Loading...
Minutes-PC 1999/12/20r SUMMARI( A~TION AGENDA CITY OF ANAHEIM PLA-VNING C~IV~MISSIOIV MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1999 11:00 A.M • STAFF UF'DATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENT~.AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING ~OMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEVV 1:30 P.i~. • PUF3LIC HEAR(Nu TESTIMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRIS70L, KOOS, NAPOLES, VANDERBILT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: ARNOLD STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Assistant City Attorney Mary McCloskey Deputy Planning Director ~ Gr2g McCafferty Senior Planner Della Herrick Associate Planner Karen Dudley Associate Planner Don Yourstone Senior Code Enforcement Officer Alfred Yaida Principal Transportation Planner Melanie Adams Associate Civil Engineer Margarita Solorio Planning Commission Secretary Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary P:\DOCS\CLERICALIMINUTESWC122099.DOC www.planningcommission@anaheim.net City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20,1999 Page 1 , . , . . :.~, . ,:-, ~ ;TEMS OF ~UBLI~ :P~ITEREST: _ ~ None Receiving and approving the Summary Action Agenda for the Planning Approved Commission Meeting of November 22, 1999 (Motion) (Vate: 6-0, Commissioner Amold absent) Receiving and approving the Summary Action Agenda for the Planning Commission.Meeting of December 6,1999 (~iotion) Approved (Vote: 5-0, Commissioner Boydstun austained and Commissioner Arnold was absent) City of Anaheim Planning Cort~mission Summary Action Agenda December 20,1999 Page 2 1. A. a) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 311 (PREV: CERTIFI~D Approve~ b) THE DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN N0. 92-1 FINAL 31TE Approved PLAN REVIEW N0. 99-08: The Walt Disney Company, Attn: Doug Moreland, 500 South Buena Vista Street, Burbank, CA 91521, (Vote: 6-0, Environmental Impact Report No. 311 (Previously-Certified) and The Commissioner Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 Final Site Plan Review No. 99-08 Arnold absent) for landscaping, lighting and fencing at the Disneyland Resort Hotel District entry roads (Hotel Drive, Resort Road and Pacific Drive), the Disneyland Hotel parking lot, the wedding garden area adjacent to the Disneyland Hotel, and the parking located on the west side of West StreeUDisneyland Drive, which will serve the Grand Californian Hotel guests. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTI~N CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified EIR 311 and its Addendum is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Site Plan (identified as Exhibit Nos. 1 through 4 on file in the Planning Department and as Attachment A to the December 20, 1999 Planning Commission staff report), on tt~e basis that the Final Site Plan is in conformance with The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1. SR76210H.DOC Greg McCaneriy, Senior Planner, introduced this iiem by stating this is a request by the Walt Disney Company for review and approval of final site plans seiting for landscaping, lighting and fencing associated with the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. Della Herrick, Associate Planner, explained this final site plan is for the Disneyland Hotel parking area, landscaping on the entry roads, wedding garden area adjacent to the Disneyland Hotel, and a parking lot that will be serving the parking for the Grand California Natei across the street. She indicated there was a representative from the Walt Disney Company and the landscape architect present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick indicated it is a good final finish to the project. City of Anaheim Planning Cummission Summary Action Agenda December 20,1999 Page 3 t B. a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 15 • Concurred w/staff b) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 88-286 - REQUEST FOR Approved extension of EXTENSION OF TIME: Debra K. Gates, Seaward Properties, Ltd., time 923 North Main Street, Orange, CA 92867, request for extension of time (originally approved on October 27,1997) to establish a 10- (To expire 10-27-2000) parcel industriai subdivision with waiver of minimum structurai setback abutting a local street and minimum number of parking (Vote: 6-0, spaces. Property is 1500,1550,1551,1600,1601,1650,1700 and Commissioner Arnold 1701 East Babbitt Avenue and 1531 and 1551 South State College absent) Boulevard. ACTION: Commissioner Boslwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner i<oos and MO710N CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 15, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categoricaliy exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve a one-year time extension for Tentative Parcel Map No. 88-286, to expire on October 27, 2000. SR1028TW.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating this is a request for a 1-year extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map 88-286 in order to comply with conditions of approval. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20,1999 Page 4 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Continued to 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. ~812 (READVERTISED) January 3, 2000. OWNER: TW Investments and IW Investment Corp., Attn: Kape Properties, P.O. Box 6474 Beverly Hilis, CA 90212 AGENT: Kape Properties, Attn: Allen Weinstock, 9440 Santa D,1onica Boulevard, #305, Beverly Hills, C!`. 90210 LOCATICIN: 1325 1331 and 9341 North_Blue Gum Street. Property is 9.7 acres located at the northwest corner of Miraloma Avenue and Blue Gum Street (Star Van Conversion). To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently con4ains a time limitation (originally approved on March 4, 1996 to expire on October 13, 1998 and reinstated on December 21, 1998 to expire on October 13, 1999) to retain previously-appraved automotive van conversion and modificatior facility in an existing industrial business park. Continued from the Commission meeting of Nov~mber 8, 1999 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. Chairperson Boydstun asked whether there was anyone in the audience present for ;his item. Therp was one person in the audience who chosP not give testimony but indicated they would return on January 3, 2000. Commissioner Koos offered a motion for a r,ontinuance to January 3, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and motion carried. FnrrnwiNC; (s a suMMARY OF THE PLANNING GOMMISSION ACTION.' ~' ' OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 3, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, as requested by the appiicant. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnoid absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20, 1999 Page 5 3a. 3b. 3c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3954 (READVERTISED) Approved, in part, as readvertised OWNER: Sa-Rang Korean Church of Southern Galifornia, Attn: Young-Min Chung,1111 North Brookhurst Street, (The day care portion of Anaheim, CA 92801 this request was approved for 2 years, to AGENT: Clean World Engineering, Inc., 9480 Telstar Avenue, #208, expire 12-20-2001) E~ Monte, CA 91731 LOCATION: 1111 North Brookhurst Street. Property is 10.2 acres located on the west side of Brookhurst Street,190 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue (Sa-Rang Presbyterian Church of Southern California). To permit the expansion of a previously-approved church facility to include a 2-story, 7,600 square feet day care center, to modify a condition of approval pertaining to hours of operation to add lighting on the existing 85-fook high steeple, to allow special event permit privileges, to construct a new freestanding freeway-oriented sign, and to permit and retain an existing freestandi~ig sign with waiver of (a) maximum number of freestanding signs, (b) maximum area of freestanding signs, (c), permitted location of freestanding signs, {d) minimum distance between freestanding signs, (e) maximum height of freestanding signs, (~ maximum sign width, and (g) unpermitted freeway-oriented signs. Continued from the Commission meetings of November 8, and November 22, 1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-224 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION SR6978DS.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced Conditional Use Permit No. 3954 (Readvertised) by stating it has a number of requests associated with this action which are as follows: to construct a 2-story 7,600 square foot day care facility, to modify conditions of approval related to hours of operation, to add lighting to their existing steeple, to construct a freeway oriented sign, and permit the retention of an existing sign on Brookhurst Street. Applicant's Statement: Myung Chung, 9480 Telstar Avenue, Suite 208, EI Monte, CA, explained the proposed operation of day care is during week days. The traffic generated by the use of the day care should be very minor compared to their Sunday operations. Condition No. 38 simply states that they can not use any parking, which he felt does not make sense, Their request is not for the whole rear parking lot but to limit the parking for the main use other than weekday use. Monday through Friday the north driveway is 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. and Sunday is 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., which is for lhe interior gate (page 9 of the staff report), a request for the rear parking lot but City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20,1999 Page 6 somehow there was a misunderstandiny of the north driveway description. (Ne forwarded copies of a site plan to Commission.) Their proposal is for the interior gate and not the north gate. Condition No. 38 indicates the parking interior gate shall remain closed between 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. whlch makes the rear parking lot inaccessible. They feel that condition needs to be revised to reflect their proposal. He felt regarding Condition No. 39 that north driveway should not have any limitation for gaing in and out because that is a main access. The north driveway is for entering from Brookhurst and the south is for exiting only. If you close north driveway then there will be no way to drive into the side. Condition No. 38 and 39 should be revised in such a way that the north driveway along Brookhurst Street should not have any limitation coming in and out. They want to limit the interior gate to weekday use from 9am to 9pm and Sunday use from 8am to 8pm, so that after that time no one can go into that rear parking area which is along the residential neighbor area so no car can enter through that driveway so the neighbors will not be disturbed. John Hong, 2643 Mill Lane, Fullerton, stated on page 8, item 35(c) of the staff report, denies non- permitting freestanding signage on Brookhurst Street. Staff claims that there a~ e two signs on Brookhurst Street bu! they do not r,onsider them as two signs. There is one sign with the church name on it and the other sign is not a sign, it is more of a symbolic monument, there is an anchor there and they put the letter "Harbor Vision" which is not their church name, it is more for their congregation. They are an immigrant church. He requested that Commission not consider this as a sign and let them retain the monument. Page 9, item 35(d) of the staff report. The staff recommended meeting room hours be from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Saturday. He asked that the hours be extended until 10:0~ p.m. because their church has many small bible study groups and it is very difficult to end at 9:00 p.m. Regarding the special event hours. Staff recommended ending at 9 p.m. but they have to have special events until at least 10:30 p.m. because they can not finish the events at 9 p.m. He promised their neighbors that they would be very quiet. Public Testimony: William Wayne, 2215 West Falmouth, Anaheim, stated he lives directly across the street from the church. The main concern of the neighbors in the area was whether there was going to be an increase in traffic on Brookhurst Street. The neighbors were concerned if this was opened before the freeway construction is completed that it would add to the traffic problem. Donna Penman, 2218 West Falmouth Avenue, stated there is a brick wall that separates the church and her house. In general she is very p!eased with the church but the traffic does continue to be a problem. She understands the logistics of runr;ing a day care center because she was the director of a day care center in Santa Ana for 7 years. Due !o the freeway construction they have people making U-turns at their driveway. Due to people pulling in!o her new driveway it is now cracked. The people from the church continue to park in the streets. She is very concerned about traffic coming out the back parking lot. Her and her husband have a small business that they run out of their home. During the construction she had to have the air conditioning running all day because of the dust and dirt. It is a difficult situation beir.g home all day with the construction noises and the traffic. There needs to be serious consideration given to the back parking lot because residents on Falmouth experience traffic congestion when people are let out the back parking lot of the church. She would not be in favor of the applicanYs proposal for the back parking lot. There needs to be another way to work it out. She wanted to know where the day care center is going to be located because she wondered where the children would be playing. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20,1999 Page 7 Commissioner Bristol suggested Ms. Penmzn to review the exhibit board for the location of the day car~ center. It shows that the playground is not behind the homes. Donna Penman stated the church has been good in informing them about most of their special evenis. One evening, the church had a large concert, there were cars on the street and the police were out directing traffic. The traffic during construction has been horrendous between the 91 Fwy. and 5 Fwy. She is only present because she works at home and could take the time off. There were many people that until they received the notice in the mail did not know anything about the request for a day care center and changing the hours. Julie Moe,1313 North Alamo, stated she lives between the 5 Fwy. and 9 Fwy. She feit many of the concerns discussed are not so much the church as it is the construction project. Most people that were making U-turns and illegal turns are not just the members of the church but it is everyone. She does not see any problems with having a day care center at the church. She felt 150 more cars a day is not going to make that much of a difference. However, if there were a noise problem then she would be concerned. They live with the daily freeway construction and felt that is where most people's frustrations are coming from, unfortunately the church happens to have been built in the middle of this construction. It could have been a strip mail instead which would have created much more noise. Gordon E Yelton, 2202 Falmouth, Anaheim, stated he is on the corner of Brookhurst and Falmouth. The major problem is traffic. The additional hours are going to add more traffic on Brookhurst in the evenings. There are currently many accidents at Falmouth. The church members are having a difficult time trying to enter their church. The U-turn problem is horrendous but that is not going to end until Brookhurst is open. He had nothing against the day care center as longer as they do not install any windows on the north side facing his home, which was stipulated in the original conditional use permit. The proposal should not be approved before the freeway construction is completed. He felt a 2-year continuance would help the residents. Jim Bonsteel, 1203 North Groton Street, Anaheim, stated he has been a resident since 1959. He started Island 951 Neighborhood Council and has since resigned from that council because of the church issue. The main reason he resigned from the council is because Mr. Hong has been sitting on their neighborhood council since April and never informed them of this proposal. Installing a sign along the freeway is not recommended because once they pass Brookhurst offramp on the 5 Fwy. the next offramp is Magnolia. That means they would come off the freeway on Magnolia come around into their neighborhood. The church currently has two signs. They do not need the extended hours. On one Sunday he monitored the parking problem at the church. qn Sundays instead of a security guard they have two greeters that bow to each car that comes into the nnrth driveway at Brookhurst. He has had to go to them and ask that them to come to Falmouth and Brookhurst and stop cars from making a U- turns. He gave up his Sundays for one month to monitor this. The majority of their neighbors do not go to thet church. When they have special events programs there is a traffic problem and he is concerned with the increased tra~c if they had activities 7 days a week. He understands that the church has offered to purchase a~raffic light and move the light from Falmouth to Groton Street, which is a concern for him. He is concerned with the back parking lot area. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. 8onsteel if the traffic is entering and exiting Ventura on the back side. Mr. Bonsteel responded with the help of Code Enforcement they had them put the waii back up. If they are permitted in the future to use the extra property in the back as a parking structure, then there is going to be a sliding gate which he hopes is not the case be :ause the traffic is going to go out on Veniura, to Falmouth and onto his street, Groton Street. He asked that th~ applicant not be granted the hours that City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agend~. December 20,1999 Page 8 they requested. This is a church that has members outside of their fmmediate community and they have plenty of money and that is the difference belween a neighborhood church and this church. Esther Wallace, Chairman of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Council), 604 Scott Lane, Maheim, stated WAND did not get involved with this property because they understood everything was going ali right, She was surprised when she read the report and found that there were many violations. WAND expects its -~usinesses and establishments to conduct their businesses according to their CUP's which is all they are asking for and they find that there are violations here. She was trying to establish the fact of whether they have enough parking on their church lot. Regarding the extended hours, she noticed that thera are so many parking spaces for the church allowed but now they are going to exkend it to the gymnasiurn, office, etc. and asked if they are taking into consideration the number of parking spaces that will be needed by people using the gymnasium, office, etc, when considering the ~umber of parking spaces as beinc~ adequate. They are concerned with the number of violations. ApplicanPs Rebuttal: Mr. Hong stated they are always receptive to neighbors concerns and have always tried to correct any problems, which is why he is attending the neighborhood council meetings. They are not trying to influence the neighbors they are trying to be good neighbors. The day care center is only during the weekdays in the daytime. This project is going to take one year to compiete the construction and Brookhurst will probably be open at that time which will eliminate a lot of the traffic problems. They have 658 parking spaces, they estimate there will an increase of 80 to 90 more cars increased which they do not feel will affect the tra~c situation. They have a playground and the noise is directed toward the freeway and not the residential homes. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Boydstun asked if the interior gate opens onto Falmouth? Mr. Hong responded it does not and is strictly an interior gate and does not access onto Falmouth. They will not be using the gate at all and closed it with concrete walls. Chairperson Boydstun asked if they go through the interior gate and down and that is how they get to their back parking. Mr. Hong responded that was correct. They are using the nor;h and interior gate. During the weekdays they close that driveway in order to elimi~ate any possible noise to the neighbors. They have a chain there and all the neighbors know about it so they can not use this interior driveway. Chairperson Boydstun stated Mr. Hong testified that they consider the sign to be more of a rnonument rather than a sign and she suggested they move it back to where lheir main walkway is located. Mr. Hong responded it is going to cost a lot to move it. It should be at the north gate because the members of the church see it as Yheir vision and inspiration. Commissioner Bostwick stated they have a sign that identifies the church and suggested putting a logo underneath it ihat states their vision or dream, as part of that they can list their hours of worship. He felt that all could fit on the one sign, al the entrance. They have a very beautiful facility that is very visible and makes a statement in itself. Mr. Hong reiterated they need this monument because it is very meaningfui to their church members. Commissioner Bosiwick asked whei~er they have room on any of their existing area for the day care rather than bui~ding an addition. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20, ? 899 Page 9 Myung Chung responded the daycare has iPs own requirements for sinks, fountains and toilets etc. to be child size. They want to keep lhe daycare center separate from the church so that there is no complicatian with Sunday school. Commissioner Bostwick asked what wil~ take place in Area 2(sanctuary inside building). Myung Chung responded it is a main area with a lobby, Area 1(gymnasium and meeting room inside building) is a gymnasium at north end and Sunday school at the south side. The building hss a partial second floor for an office/mezzanine. Commissioner Bostwick thought it makes more sense to put a day care facility where the Sunday scl~ool classes are, then daycare would be back where the playground is and away from the front of the buildir~g. Commissioner Bristol stated in August 1997 and January 1998 comments were made by Commissioners that they did not want to see it close to the north end of the property. The applicant is proposing to intensify this site but a few months ago that was not the case. He supports waiting until after Brookhurst and the freeway construction are completed. He thought it should not be approved because the applicant is intensifying the site. This also includes the lighting on the steeple, which has not been discussed yet. He is concerned with the size and impact to the neighbors on the north. Due to the impacts, it might be wise to wait until after a traffic study is completed to see what the ramifications would be on Brookhurst. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked staff why the hours of operation were stipulated. Greg McCafferty explained the intent of the modified hours of operation was to keep the evening activity away from the northern end of the property abutting residences. Commissioner Vanderbilt askeQ staff whether that was understood when the CUP was originally approved. There are other issues that will need to be resol~r~d first before the hours of operation can be addressed. He wondered about the rationale that staff used when they recommended the hours of operation on the original CUP and how it followed to the c~!rrent proposal. Greg McCafferty stated there have been violations since the original ap~roval of the church and Code Enforcement has documented these violations regarding the hours of operation. Commissioner Napoles asked Mr. Yourstone from Code Enforcement if he has had any experience at the church. Don Yuurstone stated since September 1998 ~vhen construction began there have been 12 complaints. Construction starting in early morning hours, excessive noise, displaying flags and banners, violation of the CUP by operating over the hours allotted. On October 27`h at 9:45 p.m. staff conducted an inspection and found they were still in operation at that time and a notice of violation was issued. On October 31, the same violation occurred and a notice issued. Myung Chung advised the evening activities are limited to less than 100 people for small meetings and bible study. They only want certain activities and certain days until 10:30 p.m. Commissioner Vanderbilt agreed there are mitigating efforts that the church can use, but the other issues of traffic are more paramount at this time. He agreed with Commissioner Bristol that it is possible that it can be worked out at a later date. Commissioner Koos stated according to the development proposal the daycare is Monday through Friday and the traffic problem is a weekend problem. City of Anaheim Pianning Commission Summary Acti~n Agenda December20,1999 Page 10 Aifred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, advised it is on the weekend and also because the construction spills out during the weekday. Commissioner Koos stated he does not see the rolationship between the traffic problem and the proposed use. it is a weekday use and the traffic is a weekend problem, unless the Traffic Division indicakes otherwise. He concurs with the staff s recommendation on the signage. Alfred Yalda was concerned that they had to physically put in delineators in the middle of the street to prevent them from making left turns. After repeated meetings, they