Loading...
Minutes-PC 1999/09/13SUMM~~Y ACTI~N AGENDA CITY ~F ANAHElM PLANNING C~MMI~SION MEETING MOfVDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 11:00 A.M. • STAFF UPDATE T(J COPAlV11SSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.M. • PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, KOOS, NAPOLES,VANDERBiLT ABSENT: BRISTOL ONE VACANT POSITION STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Greg Hastings Greg McCafferty Don Yourstone Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Zoning Division h:anager Senior Planner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Principal Transportation Planner Associate Civii Engineer Planning Commission Secretary Senior Secretary I P:\DOCSICLERICALIMINUTES1AC091399.DOC Ciry of Anahefm Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 1 ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None DISCUSSION ITEM: Reappointed Request for replacement of Planning Commission representative to the Community Commissioner Development Advisory Board for Block Grant Program (CDAB), currently occupied ~ohn Koos by John Koos. ACTIUN: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent and one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby reappoint Commissioner John Koos as Planning Commission representativo to the Community Development Advisory Board for Block Grant Program (CUAB) Receiving and approving the Summary Action Agenda for the Planning Approved Commission Meeting of August 30, 1999. (Motion) REP~RTS AND R~COMMENDATIONS A. CONQlTIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 343~ - REQUEST INITIATION OF Initiated revoc2tion REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION PROCEEDINGS: City-initiated or modification (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, :'lnaheim, CA proceedings 92805, request to initiate revocaticn or modiflcation proceedings for Conditional Use Permit No. 3490 (to permit on premise consumption of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a semi-enclosed restaurant with ~vaiver of minimum landscape setback adjacent to a scenic highway). Property is located at 701 South Weir Canyon Road, Suite 101. ACTION: Commissianer Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIEQ (Commissioner Bristol absent and one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Plan~ing Commission does hereby initiate revocation or modi5cation proceedings for Con~itional Use Permit No. 3490. SR7535DB.DOC City of Anaheim Planning Commission ~ummary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 2 City of Anaheim Planning Comm(ssion Summary Acfion Agenda 09-13-99 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-Cl.ASS 11 ~Concur~ed with 2b. VARIANCE N0. 4371 Denied OWNER: Endowment Realty Investors, 3501 Jamboree Rc:. #100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 AGENT: Quality Project Coordinating, Attn: Joyce Sehi, P.O. Box 2653, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 LOCATION: 5600 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is 10.63 acres located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway (Crossroads Shopping Center). Waiver of permitted wall signs to construct one additional wall sign. Continued from the Commission meeting of August 16,1999. VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. PC99-159 SR7531 KP.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. Applicant's Statement: Joyce Sehi, 32391 Outrigger Way, Laguna Niguel, stated at the Commission meeting of August 16'" the Planning Commission requested that they contact Vons regarding the possibility of removing one of their signs to allow the Wells Fargo signage to go in its place. Vons responded negatively, therefore, they were returning again to ask for approval of the Wells Fargo signage on the building. THE PUB~IC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Boydstun asked if they had thought of putting Welis Fargo, ATM on the window. Joyce Sehi respor.ded Wells Fargo considered it but the building is set back a distance from the street with numerous trees in the parking area blocking the sign. Chairperson Boydstun thought that the public coming into the store would see it. Joyce Sehi stated Wells Fargo hoped that the public uses the ATM machines within the grocery stores more so than thie ATM machines at their banks for safety purposes, particularly at night. Commissioner Koos suggested that they might consider incorporating signage issues into the lease that they have with the stores. He asked staff if they had confirmed whether the Lucky's Bank of America wail signage was permitted, as discussed in their morning session. Greg McCafferty responded they checked their building permit records and the only signs permitted were the actual Luckys sign, the deli and the bakery sign but there were no permits for the Bank of America wall sign. The Code Enforcement Division will be investigating the Bank of America sign. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 4 ~ommissioner Vanderbilt indicated that he struggled with this issue because there are businesses, such as Luckys, who have an ATM and accordin{~ to the photos providedby staff it clearly showed it as a self- service location. He felt this did not represent a separate business entiry and therefore would be permitted to have another sign there. In the photos received~it seemed that Vons had taken the liberty to push some of their displays, so there is no sense that it is being manned at any time. If he had a sense that Wells Fargo had regular hours or represen:~tfon by a Wells Fargo.employee then he would lean toward saying that it daes serve as a separate business entity and therefore it wouid make sense to have a sic~n, but he did not have that sense in this case. • Joyce Sehi stated she could not flrnJ out whether it was a manned location. Greg McCafferty recommended modifying the first sentence in Condition No.1 to read, that this approval is only valid in conjunction with the proposed Wells Fargo ATn4. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING CQMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines and is, therefore, categoricaliy exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Denied Variance No. 4371 based upon the following: (i) That there are no special circumstances applicable to this property. The bank is an "unmanned" ATM machine within the grocery store and is not a full service bank facility. (ii) That ths st~ ict application of the Zoning Code would not deprive this property of priv~leges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. The majority of other "unrr~anned" ATM sites within grocery stores in the same zoning category and vicinity do not have separate identification signs. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissic~ ~er Bristol absent and one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeai rights. Grey McCafferty, Senior Planner, indicated if the denial of V2riance No. 4371 is appealed, Condition No. 1 shall be revised to read as follows; 1. That this approval is valici only in conjunction with a Wells Fargo ATM. That if this particular business vacates this location, the approved cabinet wall sign shall be removad. DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (1:39-1:46) City of Anaheim Pianning Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 5 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMI7 N0. 4152 September 27,1999 OWNER: Myrna Wiener, Wiener Family Trust, 9323 La Alba, Whitfier, CA 90603 AGENT: Karen Finke, Anaheim Hilis Festival, 8020 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, CA 92808 LOCATION: Property is 3.97 acres located on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road,1,320 feet west of the centerline of Roosevelt Road. To construct an identification sign for the Festival Regional Shopping Center. Continued ftom the Commission meeting of August 30,1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. SR1009TW.DOC • • • s • o OPPOSITION: No one present 3 letters wsre received in opposition. ACTION: Continued subject request to the September 27,1999 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow additional time for the petitioner to address the concerns of local community groups. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent and one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. City of Anaheim Pianning Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 6 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3235 (READVERTISED) Approved, in part, as readvertised OWNER: Don V. and Gamet A. Edmunds,1300 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Harris Architects, Attn: L. William Pettett, 2120 Main Street, Suite 230, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 L~CATION: 1381 East Auto Center Drive. Property is 2.34 acres located north of the westerly terminus of Auto Center Drive, 1,400 feet west of the centerline of Phoenix Club Drive (Hardin Honda). To construct a new display canopy, enclose an existing canopy and construct a new mezzanine storage area within an existing auto sales and repair facility with waivers of (a) maximum height of freestanding sign, (b) minimum sight distance requirements for freestanding signs (deleted) and (c) minimum number of parking spaces (deleted). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NQ. PC99-160 SR1125JD.