Loading...
Minutes-PC 1994/10/17 ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1994 10:00 A.M. - PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF PRESENTATION REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGN PROVISIONS - PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING PRESENTATION (NO PUBLIC Ii:STIMONY ACCEPTED) i 1:30 P•M• - PUBLIC HEARINGS BEGIN (PUBLIC TESTIMONY) COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, CALDWELL, HENNINGER, MAYER, MESSE, PERAZA, TAIT STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Deputy City Attorney Greg Hastings Zoning Division Manager Jonathan Borrego Senior Planner Alfred Yalda Principal Transportation Planner Melanie Adams Associate Civ(I Engineer Greg McCafferty Associate Planner ,,_ Bruce Freeman Code Enforcement , F ., Margarita Solorio Word Processing Operator Edith Harris Planning Commission Support Supervisor PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE P LANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have live minutes to present their evidence. Additional time will be granted upon request ii, in the opinion of the Commission, such additional time will produce evidence important to the Commission's consideration. 2. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be given ten minutes to present their case unless additional time (s requested and the corr,plexity of the matter warrants. The Commission's considerations are not determined by the length of time a participant speaks, but rather by what is said. 3. SteH Reports are part of the evir:ence deemed received by the Commission in each hearing. Copies era available to she public prior to the meeting. 4. Tha Commission will withhold questions until the public hearing is closed. 5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing if, in its opinion, the ends of lalrnass to all concerned will be served. 6. A!I documents prosented to the Planning Commission tar review in connection with any hearing, including photographs or other acceptable visual representations or non~documentary evidence, shell be retained by the Commission for the public record and shall be available for public :~spections. 7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will ba allowed to speak on items of Interest which era within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and/or agenda items. Each l speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (6) minutes to speak. .. ac101794.wp u :_ Es E 1a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 93-9411 tc. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3687 OWNER: WILLIAM TAORMINA, P.O. BOX 309, Anaheim, C;; y.•d15 AGENT: DAVID STOLL, 327 N. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 Denied Granted, unconditionally Resolution for approval failed to carry LOCATION: 423 North Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately 1.08 acres located on the southwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Sycamore Street. Reclassification tram the CG and PD•C Zones to the CL Zone. To permit a bicycle racing track with accessory uses, including a retail area, concession stand, and picnic area. Continued from June 13, July 1~, August B, and September 7, 1994 Planning Commission meetings. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC94138 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition Chairwoman Boydstun declared a conflict of interest. PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: David Stoll, 17256 Disson Road, Tustin, CA, explained since the last meeting, he met with Joel Fick and staff, particularly Traffic Eng(neering, and thought he and Mr. Yalda has worked out solutions to the parking problems. He explained the property owner, architect and sound engineer are present to answer any questions. OPPOSITION COMMENTS: Esther Viljek, 1296 N. Lighthouse Lane, Anaheim, made the follow(ng comments: a) The noise analysis does not mention the residences across Sycamore Street and the parking lot which could affect residences on all sidos. The analysis just deals with the residential uses adjacent to the west property line. It does not analyze the noise effect on any second or third story units. b) The noise criteria for the City of Anaheim is 60 dba and the study itself dismisses potential noise impacts by stating that the City of Anaheim noise criteria only applies to the public address system. That means the study is discounting crowd noise, parking noise, starting gate noise and the public address system. They measured the noise of the riders on the track which is the least Impact noise of the entire project. Page 2 c) Even though with mitigation they have reduced the noise level to 59 dba, that with the ("`~ parking lot noise and crowd noise, it would be well over the 60 dbas. d) The report states that the proposed public address system, while adequate on paper, would appear to be too optimistic for real world operation; that just the proposed amplifier's' ability to provide in excess of the design power output, would tend to suggest that the temptation to increase speaker volumes will be all too real. e) The design mitigation limits power output from the amplifier to each speaker, and asked if that means a separate watt meter limiter will be installed for each speaker? How would this be monitored and controlled onca it is installed? f) The Gordon Brickem Noise Analysis summarizes by saying that the entire noise impact zone of the project needs to