Loading...
Minutes-PC 1999/10/25SIJMMARY ACTION AGENDA CITY OF ANAHEI~I PLANNING COIVIMISSIDN MEETif~G MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1999 9:00 A.M. • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) 10:30 A.M. • CONVENTION CENTER TOUR 1:30 P.M. • PUBLlC H~ARING TESTIMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: ARNOLD, BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, KOOS, NAPOLES,VANDERBILT STAFF PRESENT: Mac Slaughter Joel Fick Annika Santalahti Greg Hastings Greg McCafferty Kim Taylor Don Yourstone Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Deputy City Attorney Planning Director Zoning Administrator Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Associate Planner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Principai Transportation Planner Associate Civil Engineer Planning Commission Secretary Senior Secretary P:IDOCSICLERICAL\MINUTES~AC102599.DOC City of Anaheim Pianning Commission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 1 ITEMS QF PUBLIC INTEREST: Commissioner Amold Oath or Atfirmation of Allegfanca: was swom in by New Pianning Commissioners - Tony Amold Sheryll Schroeder, City Clerk DISCUSSION ITEM: ~ Presentation from Lila Jagears, Chairperson of the Citron/Haster Neighborhood Request withdrawn requesting support for the Council's CDBG priority projects for FY 2000/2001. (10-minute presentation) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 320 (PREV.-CERTIFIED) Approved b) AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN N0.120 - REVIEW OF Approved with ARCHITECI'URAL PLANS FOR GdTCHA GLACIER: Gotcha Glacier, modifications Attn: Bradford Kinney, 33159-D Camino Capistrano, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675, requests review of modified architectural plans showing refinements to the exterior building design of Gotcha Glacier (Sportstown Anaheim) on property located at 2250 East Katella Avenue. .4CTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostw~ck and MOTION CARRlED, that the Anaheim City F~lanning Commission does hereby determine ihat ttie previously-certified EIR 320 is adequa!e to serve as the required environmental documentation for this request. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Comm~ssion does hereby receive and file the final exterior building plans (Final Plan Exhibit No.1) bassd on the findings that the plans are refinements of Exhibit No. 2, dated April 1, 1999 and labeled Gotcha Glacier, previously reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council; that the olans conform with the maximum land use and develnpment intensities established by ADP 120; that the plans comply with the "Amended and Restated Lease Agreement b~~ and between The California Angels L.P. and City of Anaheim, Dated as of May 15th,1996"; and that development will comply with all applicable mitigation measures incorporated into Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 092 and identified in EIR 320; and that the F'lanning Commission also recommends the following: (1) That the number of graphic panels shall be limited to ~ne graphic depiction per major activity or tenant within the building, not to exceed 15 panels; and (2) That the Gotcha Glacier sign shall be lowered below the roof level and any sign proposed above the roof level shall be brought back to the Planning Commission for review as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. SR7612AS.DOC City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 2 SUMMARX OF DISCUSSION. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated this item is a request to review refinements to the previously-approved exterior building plans for Gotcha Glacier. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, stated the applicant has been working with City staff for a number of months regarding the proposed development of Sportstown Anaheim including the Gotcha Glacier, which is the proposal before Commission. The background of the project under Area Development Plan No.120 and EIR No. 320 is addressed in the staff report. The plan before Commission is for the exterior building design of the Gotcha Glacier building including the sign elements, which are shown on the building elevations and on the model on the tabie. ApplicanPs Statement: Brian Myers, Spectrum Group,1 Technology Drive, Irvine, CA, stated he'., representing Glacier Sports and also present in the audience is Brad Kinney, CEO of Glacier Sports; Andy Feola, from F~A Architects; and Jeff McGuire from F&A Architects. They were before Commission last April with various schematic conceptual drawings. The plan has gone through a substantial revision. They have gone through a substantial amount of detail engineering and designing the building. They are excited about khis complex; it is a one of a kind bui~ding. The team that they have assembled to implement this project is very impressive. They are prouc to be able to announce that they have on their team Kajima Urban_ which is one of the largest developers in the world. They developed the ski dome in Tokyo and have developed several unique projects across the world. They are the developer in charge of this project and are also going to be responsible for guaranteeing not only the fmplementation and schedule of the project but also guaranteeing the price and cost of the building. Turner Construction is part of their team. They are the contractor in charge of construction. Turner also built The Pond (Anaheim Arena) and has been involved in the remodeling of the Edison Field (Anaheim Stadium) and has done several other major projects in Orange County. They also have Enron Engineering on their team, which is the energy partner. Enron has invested a substantial amount of money on thi~ project and is guaranteeing the facilities' mechanical, electrical and plumbing features, which is not only important technically but they are guaranteeing the snow making process of the building. They also have on their team for the management of the ski mount, Mammoth Mountain En[erprises, which is going to be operating the sk? slope. Ogden Entertainment is going to mar.age the facility and brings a wealth of information not only nationally but also locally as they manage ?he Pond and are involved in ttie Edison Field and other facilities in the City. The building itself is approximately 520,000 square feet. The parking lot is approximately 16 acres that includes approximately 1,270 parking spaces. They are excited about this project as a new destination in Anaheim. They feel it is a tremendous complement not just ko the Anaheim Resort but also to the Edison Field and to The Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 3 Pond. They feel it is going to be a fabulous entrance into the Stadium Area and also another exciting destination in the City of Maheim. Andrew Feola, Project Architect and President of F&A Architects,l':6 East Broadway, ~lendale, CA, stated thfs is a first of its kind in the world. He gave a slide presentation of the entire project floor by floor and "walked" through the entire project describing the areas. He also gave an explanation of the signage and a quick tour of the interiors of the prcject structure. The primary entrance to the project is off Katella. There will be some exterior retail pods attached to the building. The buitding has no back to it but rather there are 4 fronts, creating ar. interesting fagade from all angles. The exterior material is primarily a brushed metallic that is a part of the insulating system far the entire building, The basic color palette is very simple. They are going to ailow the tenants flraphics and the building itself will be the primary component of the color system of the building. (He presented a board with samples of fhe glass, mefa! framing, and some of ihe other components of the exterior of the project] Brad Kinney, Chairman and CEO of Gotcha Glacier, 33159 Camino Capistrano, Suite D, San Juan Capistrano, CA, 92075, stated after working on this project for 6%s years they are looking forward in breaking ground and getting this project started. They have put much time and energy into this project to deliver a product that is affordable and that is an exciting project that complements the Anaheim Res~rt and the whole area. Within the faciiity they combined 11 sports which include snowboarding; skiing; su~ng and body boarding on real waves; the best manmade snowmaking system ever through Engron Energy; skateboarding and in their skate park area they will be allowing inline skal;ng and BMX freestyle riding. They have ice skating on an NHL sized hockey rink; an indoor rock ~;limbing wall which wili be the nation's largest rock climbing surface, at 18,000 square feet; ir~door skydiving wind tunnel; and a 27,000 square foot fitness center open 24 hours. Everything that they are doing with this building has been done before, but they will be the first in the United Stated with an indoor snow facility. Their wave maker/licensee has over 20 stationary waves operating in the United States. This will compliment the Vans Skate Pa; k(at the Block) rather than competing with them. The passes will be sold in 2'/: -hour sessions per sport and the plan is not to charge a fee to walk into the facility, unless they have a loitering problem. The combined spo~ts and recreation along with retail and good restaurants in this facility is where an entire family can come. They will provide good security and a very clean environment run by Ogden who does an outstanding job at the Edison Fie;d and The Pond. The facility is for all levels from amateur to professional and they have been signed off by all the governing bod~es and letters of commitment from world cup associations indicating that they plan to bring thair world cup tours through their facility. Mr. Feola gave a further explanation of the interior and exterior of the facility through a continuation of "PouverPoint" slides. Brian Myers stated they pian to move on to the City Council in November and progress with their financing by the end of the year and break ground in January 2000. They plan to be open in the spring of 2001. City of Anaheim Pianning Commission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 4 Questions from the Commission: Commissioner Koos asked if there would be any outside seating at the facility, perhaps some public art, etc., to bring the building down to a human scale given the size of the building, Mr. Feola responded they have three ~ntrances to the facility. ~Jn the southerly entrance they designed a hardscape, the amenities, !he landscaping around thc~ entrances so pa~ticipants are not overwhelmed by the size of the building. As they approach the faciliry there are one-story retail buildings and on entering the major courtyard prior to entering the building itself there will be seating and elements to accommodate the customers. The northerly entrance is similar in that they are plenning landscape components, the amenities wiiich he mentioned, as well a prelude to the entry ;o the facility. The primar,r entrance on the east sicie will have an array of landscaping and benches acting as a drop off area. Part of their plan is to link to the train station so they created a pedestrian path that extends from the train station and around their project. Brian Myers added that they also have a pub~ic art program as part of their lease, which they do not have before Commission but they can return with any art components which staff has to approve before they can proceed. Commissioner Boatwick asked if the signage portion is before Commission or is that going to come back later. Annika 3antalahti, Zoning Administrator, responded the signage program to the extent of what is attached to the building is before Commission, however, any on-site monument signs, etc., will be returning to Commission at some later date. Commissioner Bristol asked if the signage has changed considErably since Commission first saw the elevations. Brian Myers responded the previous rendering they saw was very loose ir scale and he thought it ~~ as the initiai rendering which did not have much scale to it. The revision has much more detail to it and there has been a lot of discussion at staff level of exactly what was appropriate for tlie buildiny. Their vision for the signage of the building is that the signage is oart af the architecture and they felt it was very important to the scale of the building and to 5reak the massing of this building. Commissioner Bostwick asked what the sizes of the signs wera. Mr. Feola indica!ed the graphic images vary from approximately 40 to 50 feet b;l 100 feet in some ceses or visa versa. Commissioner Koos asked if they will be limiting the tenants on the sign to sports tenants as opposed to corporate sponsorship (such as Coca-Cola) or is it going to be yport related images. Brian Myers responded yes, they are all sports related images. The tenants will have logos that will be part of the image that takes place, which was the concept. They pfan not having any lettering, it will be logos that will be attached as part of the activity that is taking place on the exhibit itself. They will have tenant space within the building and thsre will be a logo attached and embedded into the graphic; they will be all sports related gr2phic.s. The intent was t~ try to show the activities that are going to take piace in the building itself. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 5 Commissioner Koos indicated when Mr. Myers states "sports related graphics" would that be, for example, a shoe company showing a runner. Brian Myers responded there would be graphics related t`~ the activities inside the building. For example, there will be a snowboarder and they might have a graphic of a snowboard related company on the snowboard itself but they would actually have to have space in the building as a leased tenant. Commissioner Bostwick stated if, for example, Nike is going to havo space in the building then are they going to have a panel outside with a shoe on.a climber. Brian Myers answered yes, if that was the specific question then yes that could be a possibility. Commissioner Koos asked if, for example, could Pepsi show someone on top of a rock drinking a Pepsi. Brian Myers responded they have to have lease space on the building and actua~ly be selling something in the building. Commissioner Bristol asked in a normal sized building would this signage be allowed. Annika Santalahti responded this is in the Public Recreation Zone, which specifically addresses signage. They are reviewing a Code Amendment where signage approved in the Public Recreation Zone by the City Council in connection with plans would be the permitted signage. Commissioner Bristol asked whether this would set a precedent for other buildings. Joel Fick, Planning Director, stated it was mentioned that these are not signs per se. They are more graphic elements that help break up the size and mass of the building and depict activities that are happening inside the building, which is a better characterization than what is seen on the model. Cemmissioner Bostwick recommendec; that the name "Gotcha Glacie~' be placed under the lip of the building roof and backlit, instead of adding to the heiyht of the building since it is currently 175 feet high. Mr. Feola said they have reviewed all of the possibilities and the one that they felt worked best for this building and the composition of the building is as they presented it. They can certainly look at Commissioner Bostwick's suggestion if that is a condition of approval. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated he realized there is an effort to break up the building. The model is essentially a white building but there appear to be different colors on the elevations. The pictures are in contrast to a white building but the applicant is actually referring to a multi- color building with graphics. It seems as though they need to increase the intensity of the graphics to contrast with the architecture. He wondered if that was the dilemma that they were facing with the graphics. PAr. Feola responded it is an organized exterior. The materials and colors that they selectec! are basically soft pastels and they have stayed away from the color white. The model is a massing model but the actual building is not actually white and they do have contrast in the facade, contrast at tha people Ievel and basically a soft tone approach to the entire building. The City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 6 graphics wili be colorful. They feel that there is a complimentary balance between the graphics and how they are applied to the structure, they are not just stuck on but part of the architecture. Thc-y believe with the control that they wilt have over the graphics that the result wiil be a very balanced approach to the architecture, which is the overall architecture of the building itself. Commissioner Vanderbilt indicated the Stadium has two to three tones. There is also thb Tinseltown facility with a similar type of signage in a scale relative to the building. He asked ifi there were those considerations as well. Mr. Feola responded they have taken ail of those into consideration in the pianning and design of this building. They understand what the color program is for the Stadium; Tinseltown is also in a aastel, light beige approach. Knowing that the structure is so large they want to be a good neighbor architecturally. They have spent many hours sel2cting colors that are going to place this facility as a good neighbor architecturaliy with the other buildings in the area. (He reierred to the color board before Commission. j Commissioner Arnold asked what is going to be the impact on the parking and traffic flow to the Amtrak Station and how it is going to work. Brian Myers responded that has been a hotly discussed topic. They have spent much time with staff going over the parking requirements for Amtrak which are included in their parking models and will be physically on-site. He explained in relation to the Amtrak Stetion there is an "envelope" of parking in close proximity that are shown for Glacier but they have a shared use program since they are just leasing those parking spaces from the City, as a parking leasing agreement in a common area. There will be adjacent parking to those parking spaces that are for the Amtrak Station. It is basically on a first come first serve basis. Amtrak patrons ir the morning will have a free range mast days to park closest to the Station ard there wili really not be an impact at all. They have to reserve those parking spaces for Amtrak patrons close to the Station. Commissioner Bostwick stated he had a problem with all the sign boar~s. When the colors and textures get a different look then the signs are not important to breaking up the mass of the building. The wings on the ends and middle of the building are fine but the others are really huge sign boards that he would not like to see there. Commissioner Bristol stated he brought this subject up because he was concerned with the precedent that it could possibly set but on the other hand this is a huge building. These are the: experts and the City staff seems to have gone along with this. Commissioner Bostwick stated he would prefer tham to build it v~ith less signs and then, i1 needed, return to Commission at a later date. Ha would like to see it built without them to start with because once they are installed you are not going to get them down. Commissioner Vanderbilt wondered about the orien!ation from the seats of the Stadium looking out, would those people sitting in the seats actually aee Gotcha Glacier7 Commissioner Bostwick stated all the right fieid line should be able to see it. Brian Myers stated there are actually two issues that govern the sight lines into the Stadium. One is that on the larger plan and in the exhibits (given to Commission] there is a line in the Stadium lease with the Angels related to a"no build zone" to the east of that line, no buildings City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 7 are allowed because buildings would obstruct views out from the Stadium looking at the hills and the horizon beyond. That is one issue in particular that they addressed.. Their building is set back quite a ways from that line. Secondiy, in looking at the sight lines on which they have not done specific studies, the Stadium is approximately 110 feet tall at the point he was discussing. There is a 30-foot bench from another point where the concessions are in the ou~eld and if someone was standing on the outer edge of that concourse then they would be able to see the Gotcha Glacier building. It is not somEthing that most patrons from the Stadium would be able to see from their seats. They have been carefui about the placement of this building. in fact, that was one of the original discussions that they had as to where the building should be located. They felt that they have addressed that and that they would not be obstructing views out of the Stadium. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated having the amount of signage on the south side facing the parking lot, but not such that it would be in the view of Stadium participants, creates an excitement about the whole area. People who are attending the ballgames all ready have a sports orientation. However on the north side facing the freeway, on Katella, he agreed with Commissioner Bostwick's opinion in terms of excess of signage. The signage on the east side is essential~y by itself and is on a side of the building that would be more benign than the north or south sides. Commissioner Bristol asked staff to comment on the icons. Asked if it is really needed to break up the size of the building. Joel Fick, Planning Director, responded he felt the applicant could best address what their overall needs are in terms of the individual tenants within the building. He painted out the number of uses inside a building of this size relates to the number of signs, He emphasized that staff's concern has been the same as expressed by the Commission; their concern has continualiy been that fhese be graphic elements and not signs and that logos, etc. within those graphic elements ciearly be a secondary part of the overall graphic image. That has been the context under which the applicant has been working. He felt the applicant could best address the overall number. Brian Myers added they feel very strongly that the building needs to relate to the activities that are taking place inside tre building. They found no better w2y to express that than by creating these activity exhibits on the exterior of the building. From the beginning when they presented the building they have always included some type of activity exhibits on the exterior. This is the first time they are seeing the detail of that so they understand the comments. They are of the understanding that they have to submit back to the City the contents of the signs before those are actually implemented on the site and there needs to be approval of those. At this time the activity exhibits are in the conceptual phase. They need to reflect the activities inside the buildi~g. In order for them to gain destination quality to this building and to the site rather than just being a high rise building, they need to be able to reflect those activities for the purpose that Commissioner Vanderbilt mentioned. This would not only be for people visiting the Stadium inside at their seats but also experiencing all the exterior of this building. They felt that in order to gain deatination quality for this building ihey needed it to be larger than life. They need the activities to be expressed on the exterior of 1he building so people could understand what is taking place inside. This is a very unique building, and they feel this is not setting precedent for that exar,t purpose. City of Anaheim Pianning Commission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 8 During ti~e action: Commissioner Bristol asked Annika Santalafiti to verify whether the context of the signs would return as an R&R item for Commission to review. Annika Santalahti responded that could be done if Commission wishes to have the exact detaii. Commissioner Bostwick suggested the name "Gotcha Glacie~' be placed under the lip and that the sign boards be limited to 8. Chairperson eoydstun felt that for the size of the building they need those sign boards but she would like to see the name Gotcha Glacier lower so it is not standing on top by itself. . Commissioner Bostwick explained he had suggested 8 because he wanted the number to reflect the number of activities in the building which he thought were 8. Commissioner Koos felt Commissioner Bostwick's eariier suggestion of saying no now and saying yes later would be more prudent. Annika Santaiahti indicated that Commission could make a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the one who will give final approval of the buiiding. Commissfon's views will be given to them as part of their motion, that the number of panels be reduced to 10 from 15. Chairperson Boydstun asked Mr. Myers how many activities they had. Brian Myers responded they ha~~e 11 activities that they outlined. Chairperson Boydstun felt Commission should recommend 11. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked abaut the Gotcha Glacier lettering on top of the building. He was not sure whether what they were suggesting wouid work because there is no sense of the scale. He asked whether Commission's action could include a stipulation that the lettering be re- examined at a later date because he did not feel comfortable having the applicant do that and not knowing whether it is going to change the nature of it dramatically. Commissioner Bostwick felt it would not change it dramatically to move the lettering underneath the lip of r,tie building. Thuse letters are 10-foot letters on top of the 174 makes 184 feet. Commissioner Vanderbilt explained he would not be comfortable agreeing with Commissioner Bostwick putting it under the lip without having more information. He was concerned about making that stipulation now without having enough information. Commissioner Koos stated the letters are gcing to be lit which means they will be seen under the lip. Commissioner Bostwick agreed the lettering is going to be very visible in either direction for miles. He still felt the lettering should be under the lip and to limit the signage to the number of activities. Joei Fick, Planning Direclor came back to the question that was posed earlier at,out how it could be structured. If the majoriry of Commission believes that it should be lowered then they could Cir~ of Anaheim Planning Cummission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 9 Commissioner Amold stated he would rather see an artists rendition of what it looked like below the lip before Commission decides. Commissfoner Bristol offered a mot(on for 11 panels and "Gotcha Glacier" lettering to go underneath the lip of the roof. If the applicant wants to place it abave it then they would need to return to Commission as an R&R. Commissioner Koos suggested limlting the panels to 1 graphic depiction per use within the building, which gives some flexibility. Chairperson Boydstun felt that they should state a maximum amount. Commissioner Bristol stzted ifi they have a sign up there and it has a trademark, patent, copyright, etc.; and asked if it was safe to assume that there is nothing that is going to be outside there that is going to have a trademark, patient or copyright on it. Brian Myers responded, unfortunately, he could not address that because they do not have all of their tenants confirmed with signed leases yet. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Actfon Agenda 'i 0-25-99 Page 90 B. RE4UEST FOR DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE Determined to be ANAHEIM GENERAL ~LAN: County of Orange, Public Facilities & in conformanca Resources Department, Attn: John D. Pavlik, Chief of PFRD Right-of- with the Anaheim Way Processing, 300 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92702, requests General Plan a determir.ation of conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the proposed acquisition of an easement. Property is located at 616 North Brookhurst Street. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED, that the Maheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that tha Orange Couniy Flood Control Districi's proposal to acquire an easement for the purpose of providing maintenance to the Carbon Creek Channel up-stream of Brookhurst Street is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. SR0025KT.DOC SUMh1ARY OF DISCUSSION. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated this item is a request for General Plan Conformance for a property located for 616 No~th Brookhurst Street. Chairperson Boydstun stated this is an easement through the project that was approved on Brookhurst and asked how this would affect their plans (buildings) putting the easement through there when there is access on both ends or thraugh the City property to the south. Commissioner Bostwick asked if this goes straight through the driveway. Kim Taylor, Associate Planner, responded she thought it did not. It is no longer City property; the property was recently sold to the Yassini Living Trust and it is an access that is already there that the County has been using. Since the property changed hands the County is requesting for Commission to determine conformance with this. Chairperson Boydsiun asked Mr. Hastings iF this would affect their buildings in any way. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager stated this is a driveway between the service station, car wash and the shops. It is the driveway and/or the parking lot. If Commission would like to trail this item staff can take a look at the CUP plans. Chairperson l3uydstun was concemed that she did not want to see their plans thrown off when there are many ways to get into that prop2rty. If it is through the driveway and public access then that is fine. Chairperson Boydstun announced that this item would be traiied. (Commission then returned to this item following ltem No. 9-C.) Greg Hastings informed Commission that the project that was approved under the Conditionai Use Permit No. 4128 recently does take this under consideration and therefore there is no building on top of the easement. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 11 C. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVEO) b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4141- REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF Approved FINAL PLANS: Robert Flaxman, Crown Realty and Development Corp., Approved final 20101 SW Birch Street, Suite 260, Newport Beach, CA 92660-1770, requests Nlans review and approvai of final plans for construction of a full service restaurant with sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, including an outdoor dining area within a planned mixed-use commercial center (Stadium Crossings), on property located at 2005 East Katella Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick of~ered a mc~tion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED, that the; Anaheim City Planning Commissi;:n does hereby determine that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approved the final plans for Denny's restaurant (identified as Final Plan Exhibit Nos. 1 through 5 on file with the Planning Department, provided that the columns sup~orting the patio trellis may be wood instead of plaster-coated rolumns painted to match the salmon-colored building walls) based on the finding that said plans are compatible with the other buildings in Stadium Crossings, and subject to the follnwing conditions: (1) That prior to issuance of a building permit for the restaurant, the petitioner shall submit specific landscaping details for the patio area (i.e., species and size of vine(s) for the trellis; species and size of two (2) trees and the other plants in the three (3) pre-cast planters; and species, size and location of the plants on the landscaped earthen berm outside the forty four inch (44") high block wall enclosing the patio) to the Planning Department for review and approval to show that said landscaoing will be compatible with existing landscaping in the front setbacks along Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard and with the Plant Palette approved in connection witn the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan. (2) That prior to issuance of any sign permit or instailation of any signs for this restaurant, whichever occurs first, the petitioner shail submit to the Planning Department revisions to the Stadium Crossings Sign Program (a booklet identified as Exhibit No. 22) approved in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3957, to show that the restaurant on Pad E{Denny's restaurant) will be a"pad tenanY' (instead of a"shop tenanP'} and, therefore, entitied to wall signs described as "Pad Tenant I.D. Sign (Type #8)"; and that this restaurant wili not be identifiad on the "Multi-Tenant Monument Sign (Type #2)" on State College Boulevard. SR7611AS.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. Annika Santaiahti, Zoning Administrator statec+ this item is the Denny's Restaurant which is part of the Stadium Crossings Development. The Denny's was approved under Conditional Use City bfi Anai~eim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 12 r; ~': Permit No. 4141 by the City Council; however, they were not sa8sfied with the o~iginal design scheme which was the Denny's Classic Diner look. The new proposal is shown on the exhibit on the wall, which staff concurs with, except ss shown on page 4 of the staff report. There were two ~ areas that staff wanted to see more information an, but which are not crltical to this level. One is that the wante d the details of the landsca in fo y p g r the interior of the atio as well as t p he berm that will be installed around the exterior of the atio ar p ea. The other Is the sign program that ~the a licant is ro s' pp p po ing that shows 4 wall signs, one on each of the walls of the buildin . The 9 origina( submittai that came for Stadium Crossings anticipated this was going to be a multi-tenant - building and that some of the tenants would have rights to signage on a monument sign. That means that they wouid need to replace some exhibits in the approved sign plan so it reflects accurately that this is a single tenant pad building rather thdn a multi-tanant buiiding. The applicant has seen the staff report but was not present at the public hearing. She spoka with them earlier in the day and they had no problems with the staff report recommendations. The only comment fram the applicant was that Ms. Santalahti had misunderstood that the supports of the wooden trellis in the patio were to be stucco but the applicant indicated that the columns are to be wooden. The applicant also wanted to clarify the pedestrian walkway where an issue was brought up earlier. There is a pedestrian waikway shown parallel to the east face of the building coming .to Katella Avenue and that waikway will interfere with the berm and the applicant wanted that to be clear. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 13 ;, ~ D. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved b) SPECIFIC PLAN N0. 90-1 (FESTIVAL SPECIFIC PLAN) - REQUEST Determined to be FOR SUBSTANTlAL CONFORMANCE: Mark Depew, L.A. Archftects, in substantial 224 East Olive Avenue, Suite 305, Burbank, CA 91502, request for conformance determination of substantfal conformance to construct an ATM facility (Bank of America) attached to the existing theater. Property'fs located at 8032 East Santa Ana Canyon Road - The Anaheim Hills Festival Center (Edwards Cinemas). ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commfssioner Koos and ~IOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previousiy-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commfssioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Comm~ssioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commiss(on does hereby determine that the proposed ATM facility is in substantial confo~ mance with the provisions of the Festival Specific Plan and the general intent of the approved final site plan. SR1014TW.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUS510N. Greg h4cCafferty, Senior Planner stated this item is a request for substantial conformance for the property located at 8032 East Santa Ana Canyon Road for the construction of an ATM facility in connection wiih an existing Edwards Cinema. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summar~ Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 14 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERh11T N0. 4152 ~~ Granted ~WNER: Myrna Wiener, Wiener Family Trust, 8323 La Alba, Whittier, CA 90603 AGENT: Karen Finke, Anaheim Hilis Festivai, 8020 E. 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 from the Commission meetings of August 30, September 13, and September 27,1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-185 SR1007TW.