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. AppiicanYs Statement: Dennis Hardin, of Dennis Hardin at 1381 Auto Center Dr., Anaheim, stated their business at the auto center has expanded over the years and it has become necessary for them to upgrade their facilities to accommodate their increased business. The request is to allow them to update their signs since their signs are over 25 years old. The ~new signs would be much cleaner and more attractive. They are also asking for approval to expand their showroom floor and add a parts mezzanine. He indicated he had read the staff reports and was in agreement. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~~s7w~~14~1 h C~ 6`YGE.'lUJih4l_1:~'L~l~ll:l~~~_'1~ h II~ [KK~li4h'tll.`~`1[~1-IGNiIN~e1~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the prev.iously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the re.quired environmentel documentation for subject request. Approved, in part, the Waive~ of Code Requirement as follows: Approved waiver (a) pertaining to maximum sign height, in part, to allow a 23-foot high sign to match the existing sign to be removed because the property is surrounded with other similar land uses of the same zoning which have similar signs. Ciiy of Anaheim Pianning Commission Summary Action Agenda ~ 09-13-99 Page 7 Denied wafvers (b) pertaining to minimum sight distance requirements for freestandfng signs and (c) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces on the basis that they were deleted following public notification. Approved request. Modified Resolution No. PC90-24 as follows: Deleted Condition No.16. Amended Condition Nos. 6, 7 and 18 to read as follows: "6. That plans shall be subm(tted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his review and approval showing conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. 7. That the one hundred and ninety seven (197) parking spaces shown on Exhibit No.1, Revision No.1 and Exhibit No. 4, Revision No.1, (submitted by the petitioner) shall not be occupied by any use other than customer, visitor or employee parking, and said spaces shall not be utilized for vohicular storage or display. 18. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Revision No.1 of Exhibit Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 and Exhibit Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 and 8a, provided however, that landscaping consisting of minimum fifteen (15) gallon sized trees shall be placed across the roof parking area ° Added the following new conditions: "22. That prior to final building and zoning inspection minimum 5-gallon size shrubs shall be pianted around the existing above ground utility device along Auto Center Drive to screen it from public view. 23. That no display of vehicles shall be permitted on landscape areas. Any existing display shall be removed. 24. That prior to issuance of a building permit pians shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportatian Manager for his review and approvai in conformance with the Engineering Standard No.137 pertaining to sight distance visibility for the sign location. Said sign shall be reduced to a maximum height of twenty- three (23) feet. 25. That roof-mounted inflatable devices shall not be permitted. 26. That the sign copy on the freestanding sign shall be limited to that shuwn on Exhibit No. 8a. Any additional sign copy shali be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. 27. That signage for subject facility shall be limited t~ that shown on the exhibits submitted by the petitioner. Any additfonal signage shall be subject to appro~al City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 8 VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent and one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (1:47-1:51) Ciry af Anaheim Plannfng Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 9 5a. 5b. (READVERTISED) Approved ~mendment to conditions of approval OWNER: A,S. Investments,1985 Santa Cruz Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Leon Alexander, 558 South Harbor Boulevard, Suite 100, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1895 South Santa Cruz Street. Property is 2.4~ acres located at the northwest comer of Standford Court snd Santa Cruz Street (Global Cellular). To modify or de!ete conditions of approval pertaining to temporary sidewalks and landscaping for two industrially-related sales and office uses in an existing industrial building. CONDITIONAL USE PERMiT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-161 SR7539K8.70C SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. ApplicanYs Statement: Leon Alexander, attorney representing AS Investments and Globai Cellular, stated :hey are requesting an extension of certain conditions to Conditional Use Permit No. 3855. They had just received the staff report and found that there were new conditions, which they were not certain that they could require or do at this time. They requested an extension of their current CUP in order to complete a fease with Kinkos for the other portion of the building. They can not finalize the lease until thsy receive an extension of the conditions. They are willing to work with staff on the landscaping requirement and the type of sidewalk that is required. There are several items that they need clarification. Chairperson ~,ydstun stated Commission discussed the time frame during the morning session. When Caltrans wou~ci be completed instead of using July 2000, staff recommended 2002 so things would be done only once. Leon Alexander was in agreement. Regarding the staff recommendation that there be 27 trees and 3 48- inch box planters, they are not certain where those trees and planters should be located. They would like more time on the permanent sidewalk, als~ to negotiate with Caltrans because the sidewalk is probably suitable along Anaheim Way rather than on the properry. Commissioner Bostwick stated on Condition No. 3 they have 60 days to return with their landscape pian to Public Works, Deveiopment Services Division and 90 days after abandonment with Caltrans of the temporary easement. Tnat allows plenty of time to work with Caltrans. Leon Alexander agreed. He thought why not do an extension for the entire matter and then they can return in 2002, when Caltrans completes their construction with a final plan of landscaping, sidewalk, etc. for that area rather ihan making preliminary decisions ak this ~ime. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 10 Commissioner Bostwick asked staff if there were any different ~equirement~ than what was placed on the property originally. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, responded the difference between the original conditions and the conditions amended is that the time has been adjusted to the abandonment of !he easement or sooner if Caltrans permits, and to have them submit the landscaping plar~s within 60 days so staff could review them. Chairperson Boydstun wondered how could the applicant compiete the plans if they do not know exactly how it is going to be completed. Caltrans has already made modifications. Commissioner Bostwick stated the gutter and the road is completed which means the elevations are now complete so the applicant should now be able to p~ovide a landscape plan. Leon Alexander stated they need to work with Caltrans and the City to determine who wi~l pay for it and how they are going to adjust it. The sidewalk is the key issue. The sidewalk being elevated on the top with the properry, it should be a street level rather than at the property levei because there is approximate'y a 5-foot gap on the elevati~n. They need to work with Caltrans and the City of Anaheim to decide where the sidewalks should be installed. , Greg McCafferty stated the condition does not require the sidewalk be next to the property, it simply requires that it be done as a finished product. Leon Alexander pointed out that the major diiference is that the original CUP required them to install a temporary sidewalk and not a permanent sidewalk. The permanent sidewalk is a major issue for this client. Commissioner Bostwick indicated that it is going to change to within 90 days after Caltrans is completed, then they would install the permanent sidewalk. Leun Alexander stated the issue is that they did not want to agree to a permanent sidetvalk at this time until they finish their negotiations with Caltrans and the Ciry of Anaheim. Several years ago his client deposited to the City of Anaheim approximately $40,000 for a sidewalk at his former location. The City never built that sidewalk so he built the sidewalk but was never refunded his money. Therefore, they need to work with the City to see who is going to pay for the sidewalk. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, explained under the freeway agreement between the City of Anaheim and Caltrans, Caitrans is replacing s~~~walk in cases where there was sidewalk before the project started. In this case there ha, oeen, a shif~ in the street and this property did not previously have sidewalk. Jim Shadler, owner explained in 1985 ~uhen he p;~rchased the ori~inal property at 1990 Anaheim Boulevard there was a$40,OOQ bond or payment required to have the City in the future when the City relocated the street to relocate the curb gutter and sidewalk. Ne was also required at the time he built the property (at 1990 Anaheim Boulevard) to build a p!,~rmanent sidewalk at that particular location in addition to the $40,000. The property at 1990 Anaheim Boulevard was purchased from him and he purchased the property behind him and those funds were never used to repiace the sidewalk that he originally put in at his original locatio~. He thought there is a conflict there as to whom should be responsible. If he is responsible that means he is paying twice for replacing the sidewalk that he installed in at 1990 Anaheim Boulevard. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 11 The property currently in fts condition would be difficult to Nsh in ther,e with a sidewalk based ~n lhe curzent conflguration of the property. Caltrans has left them with about 3 feef of propetty that (s ~3vel with the building and then it slopes down to the City property 10 feef from the curb. They have an area of 3 feet to install a sidewalk, which he felt does not make sense. It makes more sense to put the sidewalk down at curb level and somehow work that uo to the properfy, which is higher. They need to get an engineering group involved to determine how to make that work. There is also a concern regarding landscaping. They do not own the 10-foot setback, unless the City is asking them to do that on their property. There certainly Is not room on their propert,~ to do that. If the sidewalk belongs down below then the trees would go in front of the sidewalk in whatever area is left over. That still needs to be determined based on whether they install a sidewalk aQ curb level ^r try to squeeze one up above. Their suggestion is to give them more time to determine who is responsibie for the sidewalk based on the $40,000 payment made and to get them past the construction period and not hold therr~ up from bringing in a tenant. Melanie Adams stated regarding Condi;ion No. 3, that the timing reference of 60 days. Thera is no urgency to get the s?dewalk design submitted. They could add additional wordIng into Condik!~n No. 3 that would add additional Flexibility for the City Engineer to rev~ew previous cash payment made by the property owneddeveloper. The intent of the sidewalk is to bs within the public right-of-w~y, which is thA 10 feet adjacent to the curb. There would be the curb, 4% feet of landscaping and a 5-foot wide sidewaik. Mr. Shadler was in agreement. Leon Alexander stated Condition No. 7 reads, that prior to comm~ncement of activity for the second tenant of this building as authorized by this resolution or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 2 and 6, above mentioned, shall be complied with". He asked for clarification on which condition is this referring to and page number. Greg McCafferty responded it refers back to the or.ginal resolution. Since they changed the conditions they have to change that condition as well but it does not change what the condition stated in the original resolution. When Leon Alexander was reviewing the original resolution he reviewed Condition No. 2 which was fine but wondered v~hat Condition No. 6 has to do with the proposed readerboard sign. Greg McCafferty stated as long as the cellular phone business remdins on site then the sign does not have to be removed. During the Action: Commissioner Bostwick asked Ms. Mann whether there needed to be wording in the resolution that indicated in Condition No. 3, that the City Engineer would work with the applicant to locate their deposit and apply it towards fhe sidewalk. Seima Mann, Assisfant City Attorney, responded th2t was a lega! issue that was best resolved between the parties without need for reference in the resolution. Ciry ef Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 12 • • ~' ~ ~ • ~ ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the requirad environmental documentation for subject request. Approved request for modification to the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Perrnit No. 3855. Modified Condition Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Resolution No. 97R-159, adopted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3855, based on the fact that the existing CalTrans temporary construction easement adjacent to the west building elevation (ta expire on Juiy 1, 2002), which effectively prevents the propeRy owner from complying with these conditions of approval. Modified said conditions to read as follows: "3. That a permanent 10•foot wide parkway and planter area shali be installed within the public right-of-way adjacent to Anaheim Way upon abandonment of the CalTrans temporary construction easement or sooner if permitted by CalTrans. That the property owner shall s~bmit the design of the parkway and sidewalk to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division for their review and approval. Said sidetivalk and parkway shall be installed within ninery {9~) days of the abandonment of the CaiTrans temporary construction easement or such other timing as approved by the City Engineer. 4. That subject property shall be developed substantially !n accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Depa~tment marked Revision No. 2 of Exhibit No.1 (site plan), and Revision No.1 of Exhibit Nos. 4 through 7 (illustrative building elevations showing wall signs); including that the parapets shown on the building elevations shall be constructed sub$tantially as specified, upon ~ eview and approval of finai elevation pians by the Planning Commission/City Council as required by Condition No.10 af Resolution No. 97R-159. 5. That a detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item within sixty (60) days of the date of this resolution. This Iandscape plan shall include a minimum of twenty-seven (27) trees, with three (3) 48-inch box trees to be planted adJacent to each of the building corners along the western building elevation for a total of six (6) trees. The remaining twenty-one (21) trees shall be a minimum size of 24-inch box and planted adjacent to Anaheim Way. If ner,essary, the wall signs on said elevation shall be modified so that said signs fit between the six (6) 48-inch box trees. This landscaping shall be installed within sixty (60) days uf the abandonment of the CalTrans temporary cnnstruction easement adjacent to Anaheim Way. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 13 7. That prfor to commencement of activity for the second tenant of this building as . authorized by this resolutfon or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 2 and 6, above- mentioned, shall be complied with. Extension for further time to complete said conditfons may be granted In accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code " VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent and one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Aitomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 17 minutes (1:52-2:09) City of Maheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 14 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4149 Granted for 10 years OWNER: A.J. Daw Printing Ink Company, 3559 South Greenwood {To expire 9-13-2009) Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90040 AGENT: Hertz Equipment Rental Corp., Attn: Mark Bonner, 225 Brae Boulevard, Park Ridge, New Jersey 07656 Philip L. Anthony,14101 La Pat Place, Unit 10, Westminster, CA 92683 LOCATION: 3030-3040 East Miraloma Avenue. Property is 4.66 acres located on the south side of Miraloma Avenue. To permit a large equipment storage, repair and rental agency. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-162 SR7533KP.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. Applicant's Statement: Phillip Anthony, represented the applicant (The Hertz Equipment Rental Company), 14101 La Patt Place, Westminster, stated this was a request to construct a new equipment storage maintenance and rental operation on Miraloma Street just west of Kraemer. It is a vacant lot in the northeast Specific Plan Area and properly zoned as industrial, It is also in the Project Alpha Northeast Redevelopment Area. They agreed with the staff report and all 38 conditions. He felt the use is compatible and designed to fit well into that area. A question came up late in the proceedings regarding a metal building that Hertz proposed and concern about the appearance of the building and how it would stand up with time. It was brought to their attention that there is a Council Policy regarding metal buildings. They have reviewed it very carefully with the Butlsr Manufscturing Company, who will be occupying this building. They felt certain they could comply, if not exceed, with the Ceuncil Policy covered under Condition No. 33 in the staff report. 7here are at least 14 similar buildings by Butler Manufacturing Company in the City of Anaheim. One of the most recent one is the Pep Boys at Weir Canyon and Santa Ana Canyon Road, which has a very similar design. It is a highly landscaped area and set back 85 feet from the road, City of Anaheim Plenning Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 15 P~blic Testimony: John Timpte stated he owns the prope~ty direcUy behind subject property at 3031 East Coronado and 1220 through 1240 Simon Circle. The back of this proposed location shows crushed asphalt. He asked if the was crushed asphalt was a rock base or a hard paved surface. He frequently repairs the fence in back, which seems to be a problem. A new tenant has moved into his building, which has 400 employees. They run a very high tech business. Cleanliness is his major concern. He does not have a problem with the metal building proposed but he needs assurance of the cleanliness. Applicants Rebuttai: Phillip Anthony stated the Hertz deveiopment can anly improve the situation. Currently it is a vacant dirt vacant lot and they will be instailing a hard surface. The asphalt is noted on the plans as "recycled asahalt" but it is a completely hard surface. Hertz runs a very high qualiry and clean operation. All the maintenance work is done indoors so there would not be any dust or debris created. The rear fence, which is to City Code is proposed as a 6-foot chain link fence with the siats in it to screen thoroughly. Chairperson Boydstun asked if they are instailing a new fence in. Phillip Anthony responded yes. The Hertz facility will be completely fenced. They wiil have a high technology security system on-site. Hertz would be willing to meet privately with Mr. Timpte about a cooperative improved wall. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked what prominent type of equipment is stored in the back area. Phillip Anthony responded it is variety of inedium size equipment, equipment used by contractors, construction, and maintenance people. A list of the equipment was provided in the letter of operation. The only condition recommended by staff (s that the aerial type equipment will be kept as low as possible in the back. Holton Barnwell, Vice President of Hertz, 1881 Von Karmon, Suite 311, Irvine, CA 92512, further explained that the equipment used is a variery of equipment and they are known more for their trucks. As far a earthmoving equipment, generally they may have 8 to 10 pieces of each type of earth moving equipment and it is out most of the time. This location will probably have many industrial forklifts because they seNice the convention industry from this locatfon. However, they do not have one major type of equipment that is used, but rather a variety. Commissioner Vanderbilt indicated he was just trying to get a sense whether they had a predominance of equipment that might create a dust problem which would be a concern for their neighbors. Mr. Darnwell stated when equipment is returned it is immediately put onto a service line and before they service it the equipmznt is put through a cleaning process at the location prior to getting back onto the ready lines. Commissioner Napoles asked whether there would be a noise factor with the equipment. Mr. Barnwell responded it would not be any higher decibel level than the noise of traffic going by. Phillip Anthony emph~sized that the operation is not noisy. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 16 .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . _ , ~c sf _ . .. _ . . . . .. . ":t Mr. Tempte stated he does know that thefr equipment i~ cle~ned. Asked if this site is going. to be used to bring in equipment from other smaller yards and stor~ ~quipment in the back area; and is it going to be operated by ftself. Asked if theywill be usinr~ compressed air and blowe~s to ciean their equipment. ' Chairperson Boydstun stated they bring in the equipment and wash it before servicing it Greg McCafferty stated thare are a number of uses such as this and others that could resuit in the same amount of dust, but the site is currently a dirt lot and will be paved over. ,~~OLLOWING IS A,SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING GOMMISSION ACTION. . OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke with concems. ACTION: Approved Negstive Deciaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4149 for 10 years (to expire September 13, 2009) subJect to the conditions of approval Usted fn ths staff report dated Septemue~?3,1999. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent and one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 23 minutes (2:10-2:33) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 17 7a. 7b. 7c. Y WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT October 11,1999. CONDITIONAC USE PERMIT N0. 4143 OWNER: Grock Woey Jung and Chun Chun Jung, Trustees, 433 South Vicki Lane, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Jimmy Tong Nguyen, P.O. Box 15741, Newport Beach, CA 92659 LOCATION: 420 South Brookhurs: Street. Property is 0.50 acre Iocated on the east side of Braokhurst Street (Seafood Place Restaurant). To permit a banquet hail facility with service and on-premise consumption, I but not sales of beer and wine with ~vaiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLIlTION N0. 5R1021V.DOC • • • • • ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the October 11,1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to address unresolved parking issues related to this proposal. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent and one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 18 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY•APPROVED) Approved 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4055 (READVERTISED) Approved amendment to conditfons of OWNER: Free Methodist Church of Anaheim,1171 North West approval Street, Anaheim CA 92802 AGENT: Pastor~Stan Managbanag,1171 North West Street, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 1171 North West Street. Property is 2.08 acres located on the west side of West Street, 388 feet south of the centerline of Romneya Drive (Free Methodist Church of Anaheim). To amend conditions of approval pertaining to the maximum number of children (30 permitted; 47 requested) and the hours of operation (6:30 a.m. to 6;30 p.m. Monday through Friday permitfed; 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. requested) for a previously-approved child day care facility in conjunction with a church facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-163 SR7537KP.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. ApplicanPs Statement: Jeff Smith, Free Methodist Church of Anaheim,1171 North West Street, Anaheim, CA 92801, requested an amendment to their existing CUP to allow them to increase their enrollment from 30 to 47 children and to amend operating hours from at 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p,m. Stan Managbanay, Pastor of the Church, expressed his thanks for the church's consideration. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Boydstun asked if they had any plans for the back roof. Stan Managmanag responded it would be re-roofed before the end of this year. OPPOSITlON: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved ~equest to amend the conditions of approval of ~onditional Use Permit No. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Sur~mary Action Agend~ 09-13-99 Page 19 , ,. .. :.. ~ . ....;..~.._. : :..__..., ~ . _,.. . .. 4055. Modified Resoiution No. PC98-139 as follows: Amended Condition Nos.1 and 2 to read as fallows: "1. That the day care facllity shall be limited to a maximum enrollment of forty-seven (47) children. 2. That the business hours of oreration for the day care shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Mondays through Fridays, as stipulated by the petitioner." VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent and one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assfstant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (2:34-2:38) City of Anaheim Planning Commissian Summary Action Agenda Q9-13-99 Page 20 9a. CEQA NEGATiVE DECLARATION Approved 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMEMT Approved 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4147 Granted OWNER: Ronald Richard Preissman,1804 Angelo Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 AGENT: Ronald A. Schultz, 25322 Mosswood Way, Lake Forest, CA 92630 LOCATION: 1155 East Orangethorpe Avenue. Property is 0.51 acre located at the northwest corner of Raymond Avenue and Orangethope Avenue (Del Taco). To construct a fast food restaurant with waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces and (b) minimum drive-through lane requirements. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-164 SR6965DS.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. ApplicanYs Statement: Ron Shultz, Shultz Development Services, stated he was the consultant and agent for the applicant who was proposing new Del Taco Restaurant. They concurred with the staff recommendations. Public Testimony: John Maresca, Bryan Industrial Properties, stated tf~~ey own and manage industrial buildings nexi to the site. They were in agreement with staff s recommendation for Conditional Use Permit No. 4147 but asked Commission to pay special attenfion to item 19 on page 5 of the staff report. Their support is subject to the petitioner being required to maintain the existing mature jacaranda trees. Stuart Kaplan,1015 East Orangethorpe, supports the project and sees no negative impacts. Rick Gill, Commercial Real Estate broker with Collins Commercial Properties represented the family, which owns adjoining property. They are in favor of the CUP, but would like a barrier placed between the properties in ~rder to prevent people from parking on their property. Requested Commission consider landscape mitigation along the property line. They are also concerned about traffic on Orangethorpe and approving a curb cu! on Orangethorpe. A curb cut, as little as 10 feet from their existing eastern most curb cut, would be too close. They are concerned with people coming out of the fast food restaurant and their own customers are trying io pull into the driveway. There is also a bus stop that is presently where the curb cut will be. If the ~us,stop voas relocated in front of their buiiding, they will have a significant problem fcr customers trying to turn left or right onto Orangethorpe. Patty Molino, 1018 East Orangethorpe, represents AKU Motor Inn, stated his support for the project City of Maheim Planning Commissfon Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 21 ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Ron Shultz stated they unclerstand concems about the driveway but if they move it any closer to the intersection it would have more of a negative impact. ~ Commissioner Bostwick asked whether the driveways from the proposed property down to the school supply property would be closed. Asked Mr. Yalda