be addressed and not just parts of it. g) Landscapin3 was one of the methods recommended to reduce noise anu visual intrusion; however, land-aping does not provide significant noise reduction and it can't be guaranteed to t~ in place 365 day's a year and will not offer sound shielding until the landscaping matures. h) The analysis submitted by the petitioner refers to a proposed 4-toot earthern berm and an embankment and indicates that will provide a noise barrier, but calculations are not included for the analysis of the property line noise barrier. (She Celt those calculations should be provided.) i) The starting gate noise calculations continue to be an Important missing link in this entire survey. The starting gate has not been designed, but she thought a gate that is going to drop every fifteen seconds, will have a significant impact on what the applicant is going to do. j) A noise monitoring program needs to be initiated ii this project is approved; first, to verify the success of the design mitigation measures upon completion of the project and then, hopefully, at six-month intervals, to ensure that such mitigation measures are properly maintained. Nothing is bu(It into this project right now to Insure that the 60 dbas will be maintained by the applicant. k) Concerning dust, at one of the August meetings, the neighbors presented concerns relating to the project, using the Orange BMX facility as their benchmark and one concern brought forth was the level of dust, its effect on the neighborhood and the environment. The levels of dust at the Orange facility were controlled only throuylr continual watering and spraying of the area. k) The applicant dismissed the concerns and stated dust and dirt would not be a problem because he was using different materials on this track. I) A letter was sent to Joel Fick from Mr. Stoll dated October 7, 1994, which states regarding the dust problems that they will be watering down the track as needed to ensure adust-free environment. Watering was ruled out by Mr. Stoll in the August meeting and this statement is totally contrary to what he had stated in previous meetings and he is once again changing the scope of the project based on his need and further demonstrating his disregard for the neighborhood. m) The Commission should request the applicant to come forth with the design of the starting gate and show how it is going to impact the project. n) Restrooms were never on the original footprint she saw based on the attachment to the staff report. It now states restrooms were relocated from 411 S. Anaheim Boulevard to the properly line directly next door to her dad's property. 411 S. Anaheim Boulevard is a residence so she was not quite sure how a residence was going to be used as a restroom. She thought placement of the restrooms is very o) inappropriate. Concerning parking, she grew up on Zeyn Street and Lemon and saw many Elks Club events in the area and even though the Adele Street and Sycamore Street entrances to the parking lot were available, they always used Zeyn, Sycamore and Lemon ~~ Page 3 Streets. r+~O p) When the Set Free organization was in the auto/transportation or warehouse building, there was Inadequate parking and Adele Street, Lemon Street, and Sycamore Street were used. She did not feel the applicant has adequately met the parking criteria. q) This is a great concept, but it doesn't belong in a residential area, 10 feet away from people trying to live normal lives. r) The consequences of a 12-hour a day, 84-hour a week operation with this many concerns will greatly impact the quality of living in this area of Anaheim. Noise lovels, if correctly calculated, will exceed 60 dba; Inadequate parking, dust, and the operating hours ail contribute negatively to tha area. s) This project belongs in an Industrial area where the applicant would be free to do many of the things which are restricting this use. She urged the Commission to deny this project, thus insuring the quality of life for the residents. Mr. Cheng, 1265 Mannessero Street, Ste. 303, Anaheim, stated he has concerns about the parking at 127 W. Adele. The plan shows the parking lot as being contiguous to the sub(ect property, and the staff report indicates that is being considered as off-site parking so it was not included in the advertisement. The City parking standards would requ(re a 10-foot landscaped buffer zone along the west and north sides of the parking lot. He thought the parking at 127 W. Adele should be considered as on-site parking and should be developed according to the standards and those standards should be a condition of approval of the project. He stated he thought this is a good project, but it just doesn't fit into a residential neighborhood. PETITIONER'S REBUTTAL Mr. Stoll stated regarding the starting gate that he does have a drawing and apologized for not submitting it in time to be included with the staff report, but he had just gotten it this morning. He gave copies to the Commissioners and staff. He stated concerning dust that he did not remember ever stating that the dust would or would not be a problem, but that he has always said it can be handled. He stated he did not know if Ms. Viljek went to the Orange track on a day when the winds were very strong, but he has been to many tracks at many races, national and Iccal events, and dust is not a concern. He stated if the track is properly maintained and properly watered, there is no dust concern and it is a matter of people