asked the church to tell their patrons to make right turns only, but they ignored it. They are concerned that they will have peak hour traffic going to the daycare center that will worsen the existing traffic congestion. Commissioner Koos was in ~avoi of voting on this proposal today. Commissioner Bristo! asked Mr. Yalda when the construction on the 5 Fwy., 91 Fwy. and Brookhurst Street is going to be completed and asked after construction, going northbound on Brookhurst past La Palma, will a left turn into north driveway be able to be made. Alfred Ya~da anticipatad completion at the end of next year. After construction drivers wil! not be able to make a left turn due t~ the raised median islands cavering the first (south) driveway, but will be abte to turn into the second (north) driveway, close to Faimouth. Commissioner Koos questioned whether that would address the other Commissioner's concerns about traffic generation. Commissioner Vanderbilt addressed Commissioner Koos by stating that the construction work is done during the week and requires temporary lane closures, and on Sunday's there is no construc-.ion. Commissioner Koos stated there is road construction, but does it mean they shouid treat this project as if the road was completed and iYs ultimate right-of-way. He felt it should not factor into the Commission's decision making process. Commissioner Bostwick stated Conditian No. 20 sets childcare to expire December 20, 2000. He suggested a 2-year termination so they can come back and traffic can be evaluated at that time. Chairperson Boydstun recommended that the occupancy not be granted until March 2001 to aliow time for the freeway to be completed. She suggested Commission put a time limit on it for review again one year following that. Selma Mann was concerned that the ce~tificate of occupancy should be a ministerial decision; that when all of the conditions have been met, when a building is completed, that the building then can be certified for occupancy by the building official. It does not appsar that there is any certainty that the freeway improvements will be completed by that time so it may not really accomplish the objective that links the nexus exactly to what the Commission is seeking to accomplish. Commissioner Bostwick suggested that meeting rooms be from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. and special events, specifically stating 7 days a year until 10 p.m. Regarding Condition No. 43, that the lighting in the steeple needs to be something other than floodlights such as neon tubes or internal lighting and a lighting study should be conducted to assure that lighting will not reflect onto the neighborhood. Commissioner Vanderbilt suggested to include the color limitation. Commissioner Bosiwick added that the lighting be of a white or muted color. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20,1999 Page 11 Chairperson Boydstun did not feel they need all the signs. A monument sign does not belong there. Commissioner Koos explained Commission is trying to limit signage along the freeway corridor. .. Commissioner Koos asked staff if the monument was part of the original approval irrespective of the wording. Greg McCafferty responded it just appeared, it was not approved on the plans. CoMmissioner Bostwick advised that the applicant coulcl apply for a waiver for the size of the sign and propose a design that has the anchor and the hours of the church into one sign. They are looking at two distinct things. John Hong felt Condition No. 38 needs to stipulate a change on special event days. Greg McCafferty explained they are limited through the Code that allows them ~o have a ceRain amount of special events per year for churches. Commissioner Bostwick stated they are limited to 7 special events per year, per Condition No. 16. Greg McCafferty recommended Condition No. 39 be amended to state that the north driveway on Brookhurst be open 9 a.m, to 9 p.m., Monday through Friddy and 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Sundays and the rest remain unchanged. Chairperson Boydstun wondered if it v~ould be better to open earlier so when they have pre-school they could go in one north gate and out the other south gate to make traffic flow better. Greg McCafferty explained the intent was to move all the activity away from the single-family residences. Commissioner Bostwick stated regarding Condition No. 39 recommanded the daycare be open at 7 a.m. so north gate needs to be open 7 a.m. to 9 p. m. Monday through Friday and 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Sunday. e • • e • • OPPCSITION: 6 people spoke with concerns. ACTION: Determined that the previously approved mitigated negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for s~abject request. Denied waiver of Code Requirement. All the requested waivers were denisd as follows: Denied waivers (a), (c), and (d) relative to the two existing signs on Brookhurst Street, on the basis that there are no special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, location or surroundings which would justify the location of freestanding signs in close proximity each other and that the church already has adequate identification on Brookhurst Street with the existing monument sign; and Denied waivers (b), (e), (fl, and (g) relative to the proposed freeway-oriented sign on basis that churches are not permitted to have freeway-oriented signs. Approved, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 3954, as follows: City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20, 1999 Page 12 1. Approved the expansion of the previously-approved church facility to include a 2- story, 7,600 square foot day care center for a period of 2 years, to expire on December 20, 2001; 2. Approved the modification of the condition of approval pertaining to hours of operation; 3. Approved the lighting on the existing 85-foot high steeple; 4. Denied the construction of a freeway-oriented sign; and, 5. Denied the existing non-permitted freestandinq sign on f3rookhurst Street. Modified Resolutien No. 97R-178, adopted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3954, as follows: 16. That the church hours shall be limited to the following: O~ce: Monday-Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Ssturday 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Sunday 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Church: Monday-Friday 5 a.m. fo 7 a.m. Saturday 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. Sunday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. School: Saturday 8 a.m, to 4 p.m. Sunday 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. Meeting Rooms: Monday-Saturday 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. Sunday 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Gymnasium: Monday-Friday 3 p.m. to 9 p.m. Saturday 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Sunday 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. Special Events 7 days a year until 1Q p.m. North Driveway MondayFriday 9 a.m. Yo 9 p.m. (open) Sunday 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. That all activity shall cease within the time limitations as listed above, and further that all cleanup activity conducted by staff members in connection with activities shall not extend beyond 10:00 p.m. 20. That this conditional use permit does not include approval of a school with the exception of Sunday School. That the child care portion of this permit shall expire two (2) years from the date of this resolution (on December 20, 2001):' 30. That subject property shall be develo~ed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Revision No. 1 of Exhibit Nos.1, 2, and 3, and as conditioned herein. Added the following conditions to Resolution No. 97R-178, as amended: 36. That the existing unpermitted engraved sign on the boulder structure shall be removed within sixty (60) days of the approval of this resolution. 37. That no windows shall be installed on the north building elevation of the new day care building extension and plans shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Actian Agenda December 2Q, 1999 Page 13 review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 38. That within 60 days of approval of this resolution, the property owner shail submit a letter requesting termination of Variance No. 793 (to construct a two-story industrial building containing administrative and sales offices, ciassrooms, an auditorium, and a cafeteria) to the Zoning Division. 39. That within 60 days the existing manhole covers located in the driveway on north side of gymnasium shall be fastened and secured so as not to generate noise which would be audible to the adjacent single family homes to the no~ th. 40. That the wrought iron gate at the north side of the day care center, providing access to the rear parking lot, shall rsmain closed be2~veen the hours of 6 p.m. and 8 a,m., except for special event permit days, and a"Knox Box" shall be provided for said gate to allow for Fire Department or other emergency access. Plans for said gate shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic and Transportation Manager prior to issuance of a building permit. 41. That the north driveway on Brookhurst Street shall only be open from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., Monday through Friday, and from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. The method of closing this driveway shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. 42. That the daycare facility shall be limited to 150 children with hours of operation from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday and shall be limited to the area shown on Exhibit No. 1, Revision No. 1. 43. 7hat the location and design of the drop-off/pick-up area for the day care facility shall be reviewed and approved by the City 1'raffic and Transportation Manager. 44. That the lighting of the steeple shall be of a white or muted color neon tube or internal lighting and not cause glare to occur that would disturb the residents to the north. Further, that a lighting study (night time test) shall be conducted to assure that the lighting will not reflect to the neighborhood to the north. 45. That special events shall be conducted entirely indoors. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presen!ed the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 30 minutes (1:47-3:17) A BREAK WAS TAKEN AFTER THIS ITEM (3:18-3:29) City of Anaheim Planning Commissior Summary Action Agenda December 20, 1999 Page 14 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARA710N Approve 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 41fi8 Granted OWNER: American N2tional Properties, P.O. Box 10077, Santa Ana, CA 92711-0077 AGENT: Phillip R. Schwartze, 31682 EI Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 LOCATION: 1516 West Embassy Street. Property is 5.8 acres located on the north side of Mable Street and at the terminus of Embassy Street. To permit a 206,667 square foot, seif-storage and outdoor recreational vehicle storage facility for up to 127 recreational vehicles. I CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-225 SR7639VK.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION ApplicanPs Statement: Phillip Schwartze stated he felt the proposed self storage facility combined witti the RV storage will be the lowest traffic generated use for this property. He mentioned that Dr. .iackson from the Fairmont School was in support of the project. Public Testimony: Bruce Jordan, tha architect for project, explained he tried to upgrade the facility so that it complements the neighborhood. All vehicular traffic and activity i~ screened by buildings and further ex.plained the architectural elements. John Maresca ~vith Bryan Industrial Properties, 146 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, stated they represent seven buildings along Embassy and Loara, They support staff recommendations and the project as stated. Jeff Farano, 2300 East Katella, Anaheim, stated he represents numerous property owners throughout the City. They are concerned about the application of the Council Policy, which was adopted several years ago. The Council Policy indicated the best place for self-storage was on property that was non- accessible, irregularly-shaped which may not be suitable for conventional type development. This particular property is described in the staff report as irregularly-shaped. He agrees that there is a"moon- shaped" portion along the railroad track, but feels the balance of the property is not irregularly-shaped tn a point that it can not be developed v~ith any other type of conventional use. it could be used for many other uses and has street access. If this project is approved, there will be more and more concern as to what is considered non-accessible and irregularly-shaped. Commission needs to consider whether the Council Policy is being satisfied in this case. Mr. Schwartze stated page 6 of staff reports indicated the project as being in an industrial location. The greatest concern with their proposed land use seems to be the school next door. They felt it is an ideal location for the use. Regarding Condition No. 3 about the number of units, he wondered whether Commission was even concerned how many units were there. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20, 1999 Page 15 Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner stated with any land use permit, if Commission does not hav~ a concem with how the applicant divides the spaces which relates to how many peopie rent the spaces then the condition can be deleted. Commissioner Bosiwick asked if there was a tie between that and the 63 parking spaces that are required and should it be determined by the number of units or should it be by square footage. Greg McCafferty responded they could comply with the parking requirement of one additional space that they are not showing. Parking is related to gross square footage. Commissioner Bostwick stated it would be better to have the total gross squarE footage that would then relate to the 63 parking places. Greg McC~fferty advised he was correct and it can be deleted. Mr. Schwartze asked if their operation could be open 24 hours a day. Greg McCafferty stated it is in an industrial zone and is not adjacent to any single-family homes, however this area is changing rapidly and in a number of years it may be an issue, but for now it can be modified or deleted. Mr. Sch~vartze stated they are in agreement with the hours of operation but asked, for the record, that they be allowed the opportuniry to return as a Reports and Recommendations item should they need to modify their hours of operation. Regarding digitsl closed circuit television security cameras. It is possible that they may return to Commission simply based on the fact that the technology is there to allow them to have security resolved and to be allowed to open 24 hours. Asked for clarification on Condition No. 32 for the $29.50 per square feet of building area, he felt it only relates to the manager's facility because the rest of the facility has no sewer. ivlelanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, advised he was correct. Commissioner Vanderbilt clarified that it does not matter what kind of security retention is used as long as the Police can view it, Mr. Schwartze explained all cameras are digital and focus o~i certain areas and explained their security procedure. Comr~issioner Koos was interested in incorporating a time limitation on the conditional use permit for 10 years. It has been done on other self storage units and asked staff what time limitation they used on the facility on State College Boulevard. Mr. Schwartze stated they are investing 9 to 10 million dollars on the site and plan to be there for a very long time. Greg McCafferty advised the other facility had a time limitation of approximately 20 years. Commissioner Koos stated while there is nothing in place, he did not feel comfortable with an indefinite situation and felt comfortable with 20 years. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20, 1999 Page 16 Commissioner Bristol stated in response to Mr. Farano's commer~ts, this is one of the more unusual land use issues. This is a pie-shaped lot and there are many issues; being next to a railroad track, schoal, and industrial area, has made it difficult Greg McCafferty asked for clarifi;.ations on elevations of the enhancements. Bruce Jordan explained the elem~an4s of the drawings. Greg McCafferty asked how elevations apply to future construction of Building E. Bruce Jordan advised that the same architectural treatment could also apply to that building. • • ~ • • • e IN FAVOR: 1 person spoke in favor of the proposal. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke with concerns. ACYION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4168 with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Modified Condition Nos. 3, 12 and 32 to read as follows: 3. That the self-storage facility shall be limited to a maximum of 209,267 gross square feet and that the facility shall be controlled through the use of electronically programmed gates and access doorways. Said gates and doorways shall be shown specifically in plans submitted for building permits. 12. That the hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sunday. Any changes to the hours of operation shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 32. That the c~eveloper shall pay the sewer deficiency fee of $29.50 per thousand square feet of building area constructed for the offices and manager's unit. Added the following condition of approval: That Building E shall utilize the same architectural treatment as the balance of the facility. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 28 minutes (3:30-3:58) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20, 1999 Page 17 5a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 323 Cuntinued to 5b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 370 January 19, 2000 5c. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 99-00-10 5d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 5e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4171 5f. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 5c. 5d, and 5e OWNER: Califorriia Drive-In Theaters, Attn: John Manavian, 120 North Robertson Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048 LOGATION: 1500 North Lemon Street. Property is 26.34 acres located at the southeast corner of Lemon Street and Durst Street. General Plan Amendment No. 3T0 - An amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate the subject property from the General Industriai designation to the General Commercial designation. Reclassification No. 99-00-10 - To reclassify subject property from the ML (Limited Industriai) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 4171- To construct a 292,944 square foot commercial retail center including a home improvement store, health club, three (3) drive-through fast food restaurants, two (2) tull-service restaurants, a multi-tenant pad building, and a freeway-oriented sign with waiver of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, and (b) minimum parking iot landscaping. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION N0. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. SFt6990DS.DOC Chairperson Boydstun asked whether there was anyone in the audience present for this item. There was a person in the audience who did not give testimony but indicated they would return on January 19, 2000. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion for a continuance to January 19, 2000, seconded by Cummissioner Napoles and motion carried. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 19, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order to advertise additional waivers resulting from project revisions. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arno;d absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda Decsmber 20,1999 Page 18 • ---- ---, ApP~oved 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4153 Granted OWNER: R.D. Olson Real Estate Group, Inc., Attn: Robert Olson, 2955 Main Street, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92614 LOCATION: 1855-1925 South Manchester Avenue. Property is approximately 6.01 acres located on the southwest side of A4anchester Avenue, approximately 800 feet south of the centerline of Katella Avanue. Petitioner requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit under authority of Code Sections 18.48.070.050.0512,18.48.070.050.0513 and 18.48.070.050.0525 in conjunction with a proposed 407-room hote! complex consisting of a 9-story (97- to 113-foot high), 264-room full- service hotel and a 7-story (75- to 81-foot high), 143-room extended-stay hotel. The Conditional U;.a Permit would authorize in-room kitchen/kitchenette facilities in the extended-stay hote!. It would also permit the proposed interior building setbacks to be less than otheiwise required by Code (within 150 feet of a property zoned "Mobilehorr.a Park (MHP) Overlay", the Code requires interior building setbacks to be greater than, or equai to, two times the height of a buifding; lesser setbacks are subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit) and the proposed building heights to be greater than otherwise permitted by Code (within 150 feet of a property zoned "MHP Overlay", the Code requires building heights to be Iess than, or equal to, one-half the distance between the building and the MHP Overlay Zone boundary; greater building heights are subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit); with waiver of (a) minimum structural setback and yard requirements abutting public rights- of-way, (b} minimum interiar structur~al oetback and yard requirements, permitted encroachments ir~to required yard and setback areas and minimum screening abutting MHP Overlay Zoned property, and (c) minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-226 SR7637KD.DOC SUMMARY OF QISCUSSlON Karen Dudley, Associate Planner introduced the petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 4153 which is in conjunction with a proposed 407-room hotel complex consisting of a 9-story 264-room full service hotel and 7-story 143-room extended-stay hotel. Applicant's Statement: Robert Olson stated they have worked closely with staff, which resulted with solutions and have a plan that works well for averybody. He concurred with the conditions of aRproval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20, 1999 Page 19 Commissioner Koos asked staff if the property to the west was zoned commerciai and is the project envisioned as a hotel type use. Karen Dudley responded it was zoned SP92-2 which is the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan with the MHP Overlay Zone and has a CommerciallRecreation designation and would be allowed to develop at a density of 75-room per gross acre. They would have to go through a conversion impact report to develop the property from a mobile home park to any permitted use. Commissioner Koos commented that he did not see any cu~s for sidewalks on the site plan for the south property line and asked if any consideration has been made to create that linkage for future pedestrian traffic. Mary McCloskey, D~puty Planning Director, responded the south property line will be the eleva4ed Gene Autry Way in the future, therefore, thera were no plans to have vehicular access at that point because of that elevation, it will actually slope up at that point. Commissioner Bostwick asked Mr. Olson if there were any plans for convention rooms and were they in the traffic plan calculation. Mr. Olson advised there are three meeting rooms in the Holiday Inn that can be used for conventions, but this is not a convention hotel that is based sround the convention market. Mary McCloskey advised the square feotage amounts to 2,489 square feet and parking was broken out for that. It is a small area devoted to that type of use. Commissioner Bosiwick asked, for the record, whether Gene Autry Way is shown on the General Plan. Mary McCloskey advised Gene Autry Way has been shown on the Plan for over 10 years, it was called Pacifico in prior years. Commissioner Bostwick asked if there was any funding for the overcrossing of the freeway. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, stated the City is aggressively seeking funding now and are in preliminary design and it will eventually be constructed in 2003 or 2004. Commissioner Bristol asked if there was any response from the neighbors to the north or west and was it safe to assume the line of sight is not a concern to staff. Mary McCloskey advised they have not received any correspondencs or expression of any concerns from any of the surrounding property owners. Commissioner Koos stated, for the record, that he is pleased that staff and the developer have come to terrns on a few issues. He thought this was a very good projzct that will a^celerate the vision of the resort area for the properties in the vicinity. f~ tULLVW~NG ~5 A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.. ~ OPP051TION: None ACTION: Determined that the previousiy-certified EIR 313 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20,1999 Page 20 Approved Waiver of Code Requirement, as fotlows: Approved the requested waivers pertainfng to ~a) minimum st~uctu~al setback and yard requirements abutting public rights-of-uvay and (b) minimum interior structural setback and yard requirements, permitted encroachments into required yard and setback areas and minimum screening abutting MHP Overlay zoned property, on the basis that the plans and supportfng documentation subm(tted by the applicant, which support the findings that speciai circumstances have been identified that are applicable to the size, shape and location of the property that do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity inasmuch as the property is irregulariy- shaped, the property is affected by the future construction of Gene Autry Way and when constructed, the property will be located adjac~nt to, but wili not have any driveway access to, Gene Autry Way due to ifs elsvated nature; and, the property Is within 150 feet of two properties with the MHP Overlay Zone designation and that the strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the Anaheim Resart Specific Plan Zone. Approved the requested waiver (c) pertaining to the minimum number of parking spaces, based on the information contained in the approved revised Parking Study, dated December 1,199S. Further, the granting of the waiver shall be deemed contir.gent upon the operation of such use in conformance with the assumptions relating to the operation and intensity of the use as contained in the Parking Study that formed the basis for approval of said waiver. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4153 as conditioned in the staff report to the Planning Commission dated December 20, 9999. VOTE: 6-0 (Commi:sionerArnold absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attori~ey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TiME: 9 minut~s (3:59-4:08) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20,1999 Page 21 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION•CLASS 3 Concurred w/staff 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4167 Granted for 10 years OWNER: Coast Advertising Inc., Attn: James Abbott, P.O. Box (To expire on 12-31-2009) 5502, Fullerton, CA 92838 LOCATION: 2590 East Cerritos Avenue. Property is 0.64 acre located on the south side of Cerritos Avenue, 280 feet east of the centerline of Sinclair Street. To construct a new billboard with waiver of (a) prohibited location of freeway-oriented billboards, (b) maximum sign height and (c) prohibited signs. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-227 5R6988DS.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIO~ Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item and indicated this is a request to construct a new billboard with waivers. ApplicanPs Statement: James F. Abbott, 836 North Richmond, Fullerton, stated they would like to remove billboards at Euclid and Lincoln Avenue. In 1998 they were directed to 4emporarily remove the billboards for the widening of Brookhurst and La Pa~ma Avenue. Their signs were grandfathered in, it was a temporary takedown, and feel they should be allowed to relocate or re-enter at that location. The sign at Cerritos would be a 135- foot monopole display, double-faced sign. They are willing to turn in permits for Euclid/Lincoln and BrookhursULa Palma for the privilege of erecting one billboard two-faced at Cerritos/57 Freeway. They feel the setback would not create any kind of problem. He distributed photos of another billboard at northeast corner of Cerritos and the 57 Fwy, with a height of 135 feet which is the same height that they are requesting. He questioned why the City granted Regency Outdoor the permission to build a biliboard at 135 feet and what kind of permit they were granted. There are two 135-foot high City billboards at the Stadium property with a total of 5 faces,1200 square feet per face equaling 6,000 square feet of advertising. He is confused how the City can operate a billboard business in competition with their licensees. He felt if the City can issue permits to themselves to build a billboard of 135 feet, it is only fair to allow Cnast Advertising to do the same. He felt the City has targeted the billboard industry simply because they do not like billboards. Since 1998 he has tried to have Julie Seay, Building Division Manager, produce a permit for the billboards on the Stadium property to see how those permits were issued. If the City applied for a conditional use permit he would like the privilege to see what the staff had to say about it. He thought it is unfair that the City is allowing advertising of Mariboro, whicii kills thousands of people every year. They do not want to forfeit that location after 25 years and want to relocate to a lower density area. He emphasized they would like to surrender their permits and build a biilboard at the 57 Fwy. at Cerritos. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda Decernber 20,1999 Page 22 Public Testimony: Jim hlarper from Speaker Properties awner and manager of 800,000 square foot industrial park that is contiguous to this site. They are opposed to the sign being erected for the cosmetic value; it would impact the ambiance and visibility of the park. Commissioner Bristol asked if it was a remnant piece of property left when the 57 Fwy. ~ent through. Jim Harper responded he did not know the origin of the property. James Abbott explained it was a remnant of the freeway, it is a pie-shaped pisce of property with a little over half an acre. He could not visualize any properties in close proximity and did not feel it would impact Mr. Harper's property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos stated Commission understands the external issues with respect to LaPalma and Brookhurst site and the applicanPs conce~ns regarding the biilboards owned by the Ci'ry but ihat is not relevant to this proposal and they should focus strictly on the merits of this proposal. James Abbott explained that they had no knowledge that the gentleman was going to apply for a conditional use permit, he is not in the billboard business. T(iey own the State permits. Even if Commission had approved it, he would not have been able to build a billboard there because Coast has the State permit. Had he known he would have told Mr. Freedman not to waste his time. Commissioner Koos advised Mr. Abbott he did not feel it would be fruitful for Commission to engage in discussions outside of this proposal. Commissioner Bristol agreed with Commissioner Koos Commissioner Bostwick asked Mr. Abbott if the permits presented today at 1801 South Douglas was the sign that is shown there and if it is on Southern Pacific right-of-way. The permit states the property owner is Ciiy of Anaheim and could they surmise that the City owns that sign. City owns the one at Cerritos and the one at the Stadium. James Abbott state~l it is the current copy and could be a railroad lease. The City may own the property under it but probably does not own the sign. The physical structura is owned by Regency Outdoor. Commissioner Bostwick stated the permits state the owner is the City of Anaheim. He did not want to discuss Brookhurst and La Palma but he does have a problem with the removal of three (3) sign boards at Lincoln and Euclid. That area is in the Plaza Redeveiopment Area and they are looking to make that corner much more appealing when the freeway construction is completed. He felt they could not accept the giving of signs against this permit, other than his word. Mr. Abbott suggesting putting it in the conditional use permit that the signs would come down upon completion flf the other sign. Commissioner Bostwick stated there is a legal issue there which the City Attorney can explain this. Seima Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated there is State law that prohibits the City from conditinning a project upon removal of such a sign. For example, if he is an owner of a sign they can not really ~ay that there is not or possibly a likelihood that some of the people that he has a contract with, and if it is a month-to-month contract may not be suing the City based upon that State law indicating that the City has City of Anaheim Plenning Commission Summary Action Agenda DecemBer 20, 1999 Page 23 _ i,: ~ t f ::; ..; : ti . .. ,. ., i .,. _ . ...':~5 Commissioner Koos stated he would be voting no on fhe project. Recently there was a Master Stadium Area land use plan approved. It is appealing on some levels but this is obviously for the benefit for the applicant because of the proximiry to oYer this trade up. The visibility is much greater than Euclid and Lincoln and it is in the Sportstown Stadium Area vicinity. Therefore, he is supporting a denial on this proposal. . Commissioner Bristol also indicated he supported a denial on this proposal. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY. OF THE ~'LANNWG COM.MlSSION ACTION. ' OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition to the proposal. ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls witt~m th~~ definition of Categoricai Exemptions, Class 3, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Approved W~iiver of Code Requirement (Vote: 4-2, Commissioners Bristol and Koos voted no and CommissionerArnoid was absent) Granted Conditional Use Permit Nc. 41F7 t'or 10 years, to expire on December 31, 2009 on the basis that the applicant stipulated he would be removing three existing billboards located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Euclid Street. Added the following condition of approval: That this conditional use permit is granted for a period of ten (10) years and shall expire on December 31, 2009. VOTE: 4-2 (Commissioners Bristol and Koos voted no and Commissioner Arnold was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rio,!;;s. DISCUSSION TiME: 29 minutes (4:09-4:38) City o~ Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20,1999 Page 24 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 8b. COND{TIONAL USE PERNIT NO. 4169 January 19, 2000 OWNER: Wiliiams Family Trust, c/o J. Tiiman Williams and Sally R. Williams, Trustees,12291 Harbor Boulevard, Garden Grove, CA 92840 AGENT: John F. Swint, 707 West North Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 517 South Brookhurst Street. Property is 1.0 acre located on the west side of Brookhurst Street, 250 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue (Ryder Truck Rental). To establish conformity with existing Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing commercial retail center and to establish a truck rental facility within a commercial suite. CONDITIONAL USE PERMI7 RESt7LUTI0N N0. SR7641 KB.DOC SUM~AARY OF DISCI.~SSION Chairperso~. Boydstun stated, for the record, that the applicant was not able to attend the public hearing but was requesting a continuance to January 19, 2000 by way of a letter received. This item was temporarily trailed in order to continue Item No. 11. Following the action on Item No. 11 the following testimony was taken on this item.J Public Testimony: Naboe Reza, 9882 Ti eresa Avenue, Anaheim, stated they are the ones affected the most by this proposal because theii property is directly behind subject property. They are against this project because of the noise problem, th~ay hear noise all ihe t~me as well as at night. They park very close to their property wall. This is not a nice view. When they first moved in there were no trucks behind them and now there are many cars parked behind them. They are concerned with air pollution due to the diesel fumes. Paul Reza, 7293 EI Verano Drive, Buena Park, stated he helped his son and daughter-in-law purchase their home. When they first purchased the home at 9882 Theresa it was in very poor condition and abandoned. They have invested a lot of time and money into it. The home is now in very nice condition. Tlie trucks are creating more of a ghetto environment and affecting their property values. Cominissioner Vanderbilt asked for the date that the property purchased. Paul Reza responded they purchased the pr~~,erty about 1'/: years ago. Cominissioner Bristol offered a motion for a continuance to January 19, 1999, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and motion carried. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20,1989 Page 25 ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 19, 2000 Planning Gommission meeting, as requested by the applicant because he was unable to attend the meeting. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Amold absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (1:35-1:40) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20, 1999 Page 26 9a. 9b. 9c. OWNER: Canyon United Methodist Church, Attn: David Wynn, President, Board of Trustees,101 Chaparral Court, Anaheim, CA 92808 AGENT: Greg Hammill, 414 Fernhill Lane, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 101 Chaparral Court. Property is 1.3 acre located at the so~thwest corner of Kaiser Boulevard and Chaparral Courl (Light of the Canyon United Methodist Church). To permit a two-story church facility with accessory training center classrooms with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. February 14, 2000 SR7644KP.