whether 22 feet between driveways was appropriate and whether there was sufficient room for the bus stop to the east. Alfred Yalda respor.ded yes, generally when there are two driveways that close together, and if there is no parking between them, they should operate properly, The bus stop is something O.C,T.A. generally decides and they do not like to move a bus stop away from the intersection because it is convenient for riders io get off the bus and immediately cross the adjacent street. Greg McCafferty pointed out that the plans show the fencing on ~rest property line as a solid continuous block wali, which he feit should be added as a condition if approved. Chairperson Boydstun asked Mr. Yalda if ihe driveway onto Orangethorpe will be a right turn only since it is very close to the intersection. Alfred Yaida explained he had not been to the site, but, it would probably be a right turn only. Dave Amestoy, architect for project, stated he felt it would not be a problem for project. O.C.T.A. will not allow them to move the bus stop in front of the adjacent property; it will be moved about 10 feet to the east, closer to the corner so that it will remain in front of the project site. Chairperson Boydstun asked if they were planning to install a block wall on the west end of property. Dave Amestoy responded no, however there is a retaining wall along that property line because there is a 4 foot change in elevation and the wall would have to be scaled in order to get from one properry to the other. The retaining wall would stay. Greg McCafferty stated the way the drive-through is designed and the grade differential should discourage anyone from going across. Dave Amestoy advised they are adding more trees into the setback to meet code requiremerits and are maintaining all the jacaranda trees. They may have to remove one to put the driveway in but are adding back 3 more trees to meet the street tree requirements. Melanie Adams, Associate Civii Engineer, stated there were hnro conditions from the Public Works Department, Development Services Division, that were given to project architect at Interdepartmental Committee Meeting but did not make it into the staff report. The first relates to sewer fees, that prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall pay the sewer deficiency fee for the remaining north central area. Secondly that the legal property owner shall submit an application for a Subdivision Map Act Certificate of Compliance to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division. A certificate of compliance or conditional certificate of compliance shall be approved by the City Engineer and recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder prior to the issuance of a building permit. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commiss(on Summary Actian Agenda 09-13-99 Fage 22 OPPQSITION: Noneh person spoke with concems. ACTlON: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Vllaiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4147 with the following added conditfons: That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall pay the Sewer deficiency fee for the Remaining North Central Area. That the legal property owner shall submit an application for a Subdivision Map Act Certificate of Compliance to the Pubic Works Department, Cevelopment Services Division. A Ce~tificate of Compliance or Conditional Certificate of Compliance shail be approved by the City Engineer and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder prior to the fssuance of a building permit. Ti~,at the final monument sign plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department for review and approval by the Planning Commiss~on as a Reports and Recommendations i4em. That a"right turn only" sign shall be posted on the driveway along Orangethorpe Avenue. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent and one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented !he 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIPdE: 20 minutes (2:39-2:59) (THERE WAS A 5-MINUTE BREAK FOLLOWING THIS ITEM.J City of Anaheim Planring Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 23 ~ 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4148 Approved Granted for 5 years OWNER: Robert Zucherman,1714 Glen Oaks Drive, Santa Barbara, CA 93108 AGENT: Hung Van Le, 601 South Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 601 South Magnolia Avenue. Property is 0.46 acre located at the southwest corner of Orange Avenue and Magnolia Avenue (Le's Automobile). To permit and retain an existing auto repair facility in a former service station. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLU i i0N N0. PC99-165 (To expire 9-13-2004) SR1124JD.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. ApplicanPs Statement: Fiung Van Le, tenant, was requesting a conditional use permit for an auto repair faciliry at a former ARCO service station. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Boydstun advised the applicant that the Planning Commission wanted to speak to the property owner regarding the billboard sign. Mr. Le stated he attached a note to the billboard in hopes th~at the biliboard owner would contact him since he did not knovi who the owner is. Commissioner Bostwick advised the applicant that his plans did not show the billboard. Ir the biliboard is not removed then the operation will not be in conformance with the Flans and Mr. Le will be in violation of the CUP. Therefore, it would be very important he contacted the sign company ar,d make arrangements to remove the sigr. Selma Nlann, Assistant City Attorney, stated, for the record, apparently there are no records of any building permits for the biliboard and there are no protections under State law for a billboard that was erected without the proper permits to begi~ with. Mr. Le pointed out item 15 on the staff report. Hours of operation should be Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., not 8:OQ a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 24 VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent and one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DiSCUSSION TIME: 8 minutes (3:12-3:20) City of Anahe(m Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 25 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 11b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied 11c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4150 Granted, in part, for 3 years OWNER: Theodore Todoroff, 929 No~th Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 (To expire 9-13-2002) AGENT: Aloraham Zraiz, 909 North Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCA'fION: 9a9 North Anaheim Bou(evard. Property is 0.35 acre located at the northwest corner of La Verne Street and Anaheim Boulevard (Car Stereo Warehouse). To permit and retain an automotive stereo sales and instaliation facility with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces (deleted). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-166 SR1100KB.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. ApplicanYs Statement: Fred Afjiryes, 909 North Anaheim Boulevard, stated he was requesting to retain approval of sales and installation of car audio and security systems. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked staff to comment regarding landscaping requirements that could assist the applicant, on what may appear to be a short-coming. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, responded they reviewed the site plan and because there is a surplus of parking on the site there shoul~ be the capability to install 5 feet of landscaping along LaVerne Street (the south ~rope~ ty line) in addition to the 10 feet along Anaheim Boulevard. Commissioner Koos asked whether staff is amending their recommendation in the staff report. Greg McCafferty verified tney were. Commfssioner Vanderbilt thought it was important because of the landscaping improvements. There has been much effort on the part of the Ciry to improve Anaheim Boulevard, in terms of removing the overhead utilities and putting some landscapfng or, portions of the medium, perhaps closer to Lincoln Avenue. The City and the businesses could work together to beautify and enhance the values of the pro~erties and businesses. Commissioner Koos concurred with Commissioner Vanderbilt, City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 26 Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that staff was concemed about any possibility that there might be a noise (ssue due its proximity to resfdential property and, therefore, conditionod the operations regarding where the testing could take place. Condition No.11 of the staff report stated a maximum number of 4 employees during any one shift. He asked if that was intended to limit the possibility of excessive noise. Greg McCafferty responded that was based on the letter of operation submitted by the applicant. Commissioner Koos asked the applicant whether he anticipated, in the future, using more than 4 employees. Fred Aljires suggested lt could be left open depending on how the business enhances Commissioner Koos indicated he thought if the applicant is strictly following the other conditions, then having 5, 6, or 7 employees should not be a problem. He would not want to restrict their business should there become a need to add more employees. Therefore, he was supportive of deleting the mention of the number of employees at any one time on Condition No.11. Chairperson Boydstun suggested placing a maximum of 6 employees during any one shift. Commissioner Koos indicated he was in agreement and changed his recommendation to a maximum of 6 employees during any one shift. Greg McCafferty stated in order to accommodate the 5-foot landscape strip along the LaVerne Street, he suggested modification of Condition No. 5 to include, "a minimum 10-foot wide landscape and irrigated planter strip tc be installed adjacent to Anaheim Boulevard and a 5-foot wide landscape strip shall be installed adjacer.t to LaVern~ Street:' ro~eowiNGlS A SUMMARY.OF THE PLANNINGCOMMISSION ACTION.T:-~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Denied Waiver of Code Requirement on the basis that the waiver pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces was deleted follo:taing public notification. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 4150 for 3 years (to expira September 13, 2002) with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Modified Condition Nos. 5 and 11 to read as follows: 5. That a minimum 10-foot wide landscaped and irrigated planter strip shall be installed adjacent to Anaheim Boulevard and a 5-foot wide landscaped strip shall be installed adjacent to La Verne Street, exclusive of driveway openings. That within 60 days from the date of this resolution, a landscape plan for the entire s(te shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department indicating rype, size and location of existing and refurbished landscapfng and irrigation for review and appraval, Once approved, the landscaping shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the plan within sixty (60) days. City of Anaheim Pianning Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 27 11. That the hours of operation shall be Ifmited to 9 a.m. to S p.m., Monday through F~iday, and irom 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday with a maximum of six (6) employees during any one shift. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent and one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 8 minutes (3:21-3:29) City of Anaheim Planning Commfssion Summary Action Agenda 09-13-39 Page 28 12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 12b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.1322 (READVERTISED) September 27,1999. OWNER: Sidney E. Bickel Trust, 5585-B Via Dicha, Laguna Hilis, CA 92653 • AGENT: Greg Hammill, 414 Femhill Lane, Anaheim, CA 92807 Sam Govemale, 633 S. East Street, Maheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: S33 South East Street. ~Property is 1.9 acres located on the west side of East Street,182 feet north of the centerline of South Street (Quartz Dealer Direct). To permit and retain an automobile wholesale and retail auction facility. Continued from the Commission meeting of July 19,1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. SR1062V.DOC o • • • o • OPPOSITION: 1 letter was received in opposition to subject request. ACTION: Continued subject request to the September 27,1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to finalize the analysis of parking and traffic impacts. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent and one vacant seatj DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. City of Maheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 29 13b. O1fiINER: Chibueze J. and Sharon K. Dallah,17389 East Briardale Lane, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 LOCATION: 1429 and 1433 East Lincoln Avenue. Property is 0.63 ~~cre located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue,160 feet e~st of the centerline of La Plaza. To reclass~fy the subject property from the RS-A-03,000 (Residential/Agricultural) and RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zones to the CL (Commerciai, Limited) Zone. RECL,4SSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. PC99-167 Denied SR1008TW.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. Applicant's Statement: Chibueze Dallah,17380 Briardale Lane, Yorba Linda, CA, stated that he is requesting a reclassification from the Residential/Agricultural (RS-A-43,000) and Residential Single-Family (RS-7200) Zones to (Commercial, Limited) CL Zone. He had a major concern that was not included in the staff report relative to the traffic signal issue. The main reason he wanted to change the zoning is because of the traffic signal. There have been many problems relative to the traffic signal as it was supposedly moved from the intersection to the mid-block. The change of the traffic signal from mid-block would allow him to be able to live with the traffic signal and avoid the loss of value to his property. THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Boydstun stated she had no problem with a change of zoning for the first part of the lot to the rear property line of the residence but did not feel the rest of it should be changed. She asked staff whether the lot spiit had to be done or could the property line be used as a point of identification. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, indicated that the zoning line did not need to follow a parcel line. He referred to Paragraph 7, which states that the site plans indicate that the southerly 190 feet of Parcel No.1 and Parcel No. 2 will be combined into one parcel. Chairperson Boydstun stated that for ihe front strip it is logical for it all to be one zone but preferred no alley access because residences would be getting traffic in the alley, Greg Hastings made a correction io Condition ~10,1 and stated that the address should read as 1429 East Lincoln Avenue, which is the westerly parcel of the two, Commissioner Bostwick stated he agreed with staff's recommendation and explained that the mid-biock commercial is not appropriate and the subject piece of property does not lend itseif to a development the way it is presently designed. He could not see how the back alley would ever be used because it is too small to park a vehicle or maneuver a turn around. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 30 Comm~ssioner Koos agreed with Commissioner Bostwick; he felt that the General Plan designation afi Commercial Profess~onal would lend itself to this prope~ty being rezoned as a Commercial Office designation but the Commercial Lfmited Zone use is incompatible with the adjacent residential uses and that it leaves the possibiliry open for a number of issues that may occur in the area. Chibueze Dallah stated the reason he is requesting a change of zoning is to be able to compiy with the City Council and Planning Department. He is doing his best to meet #he requirements. If the traffic signal had been installed where it should have been, there would be no need for him to be present requesting a zoning change. Chairperson Boydstun asked if Commercial Office or Commercial Professional would accomplish 4hat. Chibueze Dallah responded that Commercial Professional might not help towards the loss of value of the property because ii is a single-family residence and the traffic signal is right outside from the living room. Therefore, the value loss is re!ative to the residentiai zoning. Commerciai zoning would be adequate for what the City is requiring. Commissioner Koos stated the difference in value between what could be developed on as Commercial Office versus Commercial Limited is not something that is relevant to this discussion. It is clear that if this property was zoned Commercial Office then it would have an economically viable use of the subject property, which is the main issue relativs to what the land is worth but the value of the property does not factor into their decision today. Commissioner Vanderbilt explained the existing structure is in the center of what the applicant is proposing to use the property for and the parking spaces are being proposed as a future use. There was discussion on the possibiliry of the building razed and then rebuilding closer to the west. He would then have better space to work relative to the numbar of parking spaces that are required. The appiicant is trying to use the existing building, but it is creating problems. He understands the applicant is trying to work with staff in providing a service to the area with this property, but the way the structure is oriented on the property presents a problem. Commissioner Koos stated the issue before Commission is a zoning issue and the potential uses are not relevant as of now unless it is rezoned. He explained if the applicant chooses to demolish the existing structure or turn the house into something else, then that discussion should not be a part of today's discussion. He felt staff should decide on what the subject property shouid be zoned as that is what the item was advertised as. Commisyioner Koos asked Mr. Hastings if the applicant chose to request a zone change to Commercial Office would that need to be advertised. Greg Hastings responded that they could readvertise this particular reclassification. They would typically indicate that it is a rezoning to CL or a less intense zone, which was not the case here. Therefore the item would be readvertised and continued to a future meeting. Commissioner Koos asked the applicant if he would like to do that. Chibueze Dallah pointed out that the area map of the subject property shows most of the area to the south is CL Zone and explained lhat if he goes CO that he would not be meeting the area requirements. Commissioner Koos stated that the Generai Plan i~entifies the subject property as being Commercial Professional and the property is directly adjacent to residential. He explained there are similar properties in the City that are zoned CL adjar,ent to residential and that it should not set a precedent for the subject