getting careless and not taking care of the track. He explained the restrooms being placed on the property is a result of a recommendation by Joel Fick which was to eliminate the necessity of going through another permit process. Commissioner Peraza stated if he remembers correctly, that Mr. Stoll had said he was going to use a material that would not have to be watered. Mr. Stoll stated they will be using aclay/dirt combination and it will not need to be watered as often as other tracks, but it will ba watered, as needed. Commissioner Caldwell asked if the clay/dirt combination is similar to what is used on a baseball diamond and Mr. Stoil responded he was not sure. Comm(ssioner Caldwell continued that he took some things on faith and one was that there would not be a dust problem. He added if he remembered correctly, Mr. Stoll was emphatic that there would not be a dust problem and he did not remember anything being said about having to water the track down. 1 He added he is concerned because now there is a potential for a dust problem. He understands this use would be something good for the kids in the neighborhood, but the 1 ~ Page 4 j { 'a ~g a Commission has to weigh the negative impacts this is going to have on the neighbors and f"1 pointed out it is right to the limit concerning noise and parking and now there is potential for dust, so there are a lot of negatives on something that could have been good for the kids. He thought this was going to be a synthetic track. Commissioner Messe stated clay and dirt sound like "dust" to him. Mr. Stoll stated again it is only a dust problem if the track is not properly maintained. He added they are not going to spend this much money and time and effort and then not maintain the track properly. Ted Lindberg, Staff Engineer for Mastre Greve Associates, the consultants hired to do the acoustical study, 13801 Shirley Street, #64, Garden Grove, 92463, stated he was just handed the study by Gordon Brickem which basically reviewed their report that brought up some concerns. Concerning the site description only referencing the residential unit to the west'of the project, he explained that was because it was his understanding that that was the only problem and the only stumbling block sound-wise and acoustically to the project, so that was the only one addressed. He understood everyone else had agreed with the project. That is why the mitigation and noise level at that residential property was addressed and they did not look at the apartments or the other areas around because they understood they were not an Issue. Regarding the analysis of the design level of 60 dbas, he explained it was his understanding that the City's Noise Ordinance 6.72 only refers to amplified sound and that is the issue that was mitigated. Commissioner Henninger asked if they tried to determine how much noise the activity would make? Mr. Lindberg responded the amplified sound is the only thing the noise ordinance states is limited and he did not know how to determine a noise level of people in general and there Is no standard for crowd nose which indicates that it can only ~e at a certain level. There is no real way to make a determination and no real way to m(tigate it. Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner, stated the closest receptor was the west property line and that is what the focus of the study was supposed to concentrate on and if there are receptors further away, the noise would be less. Chairman Pro Tempore Tait asked if the noise would be less in other directions and Mr. Lindberg responded, the further away in any direction, the lower the noise would be. Regarding the noise measurement survey, Mr. Lindberg stated they did not measure the public address system because the system was not the same that is going to be installed at this track. The rest of the analysis was based on the equipment, the speakers and the location of the speakers. Commissioner Mcsse asked ii a limiter will be put on the 2-watt output speakers. Mr. Lindberg stated they could put a limiter on it but he understood they are going to hook up 14, if not more, speakers, to one amplifier which will Itself limit the power. He stated the analysis indicated that it needed to be limited to 2 watts and that would not be a problem. He added they will find a way to limit it and can measure the output and it is not a problem to Page 5 install a limiter if needed. He stated they could not address crowd noise and only measured and ~a, analyzed the bicycle noise that was going to be at the facility. They did not address the starting gate because they did not have any information on it and that would have to be looked at. He noted he had Just received the plan today for that starting gate. Mr. Lindberg stated a 6-foot wall will be adequate to mitigate the noise on the west since it runs perpendicular between the noise source and the residential unit and it runs perpendicular to the street, so it will r.ot affect the noise level across Sycamore. He added they did not analyze that and there would probably be more Impact from traffic on Sycamore than there would be from those speakers. Regarding :lie seco~~d and third floor levels, he stated the noise standard only states that it has to be between three and six feet from the ground. He stated it is correct that trees and bushes do not provide adequate noise reduction, and the only part of the landscaping they did use as a mitigation recommendation was the berm itself