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. Jeff Farano, 2300 East State College Boulevard, Suite 235, Anaheim, CA, stated he was representing the applicant seeking a request for a conditional use permit for a sign for the Festival Shopping Center in Anaheim Hilis. This project was before Commission several months ago requesting a sign, Donahue Schreiber is the manager of the Festival and brought the plans before the Commission. At that time there was location concern from residents as to the size, location, and visibility of the sign. They then redesigned the locale and size of the sign. As part of that process they met with the neighbors at a meeting at the Festival and showed the sign. There were approximately 40 to 50 residents that attended. Based on the resident's comments they made some changes and brought that before Commission today. Unfortunately, the staff report does not reflect the revision because they were not able to provide it in time. He indicated they wanted to present the revised plan to Commission today and allow for comments before moving forward. The original sign was 60 feet in height and located on the no~th side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, just east of Festivai Drive, near the Chevron service stat~on, approximately 25 feet from the right-of-way of Santa Ana Canyon Road and down a small slope. The purpose of the sign is to be seen from the freeway. It is not a directional sign, it is a sign identifying a regional shopping center. The sole purpose is visibility from the 91 Fwy. This is one of several regional shopping centers in the area but the only one that does not have an identification sign from the freeway nor is it visible from the freeway. During the c,omments of the residents some of the concerns were that they felt there should not be any signs on Santa Ana Canyon since it is in the Scenic Corridor. If it is built they did not want it visible from Santa Ana Canyon; keep it architecturally consistent with the Festival and keep it of a high material quality. Therefore, the sign was intentionally designed to be of a quality appropriate with the Festival Shopping Center. They hired an architectural firm that creates photo simulations digitally. They moved City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 15 the sign slightly west (north side of Santa Ana Canyon across from Festival Drive) so it would be on centerline with the Festival and landscaped, consisting of groundcover and trees around it to be consistent with the other two comers on the other side of the street. They lowered the sign to 45 feet so ft is down the hill slightly and still kept the view from the 91 Fwy., but blocked the view of the sign east and west of Santa Ana Canyon Road. Candace Rice, 3501 Jamboree, Suite 300, Newport Beach, CA 92660, stated she is currently the Senior Vice President of Leasing for ponahue Schreiber, which is a 40-year old shopping center development flrm. The Anaheim Hills Festival is a regional shopp;::~ ~enter with regional draw and large tenants. It needs identification and an abiiity to inform the customers of what stores are in Anaheim Hilis Festivai; improve market share, improve sales per square foot and sustain their occupancy factor. They are in a situation where they have not grown in value. Their sales per square foot has stabilized with thriving competition throughout Orange County. They are at a point where many of their tenants will be turning their leases and they are at the risk of losing tenants and thereby eroding their occupancy factor. They have already lost major tenants that have chosen other projects because there is no identification for their site. She endorsed what Mr. Farano said and encouraged an approval so they can identify this regional shopping center, maintain its bea~ty, imorove its sales per square foot and stabilize its occupancy. Commissioner Bostwick asked her to name some of the large tenants. Candace Rice responded Old Navy, The Gap and Barnes & Noble. The tenants that do not want to proceed in negotiating are credit tenants or stellar tenants that know what they are doing in the market place and realize how improvement identification is. Commissioner Koos stated ~ couple of years ago Marshalls left and asked if that was a factor Candace Rice confirmed that was the reason. Marshalls sales were not performing at the volume that they anticipated and they assigned the lease to Toys R Us. Jeff Farano distributed the revised sign plan to Commission (reference the staff report which had a biack and white photo of the sign at 60 feet) which is now proposed to 45 feet. !t is essentially the same sign but smaller in height. The lettering will have the same design and color as the tenants. For example, the Toys R Us will not be different colors on their sign ~s normally found. The reason for this is that they want to maintain a quality sign. They maintained the same distance from the street right-of-way at 25 feet. They were asked why they did not move it down the hill and the reason was because they were running into the Edison right-of-way, which cuts across diagonally in this location. He explained the various directions of their signage by referencing their exhibits to explain thc:i~ original plan at 60 feet versus their revised plan at 45 feet. This week they received the rankings of regional malis in the Orange Counry area and the Festival was listed as no.14. It is actually below according to its size and part of the reason indicated was the lack of visibility and lack of ability to attract major tenants. A sign like the one proposed would provide that for them. He did not feel there would be any precedent setting values if this proposal was approved. It does not violate the Scenic Corridor prohibition of signs because there are provisions under a conditional use permit for a regionai center that this can be done. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 16 Public Testimony: Wilfiam Smith, 6063 Butterfield Lane, Anaheim Hilis, stated he attended the meeting which was referenced by Mr. Farano that was concerned about the setting of precedent along the Scenic Corridor by allowing this sign. He could not see how they couid approve one sign and deny signs to other businesses in that area. Savi Ranch has left an indelible mark on some of the residents as to what has happened in trying to protect the environment and the scenic quality of that area. This is another step in eroding the scenic beauty of that area. He wouid not like to see that sign approved. THE PUBLICHEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Boydstun directed her comments to Mr•. Smith by indicating that she knows what he meant about the Savi Ranch, they were all shocked wher~ that went up because that was not what they were expecting and she felt the applicant has done a good job in mediating this sign. This is a regionai shopping center and she did not know of an~y other space out there that is big enough to have another regional shoppiny center and this wouid be specifically for a regional shopping center. Commissioner Bosiwick stated they have shown their dislike for soni~ nf the ~igns at Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial, which means that they can turn down signs. He is concerned with viability of this center and the fa~t that so many tenants have come to that center and not leased with the center because there was not the visibility that necessary for them to be there. He would like to see #he tax base stay in Anaheim. Commissioner Koos concurred and spoke about aesthetics. He also has concerns about the Scenic Corridor and preserving its lock with respect ta quality of life issues. Prior to this center Anaheim Hills residents were shopping in other cities. Quality of life can not be looked in mutually exclusive terms, it needs to be taken all together and this center adds to lhe quality of life that makes living in Anaheim Hills a desirable place to live. He supported the proposal for signage. Commissioner Varderbilt felt residents will be satisfied that an effort was made to reduce the sign height. He concurred witli otiier Commissioners. Commissioner Bristol also concurs with other Commissioners. It is a good compromise and it should be approved. Commissioner Koos asked if staff had any issues with the fact that this proposal has come in late. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated there were two items need to be clarified, if Commission approves the revised exhibit it would have to be replaced with the exhibit that was previously in the file. The revised exhibit shows 45-foot high overall sign on a base that is two to four feet high. So it is a littie higher than the applicant had indicated but that is because of the top piece on the sign which is only decorative. If there are any specimen trees they will have to work with the appiicant to make sure that they are properly removed and if they are live, healthy trees, it will require Planning Commission action on those trees. ~• roLLOwING1s.A_SUMMARY;OF THE PL:ANNING COMMISSION ACTION. - ~ IN FAVOR: Correspondence was received in favor of subject proposal. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 17 `r . . . . . . . '-i . ~':.: ' ~ . ~ . . . . . . .. . , . . ~ . OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposiBon. . Correspondence was received in oppositio~. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4152 with.the following changes to +he conditions of approval: Modified Condition Nos. 3 and 8 to read as follows: 3. That said sign shall be limited to one (1) doubie-faced shopping center identification sign with a total height of forty nine (49) feet and including the logo and name of the center "Anaheim Hills Festival"; and six (6) major Festival-tenant identification signs with a totai maximum sign area (including the space between each tenant sign) of three hundred forty two (342) feet with overall sign copy dimensions of nineteen (19) feet high by eighteen (18) feet wide as shown on Revision No.1 of Exhibit No. 2. Said tenant signs shall match the colors shown on Revision No.1 of Exhibit No. 2 and shall not include corporate identification colors. Said information shall be shown on plans submitted for building ~ermits. Any changes to these exhibits shall be reviewed and approved as a Planning Commission Reports and Recommendations item. 8. 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 ~xhibit No. 2 and Exhibit Nos. 1 and 3, and as conditioned herein. Added the following condition of approval: That any specimen tree removed shall be replaced in compliance with Code requirements. VOTE: 7-0 Mac Slaughter, Depury Ciry Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 30 minutes (3:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.) (There was a break following this item.] City of Anaheim Planning Commfssion Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 18 3a. 3b. 3c. N0. 4122 OWNER~ Vito and Josephine Bucaro, Fred Kimura, Yoshiko Kimura, Allen Wattenberg, Richard and Enriqueta Wattenborg, Kathy J. Wattenberg, Eugene Pardella, Marie Pardella, V~'illiam Keough, Patsy Keough and Thakor Desa, 8300 Lexington Road #10, Downey, CA 90241 AGENT: Pacific National Development, Attn: AI Marsha11,1041 W. 18th Street #104-A, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 LOCATION: 2240 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 1.92 acres located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, 515 feet west of the centerline of Brookhurst Street. To construct a 2-story 56-unit affordable senior citizen's apartment complex with waivers of (a) permitted encroachment into setback areas, (b) minimum structural setback, (c) minimum private recreational - leisure area, (d) minimum floor area, (e) required private storage areas, (~ minimum pedestrian access and (g) minimum required affordable units. Continued from the Commission meetings of July 7, August 16, August 30, and September 27,1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. SR6976DS.DOC There was no discussion of this matter. e • • • • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Ciry Pianning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request for withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit No. 4122. V07E: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (1:36-1:37) City of Anaheim Pianning Commission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 19 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Contlnued to 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 11-8-99 4c. CONDITIONAI. USE PERMIT N0. 4130 OWNER: Jon M. Dowell, Nancy E. Dowell, Gabriel Patin, Virginia Patin, Shirley Almand, Wipiam U. Almand, Willa Jean Cornett, Wilton B. Abplanalp, Ruth D. Abplanalp, 3335 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Pacific National Development, Attn: AI Marshall, 9041 W. 18th Street #104-A, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 LOCATION: 3335 - 3345 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 2.98 acres located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue,1,070 feet east of the centerline of Knott Street (Lazy Living Mobile Home Park). To canstruct a 96-unit' affordable senior citizens apartment complex with waiver of (a) permitted encroachments in setback areas, (b) minimum number of parking spaces, (c) minimum side and rear landscape setback adjacent to one-family residentiai deveiopments,*' (d) maximum structural height, (e) required elevators, (~ minimum floor area, (g) location of required private storage areas, and (h) minimum required affordable units. • Originally advertfsed as a 104•unit "affordable" senlor GGzen's apartment comptex. " Advertised separately as (a) minimum side yard setback and (b) minlmum rear yard setback. Waivers (a), (b), (f~,(g), and (h) originally advert(sed have been subsequenGy deleted. Continued from Commission meetings of June 21, July 7, August 16, August 30, and September 27,1999. CONUITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. SR6977DS.DOC I, FOLLOWING IS' A SUMMARY OF:7'HE RLANNMlG COMMISSION'ACTION. ; OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continue~ subject request to the November 8, 1999 Planning Commission meeting in order t~ allow the petitioner to meet with various departments and neighborhood ren; esentati~ies, and to readvertise this project due to an increase in the number of uniis and to evaluate cnmpliance with code due to substantial design modifications. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 4'age 20 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-A:~PROVED) 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3265 (READVERTISEO) OWNER: The Cornerstome, A Foursquare Church, Attn: Brenda Coogan,1250 N. Red Gum Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1250 North Red Gum Street. Property is 1.06 acre located on the east side of Red Gum Street, 500 feet south of the centerline of Miraloma Avenue (The Cornerstone Church). To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (originally approved on April 9,1990, to expire on April 9,1999) to retain an existing church. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-186 SUMMQRY OF DISCUSSION. ApplicanYs Statement: Approved Approved reinstatement for S years (To expire 4-9-2004) SR6975DS.DOC Rever~nd Danna, represented Cornerstone Church, requested reinstatement of the Conditional Use Permit No. 3265. TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairparson Boydstun asked the Reverend if she had read the staf~ report regarding the awnings that had to come d~wn. Reverend Danna advised they wouid take the awnings clown. Commissioner Koos asked if the awnings are put up when they need them on Sundays. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager stated Code does not address that kind of structure, they felt it would be more appropriate not to have them permanently at the location, but if Commission thought they are appropriate then staff would agree. Reverend Danna stated the awnings are not permanent, they are portable, but are chained down to avoid theft. Greg Hastings stated staff would agree to allow them to use awnings for special events and services. During the action: Reverend Danna asked whether they could put them up on Saturday mornings and keep them up untii services are over on Sunday night. Chairperson Boydstun responded that was acceptable. City of Anaheim Plannfng Commission ~ummary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 21 Greg Hastings added they could remain u~ on weekends provided they have services on Saturday and ~ Sundays or special events. _ • • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Oetermined 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. 3265 for 5 years. Modified Resolution No. PC96-43 as follows: Amended Condition No.10 to read as follows: "10. That the subject church facility shall expire five (5) years from the expiration date of Resolution No. PC96-43, on April 9, 2004." Added the following conditions of approval: 18. That the portable awnings located on the west side of the building shall only be used for special events and services. Said awnings may remain up on !he weekends, provided there are services and/or special events. 19. That the church hours and activities shall be limited to the following: Sunday: 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday: 8,30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Saturday; 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. VOTE: 7-0 Mac Slaughter, Deputy Ciry Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (3:34-3:40) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 22 _.. ,: . 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Continued to 6b. WAIVEtZ OF CODE REQUIREMENT 11-8-99 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.4069 (READVERTISED) OWNER: Khoda B. Ostowari, Parvin Soroushian and Irandokht Djahanian, 6263 E. Twin Peak Circie, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 801 South Harbor Boulevard and 510 West South Street. Property fs 0.8 acre located at the southwest comer of South Street and Harbor Boulevard. To amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to the license for the retail sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption and to amend plans pertaining to the proposed fteestanding sign and required screening adjacent to a residential zone with waiver of (a) permitted location of freestanding signs, and (b) required site screening abutting a residential zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR1130JD.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. Chairperson Boydstun stated there was a request for a continuance of this item in order to readvertise it. • s ~ • • s OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the NovPmber 8,1999 Planning Commission meeting in order to readve~tise this request to include an additional waiver pertaining to tl~e timing of installation of public improvements. V07E: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Actfon Agenda 10-25-99 Page 23 Ta. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, fn part 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4156 Grant~d, in part for 10 years OWNER: Canyan Commercia! Center, 5000 Birch Street, East Tower, Suite 510, Newport Beach, CA 92660 (To expire 10-25-2009} AGEt~T: Mark R. Poochigian, 500Q B(rch Street, East Tower, Suite 510, Newport Beach, CA 92661 LOCATION: 5445 E~s: ~a Palma Avenue - Land Rover. Property is 12.2 acres located on the north side of La Palma AvenuE, 270 feet east of the centerline of Brasher Street. To permit an automobile dealership with waiver of (a) required parking lot landscaping, (b) permitted location of a freestanding monument sign, and (c) permitted encroachments into required yards. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-187 SR7o08KB.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. ApplicanPs Statement: Mr. Blaire Dahl, 12380 Clark Street, Santa Fe Springs, stated he is Project Manager for proposed dealership. He gave overview of the project. Land Rover trademark elements can be incorporated into the architecture that is currently there. They would like Commission to consider the 48 square foot dedicated Land Rover Monument sign out in the parkway area. They originaily agreed with the City staff to incorporate the Land Rover sign into the center identification sign. However, after consideration, they felt the identification would not be significant enough. They want their own signage in order to stand out as a dealership and not an after market repair business. Phil Vass, managing partner, 3 Andover Court, Laguna Niguel, gave an overview of the anticipated business. THE PUBLIC HEARIyG WAS CLOSED. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated the monument sign dues not need to be 8 feet tall. With regard to the distance to the property line, they would have to maintain 120 feet from the east property line, according to the Code. If it is granted and leff where it is 2t, the only waiver that will be apnroved would be with regard to the distance to the property line. Commissioner Koos aslced if Caliber Motors monument sign is within Code. He felt that people who buy Land Rovers do no' ~eed to see a sign as a reminder or incentive to buy that particular car, general{y fhose clients tend to sek out the dealerships themselves. He wondered whether a 4-foot sign versus an 8-foot sign would really make a difference. Ciry of Anaheim Plar.ning Cummission Summary Ac;inn Apendo 10-25-99 Page 24 + . _. . . , . . .. . ' . _. ~r i. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated Caliber Motors sign meets previous Code, which allowed for a much higher sign. Thfs property was praviously zoned indusWal. Now it is in the Specific Plan, which means ali requirements have changed. Mr. Vass felt drive-by is very important, but is flexible with height of sign. Commissioner Bristol stated tha issue is not height of sign, they are within the Code, and it is the d(stance from the east property line. Greg McCafferty stated the only issue with regard to the Code waiver is the distance from the east property line. If they go westward, they pass the minimum 300-foot distance between the signs. Commissioner Bostwick stated there is a phone pole and phone box that is in the way of be!na visible from the right-of-way. It would be better to be in the middle of the property and would rather sea two signs together. One is going to be perpendicular to roadway and the other would be parallel ~vith roadway. FOLLOWING IS A SU.MMARY QE THE PLANNINGCOMMISSION ACTION, `: OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negat?ve Declaration Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows: Denied waiver (a) pertaining to required parking lot landscaping on the basis that it was deieted fol(owing public notification. Approved waiver (b) pertaining to permitted location of a freestanding monument sign, provided that the monument sign shall be located between the two driveways. Approved waiver (c) pertaining to permitted encroachments to allow display vehicles on the basis that strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive this property of privileges enjoyed by the neighboring auto dealership (Caliber Mercedes Benz) under identical zoning classification in the viciniry. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 4156 for 10 years with the conditicns as listed in the staff report dated October 25,1999. VOTE: 7-0 Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attomey, presented the 22-day ar.peal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 18 minutes (3:41-3:59) City of Anaheim Pianning Commissfon Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 25 8a. 8b. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION REVISION TO SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD ACCESS POINT Approved STUDY - EXHIBIT N0. 7 Denied 8c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied 8d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4158 Denied OWNER: Raymond E. and Joanne S. Rocks, 5910 E. Marsha Piace, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Bob MacNamara, Attn: Sunrise Development, Inc.,13258 Ocean Vista Road, San Diego, CA 92130 LOCA'fION: 6100 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is 1.21 acres located at the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Anaheim Hills Road. To construct a 2-story senior assisted living and Alzheimer's care facility with waiver of (a) required setback of institutional uses to residential zones, (b) permitted freestanding sign, (c) minimum number of required p~rking spaces, (d) required rear yard setback, and (e) maximum building height adjacent to a residentiai zone. CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-188 SR1128JD.