having been operating them for many years all over the state of California, Hawaii, and Washington. He requested the following modifications: • Condition No. 2 related to the withdrawal of the conditional use permit for the Lemon Avenue swap meet which they are in agreement but asked to have a one week overlap where they may have the operations operating in Orange and either winding down or minimal operations at Lemon Avenue. • Condition No.11, he asked for a clarification on this condition because he was not certain if this pertains to off-site improvements. They have a landscaping plan that has been submitted to staff which is in accordance with the City of Anaheim plant matrix, he is not certain whether that is what this condition is recommending. Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner: The Stadium Area Master Plan calls for a distinct landscape concept within the public right-of-way. If ;his project requires dedication and improvement then those improvements within the right-of-way woul~ have to be installed consistent with that plan. Mark Miller: That generaily answers his question. He felt they have abided with any guidelines that are in place. It does not sound that there is an off-site requirement. Condition No. 23. This calls for a replacement of a 15-foot high corrugated metal fencs on the north property line. They installed this fence many years ago but the purpose of installing the fence was to screen a heavy industrial use that is behind it. They would like to maintain the screening there as well. He did not know whether replacing it would achieve anything. They have proposed to mend or paint it if needed and was not certain what they would replace it with. He asked that the existing structure be left and if appropriate install some landscaping around the bottom of it and paint it. Condition No. 32. The City's Traffic Engineer called for the reconstruction of the raised median on State College Boulevard. He thought most of the improvements to State College have now been completed since CalTrans has finished the off-ramp work, so there is no long a raised median there. He asked for a clarifcation on this condition. He asked for a clarification whether there are fencing requirements for the perimeter of the property in the City of Anaheim. There were none in the City of Orange. They will be installing security gates at the Orangewood entrance and at the State College entrance and they will be putting in a 8-foot fence around the sales area which is interior to the perimeter, all the way around the vendors area in addition to a wire mesh to prevent people from climbing over that but they were not conditioned to nor had they planned to put a fence around the entire perimeter. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Staff has no requirements for fencing where this property is zoned Industrial surrounded by industrial properties. Mark Miller: Commission waived this condition when they ~~,a~~ed F;or;: ~range to the Lemon Avenue property which is also a high visibili;y properry, right by a major ir~ew:,:~. Item No. C of staff recommendaiion for denial of the CUP. TI ~ere is ~ nu: n.ir~~wth and development of the area but they do not think any of that has been impeded by th.~ s~var, meei ~~ ,,c past nor will it be Cit}~ oi .1nai ~~~im Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 54 impacted in the future. Having the swap meet and allowing them to operate it and generate the income from it will allow them to wait for the right development on their property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if they received their final approvai from the ciry of Orange? Mike Miller: They have the draft from th: City of Orange Plann~ng Commission which they are in agreement with. They are now waiting for Commission's approval today. If they do not receive it from the City of Anaheim then it is not valid in the City of Orange and there is no council consideration of that. Cheryl Fiores, Senior Planner: During the lunch hour staff made a phone call to the City of Orange and they indicated that there was one more day on the appeai period. If there were no appeals then the decision of their Pianning Commission wouid stand. Commissioner Boydstun: Suggested this item be continued to July 7, •; 399 until it is certain that this item becames final before the Planning Commission acts. Commissioner Koos: Asked the applicant how they would felt about a continuance? Mike Miller: Responded due to the timing of the shopping center in Anaheim that they are building on Lemon Avenue and the relocation of all the tenants he strongly urged that the decision be made today. He suggested it be made contingent to the appeal period. Jay Swerdlow: The City of Orange granted it with a certain number of conditions that they have accepted. There is one more day on the appeai period but the swap meet and parking operate in both cities, therefore they are aware they need both city's approvals. They did not make their approval conditional on Anaheim Commission's approval but from a practical standpoint they need both city approvals. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked what type of a time frame did the City of Orange give them? Jay Swerdlow: They requested two to three years but the City ofi Orange had a ruling that said ihey could not put a time frame on the CUP. They pointed out that other cities including the City of Anaheim do impose a time limit on a CUP. They are willing to accept a two year CUP which would be the same as the Lemon Street operation. Commi~sioner Koos: Asked the applicant if he was in agreement with Condition No. 11? Mike Miller: Stated they were fine with that condition. Chairman Bristol: Condition No. 32 refers to the raised median. The City of Orange discussed this in their approval and Anaheim is requesting a raised median. Alfred Yalda, Principal Trarsportat~on Planner: As part of the traffic study that w2s completed it is a condition of their mitigation measures that they are required t~~ reconstruct the raised median island to provide for two left turn lanes. It is identified as a mitigation measure in their traffic study that they submit to the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange. Cliairman Bristol: Asked if there is currently a raised median7 Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner; The purpose of the raised median island is to modify it as sucfi to provide left turning movements, therefore they will be modifying that raised median island. He thought there may be a raised median island but was not certain. City of Anaheim Plannfng Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 55 Mike Miller: There was but it has been removed, There is room and they ha~, e no problem with creating the additional two turn lanes. It was just the raised median that was the probiem. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: It is a condition identified in their traffic and it has to have a raised median island. On page 4, of the traffic study, it is recommendod that a dual left turn lane be provided for southbaund movement and with a storage of 200 feet. As part of the changed signal modification it will be required. Commissioner Koos: Asked Mr. Yalda should the applicant return in a few years and with a development would the changes he is suggesting now to the medium would be applicable to that and they would not tear apart the intersection. Alfred Yaida, Principal Transportation Planner: He ~id not think they would ask the applicant to tear apa~t the raised median islands because the tra~c projected on that street is required to have a ra~sed median island. They gave them another option which is if ~hey want they could update the cabinets and signals at the four intersection to 20/70 Co~ itrollers to mitigate~ it. Mike Miller: His concern is the iong terrn use should they return in a year or two and for some reason are conditioned to reconst; uct the raised median. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: He suggested in some areas the applicant could use glue on the raised median which is fairly inex~ensive. He offered to work with the applicant, if they desire. He had not heard from the applicant previously to today about their concerns with the conditions. Chairman Bristol: Stated he is concerned about thls use because he knows what Lemon looks like and feels the poles and power lines, etc, look unsightly. Asked the applicant if they had any idea what they might have in the interior of that site and incorporate it with more tre2s on the outlined areas and perhaps the setback landscaped areas to make this attractive. Mike Miller: He suggested a vinyl coated chainlink fence aiong State College Boule~ard with trees with Iow groundcover as well and asked if that would alleviate some of the negative impacts. Jay Swerdlow: Unlike Lemon Street, they have not requested nor do they plan any overhead power poles. Chairman Bristol: He was please to hear that Commissioner Koos: Suggested planting mature trees that would be compatible with the Stadium Land Use Plan and perhaps go beyond that. Greg McCafferty, Association Planner: Staffwould not recommend a vinyi fencing coated chainlink fencing in the landscape setback. The Stadium Master Plan requires, in some of the zones i~icluding ML that they comply with the setback and that the trees be 24-inch boxed trees. 7he spacing along fhe requirement on that front setback for trees is 1 per 200 square feet. Chairman Bristol: The other issue was the corrugated metal fencz that the applicant does not want to take down. Eventually it is going to have to come down. Mike Miiler: They will have to deal with it but they do not know how yet. It will be more of an issue when they have s long term use there. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 56 Jay Swerdlow: It is currently shielding Everest Engineering among other and they did not feei Commission wants their use exposed to ths freeway. Therefore, they thought paintir.g the fence would be more of an improvement than removing it and replacing it with something lower and less of a screen than the cunent corrugated fence. Mike Miller: Th?y have designed iheir landscape plan in accordance with the City's plant matrix and agreed to install 24-inch boxed trees along the perimeter of State College Boulevard. Chairman Bristoi: Asked Mr. Yalda the requirement for the raised m2dian could be delayed for two years. P.!': sd Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: He would need to confer with the Traffic and Transportation Manager regarding that because that is an area that they feel this project is going to generate many trips. There would be a potential for conFlict when there are no raised median Therefore due to a safety factor they are recommending it at this time. Chairman Bristol: He mentioned to the appiicant when he was at the site last week that he could not get near Lemon and the 91 Fwy. due to the stacking on the freeway and the amount of traffic voiume that the swap meet generates. It is very likely that they will probably have the same volume at this site and are going to have to have something from a safety aspect. Commissioner Boydstun: Suggested the applicant wark with Mr. Yalda rec~arding the glue down stripping. She remembered what it was like in the past whPn it was a swap meet and that ;.orner was a hazar~. Greg Hastings, Zoning Oivision Manager: Indica«~ ^onditior Nos. 25 and 26 are similar and suggested combining them. He also suggesting adding a condition that would prohibit the use of overhead power lines for any type af electric power. 6 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ dPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement with the understanding that 24-inch box trees will be planted along State College Boulevard meeting the current plan for that area. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4125 with the following changes to conditions: Modified Condltion Nos.1, 2 and 23, to read as follows: 1. That this permit shall expire two (2) years from the date of this resolution, on June 21, 2001. 2. That one (1) week after this swap meet opens, Condition of Approval No. 32 of Resolution No. 98R-66 for the swap meet facility at 1500 North Lemon Street shall be modified or deleted or the swap meet use at 1500 North Lemon Street sha'! be discontinued and Conditional Use Permit No. 3994 shall be terminated. 23. That detailed fencing plans showing conformance with all Code requirements shall be submitted to ;ne Zoning Division for the revie~v and approval of the Planning Comr~iission as a Reports and Recommendations item. The existing corrugated metal fencing shall oe repaired, painted in a uniform color and landscaped where possible. No signage shall be permitted on any fencing. City oF Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 57 .. ' . ' . . . ~. ~ i.` ~ Combined Condition Nos. 25 and 26 to read as follows: 25. That this permit is granted subject to the adoption of Conditional Use Permit No. 2290-99, now pendfng with the Clty Council of the City of Orange and any changes, revisions, modifications etc. to said permit shall necessitate additional action by the Anaheim Planning Commission or City Council, as determined to be necessary by the Anaheim Planning Department. Conditional Use Permit No. 4125 (subject conditional use permit) shall be contingent upon compliance with afl conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2290-99. ~ Added the following condition: That the use of over-head power lines shail be prohibited. VOTE: 5-1 (Commissioner Esping voted no and Commissioner Bostwick was abser:`,) Seima Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal righ4s. DISCUSSION TIME: 41 minutes (5:12-5:53) City of Anaheim Planning Commissian Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 58 II 21a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved - 21b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3032 (READVERTiSED) Approved OWNER: The Garden Church, Attn: Rev. Bryan Crow, 8712 E. Santa (Deleted the time Ana Canyon Rd., Anaheim, CA 92808 limitation condition in its entirety) AGENT: Horst Schor, 626 N. Pioneer Drive, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 8712 East Santa Ana Canyon Road - The Garden Ch~rch. Property is 65.81 acres located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, 3,759 feet west of the centerline of Gypsum Canyon Road. To consider reinstatement of a conditional use permit which has a time limitation (approved on June 6,1988, to expire on May 16,1999) to retain a semi-enclosed "Garden Church". CONDI'fIONAL USE P['E2MIT RE50LUTION N0. PC99-119 (Commissioner Napoles dec/ared a conBict of interest.J 1 Chairman Bristol: Announced that Item No. 22 was continued, however Item No. 21 did not get continued and asked if the applicant thought that this item was also continued. (Staffacknowledged the applicant did think fhis item wa~ also continued.] Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, Planning Department: She had not heard any commentary from Reverend Crow or his agent that they had any concerns with staffs recommendation which is to approve the reinstatement of the conditional use permit and fo delete Condition No. 5 which established the time limitation in the first pla~e. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Stated the public hearing is open. The staff r~port is erterad intc the record and is part of the record for the decision and making the assumption that anyone whc was ;~ere and wanted to testify would have understood that this item was not continued. • • o • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3032. Deleted Condition No. a af Resolution No. PC94-55 in its entirety. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioner Napoles declared a conflict of interest and Commissioners Bostwick and Esping were absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (5:54-5:56) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 59 22a. CEQA NEGATIVE dECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Continued to 22b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NQ. 4033 (REApVERTISED) Jufy 19,1999 OWNER: 1'he ~arden Church, Attn; Rev. Bryan Crow, 8712 E. Santa Ana Canyon Rd., Anaheim, CA 92808 AGENT: Horst Schor, 626 N. Pioneer Drive, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 8712 East Santa Ana Canvon Road - The Garden Church. Property is 65.81 acres located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, 3,759 feet west of the centerline of Gypsum Canyon Road. Request for review and approval of revised plans to psrmit a mobile home for a parsonage and to amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to landscaping in conjunction with a previously-approved church facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. 72KB.DOC (Commissioner Napoles declared a conflict of interest.J • • ~ • • • a OPPQSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the Juiy 19, 1999, Planning Commissian meeting, as requested by the petitioner prior to the public hearing. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Napoles declared a conflict of interest and Commissioner Bostwick was absent) DISCUSSlQN TIME: This item was not discussed. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 60 ADJpURNED AT 5:57 P.M. TO MONDAY, JULY 7,1999 AT 10:30 A.M. FOR A Pl2ESENTATION BY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF REGARDING THE VACANT LAND NORTH AND EAST QF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BEACH BOULEVARD AND LINCOLN AVENUE Submitted by: ~ ~,~.a.~ OssiE Edmundson Senior Secretary ~/1'IC4,,l/K;2~ ~~t~~f..G'~LJ Simonne Fannin P/T Senior Office Specialist Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commissfon Summary Action Agenda 06-21-99 Page 61