and berms have proven to be effective buffers. He added a berm is actually more effective as a noise barrier than walls. Commissioner Messe asked if Mr. Lindberg had seen the plans and if he could approve them. Mr, Lindberg responded he had not seen the latest plans, but that he could approve it with the recommendations they had made. Commissioner Messe stated he did not think the berm covered the whole area and he Just wanted to clarify that Mr. Lindberg had not approved the plan. Mr. Lindberg explained all the calculations had not been provided to the City, but are available if needed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: Commissioner Messe: Asked the reasons for not including the Adele Street property as a part of this application when it is part of the project, and asked staff if it was included in the advertisement? Jonathan Borrego explained it was not included in this application. The parking does meet Code as shown, but if the property was zoned for commercial uses, more landscaping would be required; however, the property is zoned RM-1200 (residential) so the t0-foot separation is not re~~ilred as would be typical with a commercial parking lot adjacent to a residential zone. He responded to Commissioner Henninger that it does have the landscaping required within the parking lot itself. Commissioner Mayer: The applicant had indicated at the August 8th meeting that the starting yate would be made of rubber, but the diagram submitted does not indicate the material of the gate. It appears to fall onto a concrete slab. Mr. Stoll responded that he had stated that the gate they had originally chosen to use was the older style of gate which would fall onto a rubber mat, but this gate will fall into a pocket of air creating absolutely no noise. The concrete is underneath, but where the gate actually comes ~~ Page 6 down, it has to stay slat with the start of the ramp so there will be a pocket of air underneath. f!°~ He explained he did not know what the gate is made of, but thought it would probably be metal. Commissioner Caldwell: a) The exhibit indicates there will be a compacted earth starting mound. (Mr. Stoll responded there will be compacted dirt underneath the concrete.) Commissioner Caldwell clarified the riders would take off on concrete and transition onto the clay track. b) Referred to Paragraph 2 of the Gordon Brickem Acoustical Study and asked about the noise level for crowd noise and parking lot noise. Greg McCafferty responded that Chapter 6.72 deals with amplified noise and Chapter 6.70 deals with sounJ pressure levels altogether. The study takes into consideration all the noise generated from that commercial activity on this property and the applicant's study did not take all those noise factors into consideration. c) Asked if the noise level is 60 dbas at the prop^rty line or is it more and is it correct that the use will exceed noise levels and that further mitigat(on is needed. Greg McCafferty thought Brickem is assuming the most significant noise would be from the PA system, so that would be the primary measurement taken at the property line. He added the bikers don't make noise and the only other sound that would be generated would be if there was a large tournament with a large crowd attending. The public address system is physically the only measurable impact that was measured. d) With the knowledge of the activity being proposed on this property, asked if it would ~ be sate to assume that the 60 dbas would not be exceeded with the amplified sound and the crowd noise at the property line. Mr. Lindberg responded he did not think the 60 dbas would be exceeded. He explained he had made the measurements himself at the Orange facility and the night he was there the crowd was surprisingly quiet. He stated the loudest thing at that facility was the public address system for the whole evening. He explained the same mitigation measures that would mitigate the noise from the PA system would also mitigate the crowd noise. Commissioner Henninger a) Asked about noise at the property lines around the parking lot. Mr. Lindberg expla(ned he did not know where the parking lots were located and did not do an analysis since he did not know the distances to the residential properties, etc. b) Asked what a typical sound reading would be (or a car when it starts. Mr. Lindberg stated the vehicles could be as loud as 60 to 65 dbas, and could even exceed 65 dbas, to a person standing 3 to 6 feet away and at IS feet, it could be about 53 dbas. c) Clarified that the parking lot is existing and Mr. Borrego explained it has been used for parking in the past. Page 7 d) Asked about walls, pointing out he does not see a wall on the plans. (Kevin Bass, ~"'1 Assistant Planner, stated there is a fence on the west adjacent to the apartments and there is no fence or wall along the north property line and there are buildings and a wood fence along the east property line.) Chairman Pro Tempore Tait: a) Asked about the starting gate. Mr. Lindberg explained if the starting gate stops suspended the way they have it drawn, he did not see that there would be any problem. He explained the problem with the gate at the Orange facility was the fact that the large metal grate smacked against the ground. b) There was a question brought up about the use not being properly advertised to include all the property. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated he thought the surrounding property owners were notified from the Elks Lodge site and a second ma(Iing was done on the 300-foot distance from the parking lot on Adele Street. Commissioner Messe a) Clarified that if the parking lot was part of the application and the property was commercially zoned, there would have to be a waver of the 10-foot landscaped separation from the north and west. Commissioner Peraza (a) Asked about the offsite parking. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, responded there are two lots available to them which would provide approximately 54 parking spaces, one at 117 W. Cypress, approximately 21 spaces, and 320 N. Anaheim Boulevard, approximately 33 parking spaces. He explained the existing use at the Anaheim Boulevard location is an automobile body shop and he did not know where they would park. Apparently those 33 spaces would be available after hours, (f needed. He added based on his discussions with the apF~,cant, the majority of the peak hours for this track is when the other businesses would be closed. b) Asked how often they would anticipate using the offsite parking lots. Mr. Stoll stated approximately 17% of the time they are open. He stated 75 parking spaces are adjacent to the property and that is probably all the parking they will need 80-85% of the time. They are going to be open 12 hours a day, but that is just for open practicr and there might be 5-10 people there, and those numbers will vary. The overflow parking would only be needed on those nights they race and that would be two evenings during the week and one day on the e+~eekend. The evening races will start about 6 p.m. and on the weekend, they would probably be starting at 10 or 11 a.m. He explained they can only race 3 times a week, explaining thera are other tracks in the area and by agreement they all race 3 times a week on different days. c) Concerned that patrons wouid park on the street because it is a public street when the closest parking lot is full, and he did not think that could be controlled. Mr. Stoll explained they will direct people to the offsite parking lots and will do ~' Page 8 everything they can to ensure that they do park on the available lots. He stated they f!~, will have an employee onsite and when the lot becomes full, they will inform people where to park. d) Thought this property owner owns the vacant lot across the street on Sycamore and Anaheim and asked why they did not use that property for parking. Mr. Stoll stated the owner is involved with the Sons of Italy organization where there is parking available and there is a lot right across the street which is owned by the City of Anaheim and it is vacant. They did make a request to rent or lease that property for parking but at that time the City was not interested. Melanie Adams, Assistant Civil Eng!neer, explained that vacant lot owned by the City would be offered to other public agencies first and is not available for sale to the general public at this time. Commissioner Henninger stated the Commission has spent a lot of time on this project trying to squeeze it onto this property and that worried him and asked if this is the right use for th(s property. Chairman Pro Tempore Tait stated this is not a perfect use, but chances are, it wiii not go anywhere else and he felt it is a needed use for the 14-15 year old youth and even though it is not perfect, he would be in favor. Mr. Stoll stated this is definitely not the best solution for this property and the owner does ha~~e other plans for this property in the future. They are trying to offer something in the interim (from 2 to 5 years) and want something positive to the City and they plan to take very good care of l the facility and will do everything in their power to ensure the safety and not have conflicts with the neighbors or the City. They have tried to address all the concerns and feel if given the chance, it will be a use the Commission can be proud of. Commissioner Caldwell stated he has to ask himself if he would want this use neM door to his property; that he realizes it would be a positive thing for the kids but did not believe the pe~~•ce and harmony of the neighborhood should be disrupted. He thought fron. all he has heard there is every chance that this will have a negative impact on the neighborhood around it. Mr. Stoll stated originally he submitted a letter from Michael Tucker and he was in favor of the request; that they did meet at his house and 8 to 12 neighbors did have concerns. He stated they tried to show those neighbors what was being proposed and offered to take them to other facilities. In addition, a petition in favor was submitted with approximately 75 signatures of people who live in the area. Commissioner Messe stated he thought they have done a good job with the track itself but his concern is mainly parking and this would not be allowed if that parking lot was zoned commercial and a setback would be required. He pointed out other similar requests (i.e. the Assistance League) have been denied with parking proposed without a setback adjacent to residential property. Mr. Stoll stated before Mr. Cheng constructed his apartments, that was a parking lot and it will continue to be a parking lot and he did not think this property owner should be hurt because ~ somebody else chose to build next to his parking lot. i f~ Page 9 +( I Commissioner Messe stated he thought it would be a great project, but we have not been successful trying to make it fit this site. Chairman Pro Tempore Tait stated