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION ApplicanYs Testimony: Greg Hammill, 414 Fernhill Lane, Anaheim Hills, gave a history of Light of the Canyon Church. The parking has been modified to conform to seismic codes which was not in substantial conformance with the original CUP that was approved. Basically everything has remained the same except for parking and a few changes to the building. Community outreach is important to the church. Pastor Tom Rothhaar gave more history of church and explained various classes that are available to the community. Mary Ellen Wynn, 7980 East Sagewood Lane, Anaheim, stat2d she is a member of the congregation and teacher of classes there. She felt they are filling a need in the community especially for immigrants, young and old. Carl Kreutziger, 6455 Oakview Lane, Anaheim Hills, a member of conc~regation, stated they disagree with the staff report, page 4, regarding the expansion of use in conjunction with Rancho Santiago Community College. Item 19 of evaluation states there are existing parking problems in the area. He distributed, to Commission, copies an existing agreement with their neighbors and the Target Festival Center. They do not want to create any problems with any of their neighbors and, therefore, tried to come up with the most reasonable solution to expand their ministry in all the areas that they feel is a benefit to those living in the area. They identified only three areas within the existing Target parking lot which were areas that they are not used heavily and were the closest and easiest for their use and access to their property (listed as Area 1, 2 and 3). They have ~dentified, with the manager of Target, potential places that they could use. They have been taking counts to review this use. They are not aware of any parking problems in that particular area. They are monitoring parking and their final agreement with Target is based upon the results of their monitoring of the season between Thanksgiving and Christmas. They have an agreement with Target, that if at any time they become a problem, that they would operationally change the number of parking spaces. Ciky of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20, 1999 Page 27 The staff reports there is also a probiem with their adjacent neighbor to the south, but they have looked at it and they have 99 parking spaces, the maximum number of people is 51, so their current parking lot is only half fuli. He is asking for consideration for them to work out their final agreements. They have also discussed parking with Kaiser to the north, and neighbors to the east. They feel Condition No. 3 is unreasonable which states that they will have no more than 60 people on site at any given time. They currently have more than that and have existing parking spaces and cannot understand the numbers. Chairperson Boydstun explained this was students, not members. Carl Kreu-ziger advised they have more than 60 students. Commissioner Bristol asked if Rancho Santiago Cammunity College District paid for training and lndicated that the ministry appeared to be conducting as a business. Carl Kreutziger stated they have worked out an agreement that would be expanded, they pay the church a percentage for the use of the school rooms. Public Testimony: Robert Linn, 507 Meadowbrook, Anaheim, asked if the Orange Unified School D~strict was aware of their agreement and that they are doing this. Robert Partridge, Executive Director of Facility Planning with Rancho Santiago College District, stated they offer classes in approximately 125 different locations throughout their district, which includes parts of Anaheim. They have two college sites, five centers, and rent facilities in large part because they have a philosophy that they want to take education to the community. They rent facilities because the State oniy provides them with a limited amount of resources. They build new buildings, based on need, about every five years at one of their major college facilities. They have to rent additional facilities in order to provide community college education for credit and non-credit. And Orange is aware of this facility and that they rent extensive facilities from Orange Un~fed as well as other facilities i~ the City of Orange. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Greg Hammill addressed item no. 2, the conditions of approval on page 7 of the staff report. They do not have any special events. Item no, 3, which Mr. Kreutziger mentioned that the maximum number of students on the property at any time might be 60 persons. They currently have over 75 students and have no parking problem at the facility. He would like to see that eliminated. They do not know how much expansion is going to occur with respect to the students, but their main priority is the church. Chairperson Boydstun asked how many students would be in the computer lab that they want to have at the church. Greg Hammill responded there couldn't be more than 25 students. Currently there are 4 to 5 classrooms for classes that are free. Although, they do receive payment from the community college for maintenance and utilities, due to the fact that they are a public entity, they have restrictions on what they can pay for. Condition No.12 regarding roof-mounted equipment. When they first met with Ms. Cheryl Flores ~nd Ms. Kathie Pfost, they discussed roof-mounted equipment which was part of ihe design and that the screening of that equipment would be incorporated into the architectural design. He hoped that the screen-mounted equipment would be pari of this aFproval. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20, 1999 Page 28 Conditian No. 25 requires that ail outside parking be reviewed and approved by the Traffic and Transportation Manager and proper arrangements to obtain such parking shall be on record and shall be approved by the Planning Department and City Attomey's office. He is asking that the existing agreement with the properry to the south of them be sufficient and that it meet the requirements for the Conditional Use Permit No. 3204. It also met the requirements that Dr. Rutland had for his property next door. He would like to see it continue to meet those requirements and would Iike all the agreements that he has with his neighbors be acce~table as well. Chairperson Boydstun asked how many places are used at Dr. Rutlands. Greg Hammill responded there were 99 parking spaces, but probably only use 15 at a one time. Typically the church does not overflow onto the property. Commissioner Koos asked the size of the congregation. Greg Hammill advised there is average of 100 in attendance Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if any attempt was made to contact neighbors on Chaparral instead of Target because they do not seem to use much parking on Sunday. He also asked about a Rancho Santiago staff person who has ticket writing authority. Greg Hammill responded they were reserving that for another situation. Durin~ construction there may be a time shift where they will need to vacate their modular buildings and possibly rent space from those facilities and it will be a beginning of a relationship with them. One of those offices uses their facility at lunch time for a bible study. Robert Partridge stated their peace officer as defined by Penal Code can write citations on properties and they would have to have an agreement with the City and property owners that would allow their officers to cite violations. There will be an officer on duty at all times when classes are in session but the question is whether or not they are authorized to issue municipal citatioiis. Commissioner Bostwick asked Mr. Yalda if there are parking problems on Chaparral or Monte Vista around the other school. Alfred Yalda advised that it is around that area; it may come up to this location also. They just changed some of the parking in front of the property because they did not have any and now they changed it to parking because they will double and triple parking inside, and the Fire Department has a problem with that. Regarding safety, he did not fhink any safety officer from Santiago can go to Target and issue tickets and is not enforceable by any vehicle code that he is aware of. You can only enforce parking on your own lot that is already identified as a public property that belongs to the school. Regarding the agreement, he has a copy of the parking study that was approved in September 1989 and it specificaliy states that any agreement that should have been done should have been racorded and the municipal code requires that agreement to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The agreement that they have between the church and the property owner is not recorded anywhere, and it has not been reviewed by the City Attorney. Therefore, the church does not meet the condition that was approved in 1989. Target is part of the Festival Shopping Center that is already under a parking variance. Even though there are some vacancies in the Target area, in general that parking does not belong to Target, but to the Festival Center. The proposal far having the students park at Target and walk to the site is not practicai, City oF Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20, 1999 Page 29 and the Traffic Division does not recommend it because it is not safe for students, especiaily in the evening. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated there is a much more basic issue with regard to the parking waiver. The staff reports indicates that the traffic study is self-prepared. The Anaheim Municipal Code requires a parking study prepared by a Traffic Engineer licensed by the State of California and the only exceptions to that would not be appiicable here. Commissioner Bostwick asked Mr. Yalda what the parking requirement would be if this was an office building strictly like those surrounding it. Alfred Yalda responded the parking requirement would 4 per 1,000 or 87 spaces. Commissioner Bostwick stated 87 would be required and they have proposed 76. He see this as an office building and felt that at some point in time, this congregation will need fo find a larger piece of property. He felt this will ultimately be an office bui~ding; they will use it for a number of years and move on to something that is a more traditional church site. He stated for the record that he was there on Sunday for a service, there was standing room only but there were still places to park outside, they do not seem to have a parking problem. He wculd like to look at this as more of a commercial building and that the church is going to rent it. He would not like to see Target being used for parking, it is more appropriate to use otlier commercial areas across the street on Chaparral. Commissioner Bristol advised that is why he asked the question earlier. He sees it as a commercial building. He does not feel a manager from Target can do anything about the parking agreement. They have seen a lot of churches that go different direr,tions and felt they should limit the number of students. Greg McCafferty advised the code also requires roof-mounted equipment in the Scenic Corridor be part of the advertisement and this was not part of the advertisement for the CUP. An option would be to have it on the ground or advertise it to include it. Commissioner Koos stated that plus the fact that a licensed Tra~c Engineer needs to prepare the parking study. Commissioner Bosfwick stated he would not qualify it as a parking study. Clarified that the other commercial properties with roof-mounted equipment were advertised. Greg McCafferty advised the Scenic Corridor zoned for commercial requires that regardless where i; is at. Selma Mann stated Section 18.06.020 indicates, "Where the Planning Director finds that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the site of the use to be served which would render strict conformance with lhe provisions of the subsection unreasonable. Said required off street parking may be provided adjacent to or within close proximity to said site ~as provided hereunder. All property used for such off site parking shall be under joint ownership or under agreement approved as determined by the City Attorney. Said agreement shall be recorded by the Office of the County Recorder and a recorded copy thereof filed in the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any building permits:' Then it goes on into the requirements of that. City Attorney's office would require evidence that the signatory from Target was authorized to enter into such an agreement, that there is a provision in there that the agreement could not be terminated with prior written notice to the City of Anaheim so that a rehearing on the matter could be scheduled. There would be a number of other things with regard to the enforcement of the agreement that they would also look at. The section with regard to the variances indicates that any petition for such variance shall City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20, 1999 Page 30 be accompanied by a parkirg study prepared by an independent traffic engineer, licensed by the State of California selected by the Ciiy Traffic and Transportation Manager or for varlances that do not exceed 10% of the requirements of the chapter or for uses which require 30 or fewer parking spaces, such other study as approved by the City's Traffic and Transportation Manager and provided at the petitioners sole expense. Commissioner Bostwick recommended a continuance until January 31, 2000 so the applicant couid obtain a parking study and agreements prepared to the satisfaction of the Traffic and Transportation Manager. Selma Mann stated the agreements themselves are ordinarily evaluated following the approval. They do not require anyone to be entering into or recording agreements before they have some sort of an approval on the property, which is a condition of an approval. However, it is the parking study that must be prepared by the appropriate professicnal that must be done prior to the evaluation. Greg Hammill offered an explanati~n why they did the study the way they did. They took a literal interpretation of your parking ordinance assuming that they were going to cram their Sunday school full of students. He analyzed it that way to come up with the numbers that he did. Due to those numbers they thought they needed to get a certain amount of spaces outside of their property. In addition, the property to the south was another 99 spaces. 