City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 31 lot. He further explained that the Planning Commission routinely exami~es the General Plan land use consistency with the zoning and they try to create compatible land use ~ituations in the City. Therefore, he would not necessarily point to the other properties as a Justification for this request. Chibueze Daliah explaine~ that he is trying very hard to adjust to the traffic signai, it is his main concem because the traffic signal is right outside the living room. (He stated he had a photo for the Commission to view.] He asked the Planning Commission if they have any suggestions because he would like to know what could be done to make the subject property meet CL zoning. The CL zoning would probably be the most appropriate and explained that the tra~c signal should be moved from the mid-block to the intersection. He indicated there are two intersections in the subject area and that the signal shouid have been at the other intersection. if the signal were at the other intersection he would not be present requesting for a change in zoning. He stated he is willing to work with the City and Planning Commission. Commissioner Bostwick asked the applicant if he is planning on a laundromat on the subject property. Chibueze Dallah responded he might look at different options and asked if they have any other suggestions in lieu af a laundromat. Commissioner Koos asked staff relative to mid-block properties, what is normaliy done when it goes through the Community Planning exercise and how would staff approach the zoning on the subject property relative to the General Plan. Greg Hastings responded there was a study conducted by the Community Development Department which indicated that mid-block commercial was not a viable use in Anaheim ana that the preferred commercial location would be at arterial intersections where you could concentrate commercial development. Therefore, their conciusion was to not have commercial retail mid-block. Relative to this particular case, the Community Planning Program would analyze the uses. There are a couple of converted houses in the subject area and he was n~t certain if those homes are currently being used commercially, they were at one time. He felt they should remain residential although currently the General Plan shows Commercial Professional. Commissioner Koos asked the applicant if he wanted staff to re-advertise this property as CL or a less intense zone, which would include C0, leaving it residential, or would he prefer the Commission to act on the item today. Chibueze Dallah responded he would prefer a CL since he felt a CO would put him back to where he was at, being residential. Chairperson Boydstun clarified that CO is Commercial Office. Chibueze Dallah felt that a Commercial Office and a residential are practically identical. He explained if he was to sell the property with the current zoning, the prcperty would not be able to seil as a residential. Commissioner Koos informed the applicant that this concern is not significant to today's decision-making process. The property was bought as a residential prc,perty and he informed the applicant that he could not count on the City to zone it up to make the value of his property higher. He stated he would dispute that Commercial O~ce is not an economically feasibie on land use for the subject property. H~ felt that it will work regardless of whether the house is demolished or left as is. He asked the applicant once again !f he would like staff to act on the item :oday or continue and re-advertise the item. Chibueze Daliah responded he would like Commission to act on the item today. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Actlon Agenda 09-13-98 Page 32 ACTION: Denied the Negative Declaration based on the following: (i) The reclassification of this property is not consistent with the Anaheim General Plan. (ii) Land uses permitted by the requested CL Zoning would increase tr~~c in the area and cause increased noise intrusion to the adjacent residentiai properties, particularly the residence at 1498 Birch Street, which w~uld have commercially related traffic and parking impacts. Denfed Reclassification No. 99-00-07 based on the following: (i) That the proposed reciassification to the CL zone is not the appropriat9 implementation zone and is inconsistent with the Commercial Professional and Low De~nsity Residential General Plan land use designations. (ii) That the size and shape of the parcei does not allow for the adequate development of the site for retaii commercial uses without negatively impacting the residential land uses to the north of this property. (iii) That creating a landlocked parcel, or a split-zoned parcel is not appropriate to achieve full and adequate development of the area. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent and one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant Ciry Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 23 minutes (3:30-3:53) City of Anaheim Planning Commissfon Summary Action Agenda 09-Z 3-99 Page 33 14a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVEI]) Approved 14b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4035 (READVERTISED) Approved reinstatement OWNER: Alex Bahrami, 329-331 North State College Boulevard, (To expire 8-18-2000) Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Robert D. Michelson, P.O. Box 932, Orange CA 92856 LOCATION: 329-331 North State College Boulevard. Property is 0.37 acre on the west side of State College Boulevard,150 feet south oF the centerline of Redwood Avenue (Kris Kars). To consider reinstatemEnt of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (approved on August 18,1998 until August 18, 1999) to retain an existing automobile sales lat with a maximum of five (5) display vehicles. Continued from the Commission meeting of August 30, 1999 CdNDITiONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-168 SR7511 KP.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. ApplicanPs Statement: Alex Bahrami, 329-331 North State College Boulevard, Anaheim, stated he is requesting a reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4035. He explained that he purchased the property in February,1998 and when the property was purchased it had virtually no landscaping and was in need of repair. "i hey have been working constantly to improve the property and have added a number of trees and landscaping. They removed a 20-foot high pole sign and replaced it with a monument sign. They have been working closely wilh City staff trying to improve the property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick asked to hear from Code Enforcement relative to any problems at tne subject property. Don Yourstone, Code Enforcement, stated he conducted an inspection of the property at the request of the Planning Department. He found that the landscaping needed to be refurbished because there were weeds growing up through the ice plant. There was information hanging from the car's rear view mirrors and the price of the vehicle was lying on the passenger's front seat. There was signage on the front window of the business indicating the name of the business and the hours of operation, which did not coincide with the approval of the conditional use permit. Since that time, only five cars have been on display. The landscaping has been refurbished and the ice plant has been removed and repiaced with ivy. There were car parts on an auto hood that has been removed. He indicated as of 7:00 a.m., that morning, the sign on the front window was still there. He City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 34 spoke to the appiicant about 12:00 p.m. and the appifcant removed the signage off the wfndow, just leaving the hours of operation. He also indicated that ihls moming there were four cars up near the front entrance doors to Kris Kars. Two of the cars did not have license plates and the other finro cars had license piates. In speaking with the appiicant he fndicated that the two cars with license plates were employees of the carpet store which was adjacent to the subject business. One of the vehicles had been sold yesterday and was waiting for pick-up by a customer. Commissioner Boslwick asked over the last year, how many cars have they had on the property. Don Yourstone responded that most of the time there has been five cars on the south side of the property. Alex Bahrami stated that they have always had five display cars and that sometimes they have customers who have already purchased a car and are bringing the car back for repair. Kris Kars then sends the car to the shop for repair. He informed staff they were trying their best to only have five display cars. He explained relative to the landscaping that they have replaced all the ice plants and have planted ivy. They also hired a new gardener who has promised to do a better job. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that the applicant always has five cars on display and then there are a certain amount of cars that are in transition. The extra cars are not on display but are baing stored. Alex Bahrami clarified that even though they are reguired by the State to have a license to sell vehicles, they are primarily a financing business. He expiained they could apply for up to seven cars, but originally they only applied for five cars. They are happy with the current arrangements and he felt they do not need more cars. As far as storing cars they have had problems in the past relative to the customer not having the proper documents, therefore, they would have to return ihe car. When that happens they will take thE car to another location until all has been clarified. He further explained that because their lot is an open place and (s a lighted parking lot they have had problems with people from next door parking their cars in his lot. As Mr. Yourstone indicated, there were five cars on display as usual, but four extra cars were also there. Out of those four cars, only one of the cars was his. He is trying his best to eliminate the extra cars on his property. Alex Bahrami indicated his business is very small and wants it to be in conformance wilh all the conditions. Commissioner Koos asked staff what the recommendation was last year. Greg McCafferty responded that staff recommended denial for a number of reasons because it backed on to residential property and there was concerned about the noise, lighting and outdoor activity. Tnere was rot a substantial buffer to the residential. Also, it was combined in conjunction with an existing strip center which is odd to have it integrated into a strip center. He stated staff did not feel the size of the lot was adequate to allow for the full development of the subject use. He explained this time part of the recommendation was based on the facts that some of the stipulations during the City Council's deliberation by the applicant indicated that the subject business is primarily a brokerage. • Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 35 Alex Bahrami explained he had a different tenant last year, but the tenant did not like the limitations o~ the business and moved out. The new tenant is Kris Kars Sales & Credit Corporation and primarily dAe~ financing for other car lots. The new tenant has much less demands for display of cars. He informed staff they were adding seven more palm trees, totaling twenty palm trees. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated the Iights on the property seem intense which is apprapriate for a aar dealership, but anything else along the street the lighting would seem inadequate. Alex Bahrami indicated they have three lights in the parking lot. They originally installed the lights before they applied for a conditional use permit due to problems with vandalism, prostitutes and drug users wha occupied the back of the property because it was dark. He explained the lighting has helped eliminata those activities. Commissioner Vanderbilt referred to the existing chain linic fence. Alex Bahrami responded they do not use the gate anymore because it wa~ an inconvenience to the other tenants who did not want to open the gate in the moming. He stated the lighfs are minimal heic~ht,1'L feet high, which is low for lights. Commissioner Koos stated, given the applicant's investment in the property, it was unfortunate the original approval ~id not give the applicant more time before returning before the Commission. Alex Bahrami responded they do not regret investing money because it has improved the property and has increased the value of the properry. The neighboring businesses are very happy and have supported them because the subject property is now secured. Commissioner Koos stated he felt the subject business is not adequate for the neighboring businesses. Chairperson Boydstun responded she previously did !iot think it wouid work, but it seems to be working. Alex Bahrami responded they have not had any complaints and felt there is more trash and problems from the neighboring carpet sale business. Following the action: Alex Bahrami informed Commission they plan on installing 7 more trees (15-gallon queen palms) to the property. ,, FUL~owING 15 A SUMMARY OF,THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIO(~." `. ~ ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTiON: Determined that the previously-spproved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4035 (to expire August 18, 2000). Modified Resolution No. 98R-172 as follows: Amended Condition iJo.13 to read as follows; "13. That subject use permit shail expire on August 18, 2000 " City of Anaheim Planning Commission Si ~mmary Action Agenda Q9-13-99 Page 3S iIOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner B~istol absent and one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rlghts. DISCUSSION TIME: 18 minutes (3:54-0:12) City of Anaheim Planning Commissfon Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 37 15a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREViOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 15b. CONDR[ONAL USH PERMIT N0. a841 (READVERTISED) Denied request to amend the conditions of OWNER: Tarek Berri, 260 South Euclfd Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 approval pertaining to the location of outdoor AGENT: Michael Obert,12188 Central #323, Chino, CA 91710 public telephones LOCATION: 2180 West Ball Road. Property is 0.52 acre located at the southeast comer of Brookhurst Street and Bali Road. To amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to location of outdoor public telephones. Continued from the Commission meeting of August 30,1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC99-169 There was no discussion of this matter. SR7538VK.DOC FpLLOWING)S A SUMMARY,OF:TH~ PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Denied the request to amend or delete conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 3841 pertaining to location of outdoor public telephones based on the following: (1) That the proposed deletion of Condition No.14 is not reasonably necessary to permit the operation of the service station. (2) That the Anaheim Police Department recommends denial of this request due to increased potential for loitering and vandalism in the area near the pay telephone. (3) That the subject request would increase the p-zviousiy-approved parking waiver by an additionai space requiring readvertisement of that waiver. Modified ~esolution No. 96R-148 adopted in connection to Conditional Use Permit No. 3841 as follows: Amended Condition of Approval No.14 to read as follows: City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 38 "14. That there shall be no coin-operated telephones on the premises located outside the building " - VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner B~istoi absent and one Vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (4:12-4:13) City of Maheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 39 :._ 16a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECi.ARATiON Contlnued to 16b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT October 11,1999. 16c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4142 OWNER: Karland Edith Sator, 3150 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 ~ AGENT: 0'Neal Communications, Attn: John Murphy, 23141 Verdugo Drive, Suite 105, Laguna Hiils, CA 92653 LOCATION: 3150-3764 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 6.4 acres located south and east of the southeast comer of La Palma Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard. To construct a 60-foot high telscommunications monopalm with waiver of minimum structural setback. Continued from the Ccmmission meeting of August 16,1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. SR1001TW.DOC ~ • • • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject ~equest to the October 11, 1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to provide staff with additionai information regarding this request. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bristol abse~~t and one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. Ciry of Anahefm Planning Commission Summary Actfon Agenda os-~~-ss Page 40 17a. CEQA NEGATNE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROV 17b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2231 (READVERTISED) OWNER: American S.K. Trading Company, Attn: Wenyi Zhang, President, Inc., 831 Souih 9each Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Tom and Wen Yi Zhang, 831 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 831 South Beach Boulevard. Property is 0.65 acres located on the west side of Beach Boulevard (Rainbow Inn). To amend or delete conditions of approvai pertaining to required security. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. ttequest [o amena or delete conditions of approval was withdrawn SR7534DB.DOC Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey clarified that the CUP is not being wdhdrawn, it was a request fo amend the conditions of approval that were 6eing withdrawn. o • • • o ~ e OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIEU (Commissioner Bristol absent and one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioners request to withdraw the request to amend or delete the conditions of approval periaininn to required securiry on the basis that subsequent to filing this request, it was discovered that Resolution No. 99R-15G, adopted by the City Council on July 13,1999, satisfied the petitioner's concerns relative to on-site security. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent and one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (1:35-1:36) City of Anaheim Pianning Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page 41 ADJOURNED AT 4:14 P.Nf. TO MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27,1999 AT 10:00 A.M. FOR THE CENTERLINE PROJECT WORKSHOP Submitted by: ~v~ta~ Ossie Edmundson, Senior Secretary ~l~rX.R~t"`:t` ~/K.t~v.~ Simonne Fannin, Senior Office Specialist ~ Ci'(if.'~ ~..,E~/~2lGt( ~ Elly FertSandes, Sr. Word Processing Operator Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~~"~y' `19 Ciry of Anaheim Plannfng Commission Summary Action Agenda 09-13-99 Page h2