them is condition proposed limiting the approval to one year and if it doesn't work, then it could be closed. Mr. Stoll stated they have agreed if this use doesn't work, they will close it. Cortimissioi~er Messe stated he would love to see this use go in, but not if is infringes on the property rights of others. Commissioner Henninger stated originally the petitioner had committed to providing rental bicycles at a very affordable price and providing this activity so that it would be affordable to the immediate community and he did not see a condition proposed to that affect. In addition, a sound wall should be provided on the north side of the Adele Street parking lot and the west wall should be high enough to act effectNely ,ts a sound barrier. Commissioner Messe added there should be a condition imposed requiring limiters on the amplifiers restricting output to the speakers of 2 watts each. Commissioner Pe aza agreed those conditions should be added. Mr. Stoll responded to Commissioner Peraza that they would agree to comply with those conditions. Commissioner Messe asked that a condition be added requiring the access to both men and ladies restrooms be facing the track rather than the residential. Mr. Stoll agreed. ACTION: Commissioner Peraza offered a Motion to approve the CEOA Negative Declaration seconded by Commissioner Tait and the Motion FAILED TO CARRY with a 2-4 vote, Commissioners Caldwell, Henninger, Mayer and Messe voted nc and Commissioner Boydstun declared a conflict of interest. Commissioner Caldwell offered a Motion seconded by Commissioner Mayer and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners r'eraza and Tait voted no and Commissioner Boydstun declared a conflict of Interest) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny the CEQA Negative Declaration on the basis that this project would cause noise, dust and parking problems. Commissioner Peraza offend a resolution for approval of Reclassification No. 93-94-11 and moved for its passage and adoption. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CALDWELL, HENNINGER, MESSE, PERAZA, TAIT NOES: MAYER ABSENT: BOYDSTUN Commissioner Peraza offered a resolution for approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 3687 for a period of one year with the conditions recommended by staff in the October 17, 1994, staff report and with the following added conditions: Page 10 ,A That the proposed restrooms shall be relocated away from the western property line; ! That the tack be graded in such a manner that no port!on of it shall be higher than the finished grace of the adjacent rights of way; That the petitioner shall record a parking agreement for the satellite parking facilities that meets the satisfaction of the City's Traffic and Transportation Manager; That the petitioner shall pay the cost of any Code Enforcement Inspections needed to address potential code violations; That the operator of the facility shall provide rental bikes at a very affordable price (as stipulated during a previous public hearing); That a blr;;k wall shall be constructed along the north property line of the parking area and the existing wall located on the west side of the Adele Street parking lot shall be inspected to make sura it is adequate to act effectively as a sound barrier; On roll call, the foregoing resolution failed to carry with the following vote: AYES: PERAZA, T/..T NOES: CALDV~ELL, HENNINGER, MAYER, MESSE ABSENT: BOYDSTUN Page 11 2a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Previously Approved Approved 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3389 Readvertised Approved, as readvertised OWNER: RANK LEISURE USA INC., 5401 Kirkman Road, Ste. 200, i Orlando, Florida 32819 AGENT: ELFEND AND ASSOCIATES, 610 Newport Center Drive, Ste. 1290, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 1859 S. Manchester Avenue. Property is approximately 2.93 acres located on the southwest side of Manchester Avenue and approximately 780 feet south of the centerline of Katella Way. Petitioner requests modification to a condition of approval pertaining to the time limitation to comply with conditions of approval. Continued from the September 19, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC94-139 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Commissioner Peraza noted that both he and Commissioner Caldwell had listened to the tape of the previous hearing. PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Frank Elfend, Agent -The request is fora 2-year time extension for Rank Leisure (King Henry's Feast) in order to comply with conditions of approval and the justification is the uncertainty of the marketplace and some uncertainty regarding areawide fees. The developer has asked for some level of commitment from the City that by the time they get started, they won't have to come back and request another time extension. When they asked for the time extension, staff recommended three new conditions: 1) to ~ demolish the building within 60 days which they had indicated was not acceptable; 2) to ~, provide berm and landscaping along Manchester, which they had indicated was not acceptable; and 3) to provide layered landscaping which they had already agreed to do. During the Planning Commission meeting, the response from Commission was to take 30 days to make some improvements to the property; that Commission Boydstun requested that they paint across the front of the buildings so they matched and Commissioner