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. ApplicanYs Statement: Bob MacNamara, Developmant for Sunrise Development Inc., gave a brief history and what assisted living consisted of. He felt there is a need for this market in the area. Wolfgang Hack addressed issues on staff report. The owner of the property owns the rights of access off of Santa A~ ia Canyon Road, the right was never released, relinquished or sold. The issue at hand is simply to move the arcESS point further away from the intersection with Anaheim Hills Road for safer ingress and egress. The issue of the required setback; report indicates 15 required versus 5 feet proposed. In this case, the 5-foot distance is the distance from a trellis attached to the building, the building is 15 feet from the side. They can use ~ smaller sign as proposed for the monument base for the freestanding sign issue. The required yard setback to the rear issue is triggered by the fact that it is a tight triangular shaped lot to accommodate parking. it is the intrusion of parking into the rear yard that they need consideration for in this case. The Code requires 58 parking spaces but the nature of this operation does not generate auto traffic, 29 spaces would be sufficient. They presented a parking overlay that could provide additional 27 spaces. He pointed out that the maximum height of 25 feet does not exceed the height of structures in a 2-story residential deveiopment. City of Maheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 26 Public Testimony: Robert Vigneau, 6117 Baja Drive, Anaheim Hills, stated his residence borders the proposed project on the northeast comer. He strongly disapproves of the project itself and the sign that will be installed if approved. He felt residential zoning should stay residentiai and no variances should be granted for this ~ommerciai project. He is concemed about the parking waiver and is afraid that the overflow will end up on Baja Drive. Other concems are the parking ~ot lighting that will be lit at night, and employee car noises. Larry Pasco, 6160 East Baja Drive, Anaheim, submitted a petition opposing project to the Commission signed by residents on Baja Drive, Summertree Road, Palo Alto 6rive, Arboretum Road, Woodrose Court, Quintana Drive and Pueblo Drive. He felt this massive structure in a residentiai area is not compatibie the Scenic Corridor. Natalie Meeks, 6148 Baja Drive, Anaheim, stated this is not a use allowed by Code. She suggestecl having a courtyard with more landscaping. She described the project as a large 2-story structure with two setback waivers and not enough parking. She addressed the waivers that were being requested by the applicant as follows: • Waiver (a) requests a 15-foot landscaped setback from residences. The petitioner requests lhat the horse trail be considered as part of the setback, but the horse trail is not landscaped. • Waiver (b) requests a freestanding sign waiver, which she felt a 7.5-foot high monument sign with advertisement is inappropriate. ~ Waiver (c) requests a rear yard waiver. The Code requires a 25-foot landscaped setback along tfie east property line, a block wall and parking lot is not an appropriate buffer. • Waiver (d) requests a substantial parking waiver and wondered where visitors would park. • Waiver (d) requests a maximum building height waiver. The Code requires only 2.5 foot high and the applicant is proposing a 25-foot high maximum building height. That would be 15 feet from the south property line. The residents on the south would see a 225-foot long wall with little or no articulation. Even though the structure is the same size as 6 single-family homes, it is a huge structure, approximately the size of 10 homes, which no one wants to live next to. Nei~ Johnson, 101 Summertree Road, Anaheim Hills, stated he is a licensed real estate appraiser and is concerned about property values that wili decrease due lo this project. He is concerned that if this commercial project is approved it would set a precedent and would pave the way for other commercial projects in the area. This project is too dense for such a small space and is not consistent with Anaheim Hills. Marguerite Deckert, 150 Woodrose Court, Anaheim, stated she agreed with the testimony given of others who spoken befo~ e her. There are already 3 other senior facilities in the area. She felt this commercial project should not be piaced in a residential area. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Bob MacNamara advised these facilities are built in upscale neighborhoods around the country and do not affect the properh~ values. This is private and expensive facility to live in. They have offered a plan for more parking. They will only have at most 13 or 14 staff members and many of the staff will probably be using public transportation and will not need parking spaces. They will place a landscape buffer in the rear of the facility, along with a buffer that already exists, which means there will be a dual landscape City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 27 buffer with a riding and hiking trail in the middle. The sign will meet Code and therefore the request for a variance on the sign is no longer needed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commission Bristol asked Mr. Hack to comment on the access off of Santa Ana Canyon Road Mr. Hack stated that the City Attorney had informed them that ownership to access off of Santa Ana Canyon Road is with the City. Mac Slaughter, Deputy Ciry Attorney, stated according to title documents submitted to the Ciry, the access rights to this property aliowing someone to go from the private property onto Santa Ana Canyon Road had been relinquished to the State of Califomia some years ago. There is indication that the State has relinquished some access rights back to the property, but those are in the area where Anaheim Hilis Road now exists. Based on documentation and discussion with staff, this property curr=:ntiy does not have access rights to Santa Ana Canyon Road. If Commission approves as designed, and the City does own the access rights, they would have to be purchased from the Ciry, but if the City does not own access rights, then they do not have to be purchased. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Yalda, from the City's Traffic Engineering Division, how the City felt regarding access to the location. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, responded the City likes to minimize the number of accesses on Santa Ana Canyon Road because the designation is primary highway, which should keep traffic moving. Every time a new access is open on that road, there is a reduction of capacity that creates a conflict point, which does not currently exist. Chairperson Bnydstun asked if this item should be continued until the access is veritied Mac Slaughter advised if the project is approved as shown and City owns the access rights, it would be up to the applicant to deal with the City to negotiate for the purchase of the access rights, if the City wanted to sell them. If the City does not own the access rights, the City would be looking at it from the standpoint of them applying for the normal driveway permits and exercising powers as to where the driveway would or would not be permitted. Commission does not need to concern itself with that issue. As a general principal, the property owner has, as an adjunct of his ownership of his property, a right of reasonable access to and from the abutting public streets. If the owner retained his rights, there would be a reasonable right of access to the public street system. Joanne Rocks wanted to address the issue of legal title to the access rights. Chairperson Boydstun advised public hearing was closed, and asked if she had pertinent information to the discussion. Joanne Rocks, 5910 East Marcia Circle, Anaheim, stated she is a real estate attorney and owner of property that the ~roject is being proposed on. They had an ALTA Title Report from First American Title and had reviewed the issue with legal counsel at First American Title at the time of acquisition in 1981. issues were also discussed with the Planning Commission at the time of acquisition. Commissioner Bostwick stated he had a concern with parking. If more landscaping is taken away and courryard it diminishes the project. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 28 Commissioner Bristol agreed with Commissioner Bostwick that the project was too large for the site. Commissioner Koos concurred with Commissioner Bristol Commissioner Vanderbilt asked the applicant if the neighbors were approached to see if some of their concerns could be resoived. Bob MacNamara responded there was an effort made but it was not successful. They had meetings with two communiry groups and discussed the project and received feedback. A consultant approached individual neighbors on Baja Drive and on the cul-du-sac on the other side. They also sent out notices to neighbors to attend a meeting in the library but there was low turn out and response. Joanne Rocks stated the property was listed for sale for 9 years and 9 months and had received various use offers. This offer was accepted because she felt it fit the area. No body has ever looked at the properry for residential use. "Skinheads" have been using the house on the properry as a facility, storing stolen goods tk~~ere and have totally destroyed the inside of the house; the Police have kept constant protection there. Chairperson Baydstun stated this type of housing is in the residential category, and it would not be a bad location for the project if it were smailer. She felt it was too tight and the access greatly concerned her. She al~;o felt there is not enough parking available. Commissioner Bristol felt this use was tno dangerous cunsidering the amount of traffic on Santa Ana Canyon Road. Chairperson Boydstun indicated there is a right turn lane before the intersection that would have to be continued for their driveway to eliminate turning in front of the traffic. During the action: Chairperson Boydstun: Asked Mr. Siaughter if the owner has title to this, could the Planning Commission act on this. Mac Siaughter respunded that Commission is merely recommending for or against the amendment of a City plan. They are not affecting any legal rights of access that the owner may or may not have. DLI:OWING 15 A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNINGCOMMI5SION ACTIC OPPOSITION: 5 people spoke in opposition. A petition was submitted with approximately 50 signatures in opposition to the subject proposal. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Denied the request to amend the Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Points Study - Exhibit No. 7 based on the pote~tial of the proposed driveway to cause traffic conflicts at the intersection of Ana;~eim Hiils Road and Santa Ana Canyon R~ad because of the short distance of the driveway from the intersection and the high Speeds of travel permitted on Santa Ana Ganyon Road. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 29 VOTE: 5-1 (Commissfoner Boydstun voted no and Commissioner Amold absent) 1 Denied Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows: denied waiver (a) pertainfng to required structural setback of institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone, waiver (b) pertaining to permitted freestanding sign, waiver (c) pertaining to required rear yard setback and waiver (e) pertaining to maximum buiidinq height adjacent to a residential zone based on the following: (i) The waivers could be eliminated or reduced if the density of the proposed use was reduced. (ii) The petitioner has not demonstrated that the strict appiication of the Zoning Code would deprive this property of privileges enjoyed by other identically zoned properties in the vioinity. (iii) The identification for the proposed use can be adequately achieved with a sign that complies with the zoning code. Denied waiver (d) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces based on the City Traffic and Transportation Manager's recommendation that a minimum of 29 parking spaces should be provided for this use; and, that should the proposed on-site parking not be adequate to serve the use, there does not appear to be any alternaii.es for parking in the immediate vicinity. Denied Gonditional Use Permit No. 4158 based on the following: (i) The proposed use is more intense in terms of land use and density than what would be permitted under the General Plan for residential land uses. (ii) The proposed use has the potential to adversely affect the adjofning land uses because code compliant setbacks are not being provided to buffer and protect the adjacent land uses. (iii) That the size of the property is not adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the general welfare as evidenced by the numerous waivers for setbacks and parking. (iv) That the traffic generated by this use may cause a burden upon the public streets when vehicles are trying to enter or exit this properry from Santa Ana Canyon Road at a driveway very close to the intersection with Anaheim Hills Road. (v} That the proposed 24-hour operation with the waivers requested, may be detrimental to the peace, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Anaheim by not providing adequate buffers to protect them. VOTE: 5-1 (Commissfoner Boydstun voted no and Commissioner Arnold absent) Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION 71ME: 1 hour and 2 minutes (4:00-5:02) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 30 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continu~ 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 11-8-99 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4160 OWNER: Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., Attn: Mike Johsz,1452 Edinger Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780 AGENT: Edmund Olson,11560 Tennessee, Los Angeles, CA 90064 LOCATION: 130 South Knott Avenue. Property is 2.79 acres located on the east side of Knott Avenue, 440 feet south of the centerline of Lincoin Avenue. To permit a self-s#orage facility with waiver