7hey needed something in addition to meet that. They did not know whether they would ever have those rooms full of students. They would like to have the conditions for the amount of students raised from 100 to 150 which is more compatible with Rancho Santiago's plans, but if that is a requirement then they would certainly cumply. Chairperson Boydstun suggested a 4 to 6 week continuance. Greg Hammill thought a 6-week continuance would be sufficient and asked Mr. McCafferty if it would it be an automatic readvertisement for the roof-mounted equipment, Greg NicCafferty, Senior Planner responded as long as there was a date certain for a continuance then staff would readvertise to that date with the inclusion of the roof-mounted equipment. Greg Hammill asked for clarification of what the parking study should address. Alfi•ed Yalda, Principal responded that the study should address several items. 7he amount of students they are going to ultimately have and where those students are going to be parking. They need to share the information with the property owners that are going to lease or rent the parking spaces and ensure that they are willing to do that because as he understands it that will be recorded document. For example, the building located at 145 might decide to have a night office and wouid then refuse to do that, therefore, he suggested they may want to provide them with as much information as possible because generally thzy do not go with those types of agreements because it will eliminate tFie~r own use. Greg Hammill stated there is a dilemma regarding this agreement between Dr. Rutland's business park. There were originally four buildings developed on that site and the site was then subdivided into those four parcels and sold off individually. Two of those parcels 4vere developed with parking at 6 per 1000 for medical purposes. The other two buildings were designed with parking at 4 per 1000 for office use. When Dr. Rutland purchased Building 3, the other two buildings had already been consumed that offered 6 per 1000 parking and therefore was going into a building that was under parked for his use and needed some off site parking agreement with them. Dr. Rutland approached them first, even though they knew one of the conditions of their approval was to obtain an agreement with an adjacent property owner, and they entered into this agreement and Dr. Rutland was approved for his project. Alfred Yalda stated generally the parking Code is 4 per 1000 but he has noticed that within the last several years that a many applicant exceed the parking reyuirements to meet their own needs. An City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December20,1999 Page 31 t:' example is AT&T Cellular Phone on La Palma Avenue. They noEonly met Code but also built their own parking structure of 500 parking spaces. Therefore, not knowing the issues on this particular building he thought they probably me: the Code of 4 per 1000 but their oHm needs were more than what the City required and therefore approached the applicant, but it was probably not a part of their conditions of approvaL Greg Hammilf stated that was not the way he understood their conditions of approval and their conditions of approval were for getting an off-site parking arrangement with one of their neighbors because they did not meet the 6 per 1000 for a third medical building on that site. Commissioner Koos indicated this item is going to be continued anc~ in the study the applicant would show where the parking is going as well as the locations that they are sending their parking to can actually accommodate that parking. Greg McCaffeity confirmed that was correct. With regard to the parking study the applicant needs to analyze how many spaces are required by Code for the different uses, and what their experience with the demand is based on the different hours of operation of those uses, at that point Mr. Yalda can detail that when they meet with him. Greg Hammill asked if a;aciliry that is required to provided 4 parking spaces per 1000 vacates the property after 5:00 p.m. would that parking be available for their use. Alfred Yalda responded there are instances when thal is available but keep in mind the owner may choose to have a night use of their building. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion for a continuance to February 14, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and motion ca~-ied. ~. r~tL~wiN~ i5 q SUMMARY pF THE PLANNINGCOMMISSION AGTION: ` - OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke with concerns regarding the proposed project. ACTION: Continued subject request to the February 14, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to conduct a parking study by a registered traffic engineer and to advertise the request to allow roof-mounted eauipment. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 53 minutes (4:39-5:32) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20,1999 Page 32 10b. OWNER: Gilbert Bershatsky, 2529 Brandon Lane, Burleson, Texas 76028 Everett Miller and Elma Miller, 5321 EI Parque Street, Long Beach, CA 90815 AGENT: Evergreen Devco Inc., Attn: Tim 0'Neil, 2920 East Camelback Road #100, Phoenix, Arizona 85016 LOCATION: 940-956 South Brookhurst Street. Property is 1.30 acre located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Brookhurst Street. Waiver of (a) minimum number of parking spaces and (b) minimum setback abutting a residential zone to demolish an existing restaurant and commercial retail center to construct a drive-though pharmacy. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC99-228 SR1138JD.DOC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner introduced Variance No. 4383 by indicating this is a request is to demolish an existing restaurant and commercial retail center and to construct a drive through pharmacy with waivers. Applicant's Statement: Tim 0'Neil, representing Evergreen Devco Inc., 2920 E. Camelback Road, Suite 100, Phoenix, Arizona 85016, stated subject property is located at the nortfieast corner of Brookhurst and Ball Road and that they have attempted to combine three individual parcels to create a comprehensive redevelopment to accommodate a full size Walgreens Pharmacy with a drive-through. The corner, Parcel 1, is currently vacant and they are in the process of c~nducting an environmental clean up of that parcel which is to o~;;ur concurrent the redevelopment of the project. Parcel 2 currently has a strip center with one tenant and the rest of the strip center is vacant. Parcel 3 has a vacant restaurant. Parcel 1 is owned by the owner. The Parcel 2 has one leasee, which is the current tenant in the strip center. Parcel 3 is a subground leasee, a tenant under that leasee and a subtenant under that leasee so they are dealing with four entities on the third parcel. Walgreens typically operates a prototype 15,120 square foot building with two drive-through lanes and a liquor department. In accessing and surveying the sight they know that they would not be abl~ to accommodate the standard prototype building and meet all of the City requirements and present a"win- win" situation with the adjacent neighbors and businesses. "('herefore, they decided to eliminate the request for the alcohol permit to save square footage in that area, Then they decided to eliminate one of the two drive-through lanes and came up with a site plan that reduces the size of the prototype by about approximately 1,000 square feet. This resulted in challenging two Code requirements, one of those is the parking requirement which is 5.5 per 10Q0. They did fit within a 10% variance so they requested an administrative variance for that. Three of the spaces that they will ultimately have will be sacrificed for an undetermined time to accommodate for the environmental reclamation unit. The second variance City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20, 1999 Page 33 requested is for a partial landscape setback variance beginning at this point (indicated on the exhibit displayed) on the east property line and running along the east property line to the northeast comer of the site. They were ablE; to fit 6 feet of the 10 feet required for that variance. In an effort to respond to the intention and objecttve of the Code it was decided to propose an 8-foot screen wall and a landscape buffer. Their drive-I.hrough lane is going to be located there. They propose to instali 32 trees along this property line as opposed to the 20 that are required which will help with the noise attenuation. Public Testimony: Dr, Robert Nevin, 926 ~outh Brookhurst Street, stated his property is directly adjoining to the north of subject property. He was anly aware of this request three business days ago, when he received a notice by mail of this public hearing. They have had nothing but problems with the adjoining bar where delivery trucks and customers drive down his concrete entryway v~hich resulted in it being repaved twice. He has three times more than the parking code requires because they wanted to ensure that they had more than enough parking required by Code. He felt the applicant should obtain more property. He was opposed to what ~.he applicant is doing with the footage of the building. The applicant is providing 37 feet between their property and his at certain points. But at other points when they want to have trash pick-up the applicant cut it down to considerably less feet that is being used. He did not feel there is considerable planning in regards tu the neighbors. No one has consulted him on this and he has suffered immeasurably from the property that is there now. He welcomes a well-developed project along side of him but not to where it will be more detrimental. The proposed build~~~g will hide his building and he has been there for over 20 years. Why should the applicant be al~owed to have 6 or 7 signs when he has only one sign? The applicant should bu~ld the size building that is appropriate for the amount of parking that is acceptable to Code now and when Yhey get the other 5 spaces they can expand their building. Robert Linn, 507 Meadowbrook, Anaheim, explained about the size of trees that Walgreens proposes. Several years ago they had a major investor promise to landscape a piece of property located on Lincoln Avenue but it never happened. He wanted to know how the Redevelopment Agency felt about this particular project. Chairperson Boydstun responded that staff sent a memo to the Redevelopment Commission for review. Commissioner Bostwick stated the Redevelopment Commission's statement was that the proposed pharmacy was compatible with the General Commercial Land Use Designation. If approved they rec~mmend that pursuant to the Brookhurst Commercial Corridor Overlay Zone strset trees be planted as listed in the Brookhurst Corridor Design and Planning Recommendation study final tree selection will be made in conjunc:io~ with the Community Development Division, Parks and Recreation Departments. Mr. Linn stated he was concerned with the trees being instalied and used the example of Fry's Electronics which he felt those trees do not look good at that site. Chairperson Boydstun assured Mr. Linn that Walgreens has planted their trees on all of their other projects to meet Code. Esther Wallace, Chairman of the WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council) stated they are in favor of this project. WAND has met with Walgreens several times and the thing that impressed them was that the developer followed through on what they said they would d~ without changing anything. They like the parking lot on the corner of Ball Road and Brookhurst Street because it gives an open space that you can look through. They are aware of the waivers, which are minima! fFhey have a few parking spacQs less, which they do not feei, is going to be a problem and also the landscaping on the City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20, 1999 Page 34 one side is short and it only affects one spot. They are pleased that they are not requesting a liquor license. They feel that it would be a definite improvement to the neighborhood. There have been many problems with this corner and they have come before Commission several times with plans that they were opposed to from other developers. However, they are pieased with this proposal. The appiicant has been forthright with WAND and therefore they recommend Commission approve this project. Everett H. Miller Jr., 5321 EI Parque St, Long Beach, stated he is representing his father, Everett N, Miller, and myself. They own the two parcels on the corner and their family tn~st owns the balance c~f the property. They have had several proposals prior to this one. They have been workiny with Walgreens since May or June of this year because they felt that this was the best use of the property and for the community. He indicated they are in support of this project. Anna Cook stated she represents the owners of the ground lease of these properties. She works for Bay Harbor Management. She thought this proposal is very positive to the area and the redevelopment. She understands Dr. Nevin's concern about his business. They have received payments under his ground lease. Unfortunately with his business not being ooen and the building being vacant dpes cause a problem and a concern to the surrounding area, which is why they are definitely in favor of this new development. I! would enhance the City Of Anaheim. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Mr. 0'Neil addressed the issues brought up by the neighbors. They have put together this plan and knocked on every door in the residential area and deliverEd conceptual plans and descriptions in advance before they were requested to do so. They researched and found out that WAND existed. Met as early as possible and addressed WAND issues. He was in constant contact with City staff asking questions and making an effort to address every concern. This is a very difficuit area to put together a plan like the one proposed. They meant no disrespect by not noticing the adjacent northerly property owner in the beginning. What they try to do with these projects is notice the people that they expect to perceive their plans or projects as an adverse affect. Walgreens has been 6 years in a row the number one most respected food and drug retailer on the Fortune 500 in Fortune magazine. There is a zero setback requirement in the Code on the north property line. They would not propose to put a building adjacent to that property line because they recognize that there is a use there. The temporary parking that would be provided would be 72 of 80, They did not have anything to do with the contamination on the corner. They are just agreeing to sacrifice a part af their plan and this multi-million- dollar development to have the eyesore, that some one else caused, and clean it up. There will be 75 permanent parking spaces pravided. He addressed the conditions of approval as follows: • Condition No. 5 regarding the signage. They took the signage Code, which has a great deal mor~ square footage of signage then they proposed originally for this project, then took their prefile comments and the comments that they received from WAND and scaled that signage down. They eliminated a duplicate word on two elevations, one which was very important to the business, ancl scaled dovm the general square footage of the entire request. They would be willing to r2turn as a Reports and Recommendations Item and work to modify the signage to the satisfaction of the staff. . Condition No. 26 is regarding an additional discretionary review procedure that they would be requested to go through. This is a similar request as it relates to the Reports and Recommendations process. They are taking a project that is Code and Zoning compliant and it has been supported by almost everyone they have shown it to. It seems somewhat extreme that they go through an additional discretionary review and extend their risk based on a subjective process. He would be City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Ackion Agenda December 20, 1999 Page 35 willing to work with the Reports and Recommendations Committee but he made a special request and that if they are to submit a finai building, elevations and color scheme their praposai will be the same thing that they have submitted so far. They would be glad to do that but he would request that they condition that so that they couid have staff sign off as opposed to going back to Commission as a consent item and then as to City Council. • Condition No. 29 is another condition that they cannot accommodate and do not have the authority to do so. That would be to limit the hours of the drive-through to be closed fr~m 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. This is central to the strategy of the store. If they are c~oing to have one drive-through lane and the amount of screening that they are providing where they can provide an acoustical engineering report that stated that the noise from their drive-through speaker is below ambient at 30 to 35 feet it is hard to ~nd grounds to limit the hours of use for that drive-through, when they know from their research that people do not plan when to get sick and prefer not to come into the store. A large target market of their clientele corsists of senior citizen and the handicapped. He requested that this condition be deleted. Chairperson Boydstun questioned the drive-through hours of operation. Mr. 0'Neil responded that it would be a 24-hour drive-through, to them the operation of the store includes the operation of the drive-through. it is ;nat central to the operation of the store. And in this case any negative affects that might be caused by the use of the drive-through seem to be fully mitigated. Mr. 0'Neil continued with Condition No. 30 regarding the use of carts. Their storage for carts is inside as shown on their floor plan. • Condition No. 31 regarding vending machines. They have plans for one ~-vater machine as they have at every Walgre2ns store that wruld be at the front porch within the line of the canopy and be covared. They requested that be allowed as well. • Regarding securi:y cameras in the store. Walgreens has an internal security camera system that they prefer over mounted security cameras on the outside of the front door or the outside of the drive- through lane. He requested it return as a Reports and Recommendations item so he can provide a detail of their system to make sure it is compatible o;~th what is being requested. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked Mr. 0'Nei~ if he is stating that their internal camera would record activity outside of the building as well. Mr. 0'Neil responded that he could not say exactly what area the front door camera records as it relates to the outside of the front door. Their system is generally for the inside of the store. He would have to obtain more details on it. Cc~mmissioner Koos stated he did not agree with deleting Condition No. 26 because while they are thankful that a good development ~s going into this property, he would need to see some color renderings to ensure that it is of the highest quality that can be given in the Redevelopment area. Chairperson Boydstun suggested that he could bring that in at the same time that he brings in the sign plans. Mr. 0'Neil stated it was a recommendation made to him that if might be something that would be livable to the City, that is why he presented it that way. However, if it is a matter that is going to delay the proposal then they are willing to comply. Commissioner Koos explained that it was a standard condition for Commissian to review thase plans City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December20,199y Page 36 Commissioner Bristol addressed the applicanYs concems regarding Condition No. 31, which deals with vending machines. Mr. 0'Neil explained that their water vending machine was the kind that you fill your own jug and it dispenses water. This was foilowed by further discussion from various Commissioners. The discussion concluded with Commissioner Bristol recommending Condition No. 31 be modify, if the store is open 24 hours then it would be better to keep the water vending machine inside the store. He explained to Mr. O'Neil that Commission and the City are trying to raise the qualiry of the street and bring the uses inside where they belong, such as the public phones. Mr. 0'Neil concurred with Commissioner Brisfol's recommendation. Greg McCafferty recommended modifying Condition No. 6(see verbiage below). • • • • • • IN FAVOR: 3 people spoke i~ favor of the proposal. OPPOSITION: 2 people spoice with concerns regarding th , proposed project. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Variance No. 4383 with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Deleted Condition No. 29 Mod;fied the fullowing conditions of approval: 5. Th~at final sign plans and modifications thereto shall be submitte~ to the Planning Department for Planning Cammission revievs~ as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. 6. That the prop~sed monument sign ~hall include the numeric ac;dress in nine inch high letters as required by code and shall incorpora;e stucco around the sign cabinet. This sign shall be relocated outside the of the line of sight triangle and approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Commission review as an "Reports and Recommendations" item. 31. That ths water vending machine shall be located inside. Added the following condition of approval: That prior to issuance of building permits, Closed Circuit Television (CCN) security cameras shall be provided with coverage of the lobby entrance, pi~: ~~nacy, and drive- through. Recorded CCN tapes should be kept for a minimum of thirty (30) days before being recorded over. Said information shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits and said plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Anaheim Police Department. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20,1999 Page 37 ~ .~ ...,., . . , . . .. ,. . ,,. .. _ ~ ' ' - .':~t-. ..._ . ~. ,,.: ~ ,_. . ~~__,: . .,.,_ ~ ~ . :.. . . , . . ~~ r .1, VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner /~lmold absent) Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 40 mfnutes (5:33-6:13) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20, 1999 Page 38 I 11b. OWNER: Seaward Properties, 923 North Main Street, Orange, CA 92667 AGENT: Stuart Architecture, Attn: Ernest Stuart, 5031 Birch Street, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOGATION: 1500.1550.1551.1f00.1601.1650.1700 and 1701 East Babbitt Avenue and 1531_and 1551 South State Colleae Boulevard. Property is 11.59 acres located at the northwest and southwest comers of Babbitt Avenue and State College Boulevard. Waiver of (a) minimum sf~uctural setback abutting a local street, and (b) minimum number of parking spaces to establish a previously-approved 10-parcel industrial subdivision. VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. ~~ Continued to January 19, 2000 SR1029TW.DOC (Item No. 8 was momentarily trailed in order to continue this item. j Chairperson aoydstun asked whether there was anyone in the audience present for this item. There was one person in the audience who chose not give testimony but indicated they would return on January 19, 2000. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion for a continuance to January 19, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and motion carried. • • • • • ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 19, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the petitioner time to provide staff with a revised parking study to reflect the accurate number of proposed parking spaces. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20, 1999 Page 39 THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:15 P.M. TO MONDAY, JAiVUARY 3, 2000 A711:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW Submitted by: C~ v~.y.a~ Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary , ~'~..r..r.~ p ~ . Simonne Fannin Senior O~fice Specialist ~ecei~red and approved by the Planning Commission on ~'-' ~ q~' O~ City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 20,1999 Page 40