of required structural setback adjacEnt to a residential zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. SR7603KB.DOC SUMMAkY OF DISCUSSION. ApplicanPs Statement: Donna Chessen stated she is a consultant for Conditional Use Permit No. 4160 requesting approval for self-storage at 130-134 Knott Avenue. It is an upscale facility marketed to business professionals with climate control and campletely carpeted. They will comply with all conditions, but would like to change Condition No. 14 with regard to trees along Knott Avenue and replace the mature dilapidated trees with healthy new ones. One reason why staff is denying project is because of the Council poiicy that self-storage is a permitted use appropriate for irregular shaped properties, which may not be suitable for conventional development. She feels this property fits that description because the property is 200 feet wide by 600 feet deep in the middle of a retail center and in blighted apartments and is three times the length as it is wide. It has narrow frontage on Knott Avenue and has extreme depth in an easterly direction. Staff stated that Stater Bros. may want to expand in the future, but the property has been up for sale and they made no attempt to bid for or purchase the property. Staff was also concprned about the market place being over saturated and a study ~onducted, by Community Development Depa~ment. The applicant feels it is inconclusive and with several incorrect facts such as: • The study states that Anaheim is 48 square miles, but it is actually 50 square miles. • It stated there are 22 storage faciiities in Anaheim but there are only 19. • It states the majority of facilities are in West Anaheim, only 5 of 19 are in West Anaheim. • The study indicated the market was approaching saturation, it is not currently saturate. She concluded by stating that they are willing to do any kind of landscaping to the propert}r that is deemed necessary. City of Anaheim Plannfng Commissian Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 31 James Moffat, from Beck Moffat and Associates,1224 Village Way, Santa Ana, designer of project, presented a revised site plan which showed moved buildinps and nanowed driveway so that there is a 10- foot setback for landscaping on two-thirds of the property. The existing building is concrete so it is too difficuit to cut some of it off and rebuild to get more landscaping. Adjofning residential driveway that abuts the project serves nothing else but garages. They are going to place trees every 20 feet, have ground cover, which will be fully sprinklered (irrigated) and maintained. Chairperson Boydstun asked how much landscaping was in front of the building. Mr. Moffat replied there is 14 feet back from the property line at the center portion, and 22 feet on either side. Donna Chessen advised fhat staff is concerned with south side which is against the apartment buildings. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick asked if it would be feasible to put vine pockets and vines on north wall, on the project side, then they c~n grow over the wall and cover graffiti on the other side. Mr. Moffat advised yes, they could install vine pockets. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager stated staff did not indicate in the report that the adjacent property is blighted. It was listed that if there is ever any oppo~tuniry that comes up to combine properties. Where there is non-residential activity adjacent to a residential area, staff recommends broad-headed trees, one per every 20 feet, to screen any activity from view. The 4-foot wide area does not meet code requirement so it will need something denser such as Italian cypress. He suggested the final landscaping plans return for review and approval. Commissioner Bostwick indicated the study stated that there was an excess of commercial development and adding in more commercial, would set up another probability for failure. Commissioner Bristol asked if there is going to be a solid block wall on the south side Mr. Moffat responded there would be landscaping instead of a wall with a concrete curb. There would be a partial block wall up to the gate and in the rear at the 10-foot setoack line for security. Craig Olson stated they have shifted the s~uth building to be 10 feet off of the property line so the rear wall of tf~e building will be part of the security wall. The driveway along the south side will be eliminated and it will be a solid wall so there will be no activity next to any neighbors. The wall will be attached to the building and there will be no breaks. There will be a block wall on the market side and they can install vines and irrigation. Greg Hastings suggested a coniinuance because staff and other departments have not seen this. 7he requirement that there be a block wall at the property line can be waived, but it has to be advertised. He felt other departments should review the plans, especially now that the other driveway will be eliminated south of the building. Greg McCafferty asked about the doors on building C. The applicant responded from the audience and Greg I-lastings conveyed their response at his microphone by repeating that the doors have been totally removed. City of Anaheim Planning Commisslon Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 32 Donna Chessen did not understand why they have to advertise for the block wail when they are installfng a 10-foot landscaping instead of a block wall. Chairperson Boydstun advised they have to advertise the waiver. Greg Hastings further explained that the original site plan showed an 8-foot high block wall at the property line. Since the subject property is adjacent to residential there is an 8-faot wall required with a 10-foot wide landscape buffer on the inside of the wall. Now there is a new waiver involved pertaining to the location of the v:all. Commissioner Koos advised the applicant it would be bettar to take their chances on the first waiver if they wanted it to get approved today. Donna Chessen stated they would install a block wall. Grec~ Hastings stated the original plan had a driveway and the building sat quite a ways back, now the building is coming closer to the residential, but there will be landscaping. Commissioner Boshvick suggested if they install the biock wall on the property line and come in 10 feet and install have the driveway then fhey can put the buildings back to back. Greg Hastings advised if the applicant is willing to pay the fee, then staff can submit a legal notice to the Register Newspaper for advertisement, ihen continue it for 2 weeks. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion for a 2-week continuance to November 8,1999, seconded by Commissioner Bristol, and motion carried. ~Following the action: Greg Mc Cafferty requested the applicant to provide 15 sets of the new site plan in order for ~taff to circulate to other departments. • s • • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the November 8, 1999 Planning Commission meeting in order to readvertise this request to,include additionai waivers pertaining to required site screening abutting a residential zone boundary and minimum number of parking spaces. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent) DISCUSSION 71ME: 33 minutes (5:03-5:36) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary ActEon Agenda 10-25-99 Page 33 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Contlnued to 10b. VARIANCE NO. 4376 11-22-99 OWNER: John F. Lee, 517 S. Broadway, Santa Ana, CA 92706 LOCATION: 942 North Claudina Street. Property is 0.04 acre located on the east side of Claudina Street, 85 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. Waiver of (a) maximum lot coverage, (b) minimum front yard setback, (c) minimum number, type, desfgn and dimens(ons of parking spaces, and (d) required site sc~eening to const~uct a single family home. VARIANCE USE PERMIT RESQLUTION NO. SR7606KP.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. ApplicanPs Statement: Larry Halonen, 26432 EI Mar Drive, Mission Viejo, architect for the project, stated subject property is a small residential lot space of 36 by 54 feet. Chairperson Boydstun asked if he knew when the lot was split. Larry Halonen responded he did not know when it was split. He is requesting the approval of 3 variances. They are in accord with the staff report except for the parking requirements. They would like to have a 2- car garage but in tandem space with a riarrower driveway to allow landscaping in front. They are willing to change the architecture of the house so that it complies with staff's request to adhere to the historic preservation requirements in the area. John Lee, owner of lot, stated the house will only have a 25-foot frontage, and they do not want to see 22 feet of it for a garage. They would rather have a one-car garage door, with frontage on the house. He submitted 5 photographs to Commission of other homes in the area, which show that 4 out of the 5 homes do not have a garage and one has a single garage. Public Testimony: Judy Torres, 938 North Claudina, Anaheim, stated she lives to the right of subject property. She is concerned with the parking because they already have a parking problem on the street due to the apartments across the street, which do not have garayes. The paople parking on the street are also renting rooms out and turning the homes from single-family into multiple family. Code Enforcernent also agreed that the property is too small to build on. John Lee stated it is a 1,200 square foot single-family home with three bedrooms, not a duplex or apartment. It will be developed with the intent to sell it. Commissioner Bristol felt he could not accept this project because it is too tight City of Aciaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-98 Page 34 Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer , stated the fundamental question is whether this is a legal parcel in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act. Staff does not have evidence making that clear. If the property has been unlawfully subdivided, not in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, the applicant may not have rights to develop the property as proposed. Chairperson Boydstun stated that was why she asked applicant whether the lot was split since there is no record of it. Larry Halonen advised he had the title report. Mac Slaughter stated typically the title report does not show when the property was split, it merely shows vesting of title at a particular time with a legal desc~ iption. Melanie Adams stated ik gives a"meets and bounds" description, but any property can be described by meets and bounds. A4ost title reports exclude land division so that the Title Company is not guaranteeing that it is a legal parcel of land. John Lee asked who would have a record of tha lot split if the City does not have it. Commissioner Bristol responded he thought the County and the Title Company can determine that. Mac Slaughter stated the record title would show that some time in the past, when this was all a single parcel, that there was a deed conveying out from that parcel, a smaller parcel. The City does not have those records; they are in the County Recorders Office. The City is going to need it to determine whether this is a lawfully created parcel, which would be under the Map Act. It may be an un~awful subdivision for which they may determine it is inappropriate from the public health and safety standpoint to permit development. Larry Haionen stated this plan was before Commission 10 years ago and was approved, but the market could nct sustain having a house built. These are the exact same plans that wers approved 10 years ago. Chairperson Boydstun stated when they downzoned, how did they skip the end lots and not go to La Palma. She thought they went all the way over. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager advised they would have to go back and see the reasoning for this. it was all zoned RM-1200, but there was a decision made at the time the Commission and Council looked at this, to not rezone the properties fronting La Palma to RS•5000. Commissioner Bristol stated they probably considered this little parcel to be frontage on La Palma. John Lee stated the Code has changed, but the owner at that time had the exact same plan approved in 1982 and had a right to these same four variances, the only thing that changed is the Code for parking. Chairperson B~ydslun suggested this item be continued to find out if it is a legal lot. it could heve been a split between party's years ago. If it did not meet the Map Act, then it is not legal for development and nothing can be done on that lat. Mac Slaughter advised they will look at a certificate of compliance to determine how best to respond to an illega~ subdivision, if that is what has occurred. There currently is not enough information available to make ±hat determination. They need title document showing when property was split off as a separate parcel, then analyze the legalities of the split. City of Maheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 35 John Lee asked if tandem parking is acceptable. Commissioner Bostwick responded it is a waiver of minimum lot coverage and having 5 feet on each side that does not give enough space for a true residential lot. He had a problem with the mfnimum lot coverage, tandem parking, front yard setback. Mac Siaughter stated it might be in the best interest to have a one-month continuance. Until the issues are determined, applicant may not want to spend more money on plans, etc. The applicant may have claims against the seiler and there could be many issues that arise out of the ultimate determination as to the legality of this parcel of land. Greg Hastings suggested that applicant may wish to ask for a waiver of the minimum size of the unit and bring it down to something that would allow for less parking, Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion for a 4-week continuance to November 22,1999, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and motion carried. FOLCOWING;IS A SUMMARY-0F 7HEPLAIVNING COMMISSION ACTION.' OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition to this p~opns2l. ACTION: Continued subject request to the November 22,1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to find out when the lot split occurred and if the property is a legal lot. V0~'~: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 18 minutes (537-5:55) City of Anaheim Planning Commissic~n Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 36 11 b. TENTATIVE TRAC7 MAP N0.15861 ApDroVed 11c. SPECIM~N TREE REMOVAL PERMIT N0. 99-03 (READVERTISED) Approved OVIiNER: Paui S. and Sachiko Murata,194 S. Lakeview Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGEN1': Muskoka Development, Attn: Brian Keer, 34 Balboa Coves, Dlewport Beach, CA 92663 LOCATION: 194 South Lakeview Avenue. Property is 5.91 acres located on the north side of Lakeview Avpnue. Tentatlve Tract Map No.15861- To establish a 6-lot (5-numbered lot, 1-lettered lot) residential subdivision. Specimen Tree Removai Permit No. 99-03 - To permit the removal of two (2) specimen irees. Continued from ine Commission meeting of September 27, and October 11,1999. SR1017TW.DOC r-_SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. ApplicanYs Statement: George Kerns, Salkin Engineering,1215 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, stated they have changed the proj~ct due t~ staff recamme:~dations except fcr frontage of property along Lakeview Avenue. They are proposing along the two lots of front on Lakeview, a split face masonry wall with pilasters. Behind it ~~ u slope and in the area of Lakeview, the slope would be flattened 3 to 1. Lane Curtis, 777 Peralta Hills Drive, stated he is part of the Peralta Hills Homeowners Assor,iation. They wrote a~etter in response to a previous plan that had iwo 5-foot tiers. They reviewed the r~w plans before the meeting and the new proposed wall seems fairly consistenc with i~ ~ neiohbur~iood. The group's concern was the appearance, location and size of the wall and the safety of !"a area because it is a blind corner. He asked for clarification of the wall because it appears tn~t it ic ~oing to be 3 feet away from the current right-of-way, which should make it 8 feet back from where !he existing slope is. If this is correct, it will definitely be an improvement for the safety. The~~ -~re also concerned about the landscaping and recommend that it is low and tha4 the visual clearance arour~J the curve is maintained. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil F,ngineer stated the new wall design is acceptable to the Public Works Department. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner complimented the applicant for the improvements to the design. StafFs remaining concern was the length of the wall because it goes almost the entire length of Lakeview. If the height of the wall is approved, staff would like plans to return as a Reports and Recommendations Item for the landscaping of the wall. There needs to be a minimum of 5 feet between the property line and the retaining wall to have meaningful landscaping. Ciry of M2heim Planning Commission Summary Actiun Ager,da 10-25-99 Page 37 Commissioner Vanderbilt asked staff if the single-family homes could lnstaU a retaining wail close to the property line and not have landscaping. Greg McCafferty stated typically the Code requires that the wall be a certafn height along the property li~re, it does not specify that a retaining wall be set back a certain amount of feet from the property line. Landscaping is required by Code between retaining walls. Meian'se Adams stated the wall should sit behind the right-of-way line a minimum of 3 feet. This project conforms to the hillside-grading c~rdinance. Greg Hastings, Zoning Div!sion Manager stated it has only been in recent years that they have been requiring the landscaping of the wails. Brian Kerr, Developer of property, stated he would like to p~t a split faced block wall with a cr ;rete "bull nose" cap on it with decorative pilasters. Other properties in Peralta Hills conform to that design. Landscaping needs to be low shrubbery in order to avoid covering the aesthetics of the wall. Greg Hastings stated the spiic biock wall will be much more decorative. He suggested that if Commission wants to approve it, prior t~ the map being recorded, that a plan be returned showing the exact fencing and landscapir~g that is being proposed. The setback of the wall is what would need to be determined today. Melanie Adams stated Lakeview wiil have some minor widening done to it. When it (s completed, the wall as ~roposed will be 8 feet from the back of the road. Greg McCafferty recommended deleting Condition No. 8. Condition No. 9 be modified to read, that the Final Tiact Map approval Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 3, 9,10,11, 12,13, and 14 shall be complied with. Melanie Adams recommended deleting Condition No.1 and Conditio~ No. 4. • • • • • • OPPOS~TI~N: 1 person spoke with concerns. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Tentative Tract Map No.15861 with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Deleted Condition Nos.1, 4 and 8. Amended Condition No. 9 to read as follows: 9. That prior to final tract map approval, Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9,10,11, 12, 13 and 14, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Added the following condition: That prior to issuance of a grading permit, a final plan showing the design of the wall and the landscaping shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Ciry of Anaheim Pianning Commission Summary Actian Agenda 10-25-99 Page 38 __ . .: r, :~: : •::; : ..... . _ ~ - Recommendations ftem. Approved Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 99-03 with the conditions as listed in the staff report. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Amold and Bristol absent) Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attomey, presented the 10-day appeal rights for Tentatfve Tract Map No. 15861 and the 22-day appeal rights for the Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 99-03. DISCUSSION TIME: 15 minutes (5:56-6:11) City of Maheim Planning Commfssion Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 39 F . . _ . . . . . - . :.., .~.,. . . . ~ ' -.~-.~'. .:.-'. ~..•,: ".:.- .. :~ . '•,".:~. .'~. .'.:. . .'..'..'...~ ! .....'.. . . . . .. ,;~:. ~' . .,. .. ~ .~ -. ,. : :. . ~:'. 12b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 12c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4143 OWNER: Grock Woey Jung and Chun Chun Jung, 7rustees, 433 South Vicki Lane, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Jimmy Tong Nguyen, P.O. Box 15741, Newport Beach, CA 92659 LOCATION: 420 South Brookhurst Street. Property Is 0.50 acre located on the east side of Braokhurst Streek (Seafood Place Restaurant). To permit a banquet hall facility with service and on-premise consumption, but not sales of beer and wine with waivar of minimum number af parking spaces. Continued from the Commission meetings of September 13, and October 11, 1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. SR1021V.DOC There was no discussion reiated to this matter. • • • ~ • • ~ OPPOSITION: None AC710N: Commissioner Bostwick offered a moticn, seco;ided by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City~ °ianning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request for withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit No. 4143. VOTE: 7-0 DIBCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (1:39-1:40) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 40 13a. CEQA NEGATNE DECLARATION Approved 13b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4151 Granted for 1 year OWNER: Karl and Edith Sater, 900 East Katella Avpnue "J", Orange, (To expire 10-25-2000) CA 92867 AGENT: Salvador Magana, 21580 Via Pepita, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 LOCATION: 3148 East La Palma Avenue, Unit C. Property is 6.4 acres located south and east of the southeast comer of La Palma Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard. To permit and retain an automotive repair facility (auto body work) within an existing industrial complex. Continued from the Commission meeting ~f October 11, 1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-189 SR7536VK.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. ApplicanYs Statement: Juan Corona, 21580 Via Pepita, Yorba Linda, stated he is requesting a part-time auto body repair for two to three hours a day including Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He agreed with staff report, but for now the hours of operation are to be from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and all day Saturday. If his business is successfui, in a year they may extend hours as stated in the report. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner stated staff was trying to structure Co~idition No. 9 so the applicant would not have to return and get all day hours approved. Chairperson Boydstun suggested the Condition would need to be changed t~ 8:~0 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. so that when he decides to expand the hours of operation he can do it without returning to Commission. Commissioner Bostwick stated he wanted to make sure the applicant understands Condition No.14, "that all work and materials need to be inside of the building, shall be confined entirely to the interior of the building, absolutely no vehicular body work, painting or other business related activities, or storage of vehicles or parts materials shall be allowed in the front or rear yard areas " He emphasized that everything needs to be done inside the building. Juan Corona acknowiedge that he understood, and that no storage would be done outside the building. Greg McCafferty recommended deleting Condition No.1, since it is the same as 14. Change Condition No.18 read as Condition Nos. 7, 8,12,13 and 17, deleted no.15. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 41 . _ ... : .. , . ... ;~ <: , • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t QPPOSRION: None ACTiON: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Perre~it No. 4151 far 1 year with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Deleted Condition No. 9. Modified Condition Nos. 9 and 18 to read as follows: 9. That the hours of operatfon shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. 18. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution or within 90 days, whichever accurs first, Condition Nos. 7, 8,12,13,16 and 17, above-mentioned, shali be complied with. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Amold and Bristol absent) Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (6:12-6:19) City of Anaheim Planning Commission S~~mmary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 42 AQJOURNMENT AT 6:20 P.M. TO BAO(VDAY, NOVEMBER 8,1999 AT 9:30 A.M. KOR THE SELF-STOtt~~GE FACIC.ITY STUDY AND PRESENTATION OF 7HE SOUTH A(VAHEi1A BOULEVARD PLAN. Submitted by : 1 ~.s.v~_.~.a~ Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary / - ~J `~~ Simonne Far~nin Senior 0'fice Specialist Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~ ~" a a-~°1 City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 10-25-99 Page 43