Messe asked that they do whatever they could to clean things up. This is a temporary use and they are really not excited about putting in new landscaping and irrigation and spending a lot of money on ~ properly which they intend to demolish. (Pointed out when they bought the property, the Page 12 value was doubled what it is today.) Mr. Elfend referred to a letter which was not included in the staff report addressed to Commissioner Boydstun. (Commissioner Henninger pointed out all the Commissioners did receive a copy of that letter.) He presented photographs of the before and after condition of the property. Commissioner Henninger &sked if they are rehabilitating the landscaping and irrigation in compliance with Paragraph 19 of the staff report. Mr. Elfend stated they have provided some landscaping along the side yards and along Manchester and they have trimmed the trees and there is a small area in front of the fence which is basically dirt and he understood the Irrigation would have to be replaced there in order to put in landscaping. He explained they have basically refurbished that area that is within the fenced portion of the property. He added if that is the area referred to in Condition No. 1, they have complied. Commissioner Henninger clarified that the new landscaping shown in the photographs is irrigated and Mr. Elfend responded that it is. Mr. Elfend stated Condition No. 2 says that any existing trees on site shall be maintained in a timely manner in the event that they are removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. They have a letter from the client indicating they intend to have someone out at least once a week to make sure that the property is maintained properly; that they feel that condition is rather stringent and plan to maintain the property but not replace one shrub that may die. They have done some minor repair to the existing fence. Concerning graffiti, they have a commitment from the client to keep the front of the buildings painted as requested and they have agreed to comply with Condition No. 6. Commissioner Messe stated the existing chainlink fence is in a pretty bad state of disrepair and is leaning, etc. Mr. Elfend responded he understood along Manchester, the fence is now standing straight. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, referred to Page 4, Paragraph 11, Evaluation, of the staff report regarding how the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan would affect this property, and added he thought the Planning Director had written a letter to Mr. Elfend dated October 12, 1994, clarifying what the impacts would be or. this project. He read portions of that letter Into the record, indicating that revised landscape plans would be required. Mr. Borrego stated if the Commission Intends to recommend approval with the recommended conditions by Code Enforcement Division, Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the staff report, they should be modified and 7b should read that the parking area needs to comply with the new landscaping standards and 8a should be modified to read that the property shall be inspected monthly by Code Enforcement at the petitioner's Pxpense to make sure the property is being maintained and that was also a condition of the previous time extension approved by the Planning Commission in July this year. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~~ Page 13 Commissioner Henninger offered a motion that this request is covered by the previously approved Negative Declaration. Motion seconder by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Henninger offered a resolution for approval of the request, changing Condtion No. 36 to read "two years.", and adding the conditions shown in Paragraph 7 and 8. He felt 8(b) should be separate from 8(a). He asked about Paragraph 14 on page 4 regarding the term "grandfathered". Mr. Borrego explained the development standards which were approved under CUP 3387 would remain in effect for this project unless otherwise amended by the Planning Commission or Cily Council. Responding to Commissioner Henninger, he explained it is his understanding that the project approved by this CUP was reviewed by staff and found to be consistent with G ~e Anaheim Resort Specific Plan with the exception of the layered landscaping and that is why they are requiring that condition be added. Commissioner Henninger thought the existing language should be eliminated in Paragraph 14 and Mr. Borrego agreed the condition could be change to refer to the letter from Mr. Fick to Mr. Elfend dated October 12, 1994. Commissioner Mayer asked if the condition was included required that monthly inspections would be made by Code Enforcement and paid for by the petitioner. (Commissioner Henninger responded tha! was included.) ,_ ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Conditional Use Permit No. 3389 as readvertised. Modified Condition No. 36 of Resolution No. 91 R-230 to read as follows: "That prior to Issuance of a building permit or within a period of two (2) years from the date of this resolution (July 16, 1996), whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 25, 20, 30 and 33, above•mentioned, shall be complied with. Extens'ans for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Added the following conditions: That within sixty (60) days the petitioner shall demolish the buildings and accessory improvements on the property to eliminate the violations existing on the property (trash, graffiti and landscaping not being maintained). Page 14 That the vacant land shall be screened from view from the public right-of•way with a minimum three (3) foot high and minimum ten (10) foot wide landscaped berm, or a minimum three (3) foot high hedge screen located fn a minimum three (3) toot wide landscaped area. Landscape on said berm or hedge shall be maintained in a healthy condition. In the event that said buildings are not demolished, the property shall be Inspected monthly by Code Enforcement at the petitioner's expense to ensure that the property is being maintained and the following conditions shall apply: (1) That the on-site landscaping and irrigation system shall be refurbished and maintained in compliance with City standards. (2) That any existing trees on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner (n the event that they are removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. (3) That the existing chain link fence be refurbished. (4) That the existing building shall be re-painted with the boarded up windows matching the color of paint selected. (5) That the owner of the subject property shall be responsible for the removal of graffiti within 24 hours. That prior to final occupancy, if the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan is in effect, layered landscaping along Manchester Avenue shall be provided as outlined in said Specific Plan. That the parking and driveway areas shall be redesigned to show that each grouping of ten (10) or fewer parking spaces will be separated by a minimum forty-eight (48) sq. ff. planter, having a minimum ilve (5) foot dimension, and containing at least one (t) tree each (Section 18.04.060.050). VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, presented the right to appeal the Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Mr. Elfend asked if it is fair to assume that the Planning Commission has acknowledged what has been done on the property and that it met their satisfaction. (Response from several Commissioners was "yes") Commissioner Henninger stated the last time the Commission was talking about removing this building in 9 months to a year and now they have approval for two years. f~! Page 15 13b. RECLASS FACATION NO. 94915-OS I Withdrawn OWNER: CLAYTON EUGENE SCARBROUGH AND DONNA JEAN SCARBROUGH ET. AL., P.O. BOX 18957, Anaheim, CA 92817 AGENT: JACK STANALAND, 1590-10 South Coast Hwy., Laguna Beach, CA 92651 LOCATION: 1400 South Douglass Road. (Orange Tree Mobflehome Park) Property is approximately 25 acres located on the east side of Douglass Road approximately 1080 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue with a frontage of approximately 1060 feet on the east side of Douglass Road. To reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (MHP) (Residential/Agricultural-Mobflehome Park Overlay) Zone to the RS-A- 43,000 (Residential/Ao Bicultural) Zone. Continued from the September 19, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: Approximately 25 people attended public hearing Chairwoman Boydstun explained the applicant requested withdrawal of this application. She explained the Commission received the Information from the opposition and did look at it, but at this time cannot do anything since the applicant has withdrawn the application. Pat Collins, Attorney for the Mobflehome Resident's Association, stated he did get a copy of the letter from Mr. Cauldren to Cheryl Flores regarding the withdrawal and he understood that is their choice and the Commission cannot do anything. He thanked the Commission for the time they have spent on this matter and thought they would be back before the Commission. Mr. Haines, Space 80, Orarigetree Mobflehome Park, explained he lives with his daughter and son-in-law and they are still living there. He stated they have not accepted any o` the comments the owner has made. He asked if the owner has to repair the street lights, etc. and added they live in total darkness and that this is a very isolated area with no security and they don't have any neighbors. Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement Supervisor, responded to Chairwoman Boydstun that he Page 16 ~1 would have to check into that matter and would work with Mr. Haines. '' Mr. Haines stated they called the Police because someone had destroyed their shrubs and sidewalks and it takes them an hour or two to come to the park, but when they are called to the Arena which is next door, they are there Instantly. Commissioner Peraza suggested that matter be taken up with the City Council. Chairvvoman Boydstun stated the Police Department does have to put their calls in order of life and death situations, and we are short of police officers in this city. Mr. Haines indicated concern when there are police officers at every corner around the arena preventing him from going home. ACTION: The Planning Commission accepted the petitioner's request to withdraw subject petition. VOTE: 7-0 / ~. Page 17 4a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION(Freviously Approved) I Approved 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2667(Readvertised) Approved, as readvertised OWNER: FAIRMONT PRIVATE SCHOOLS, Attn: Glenn Noreen, 1557 W. Mable Street, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 121 South Citron Street (Fairmont Citron Campus). Property is approximately 0.73 acres located at the northwest corner of Chestnut Street and Citron Street. To amend conditions of approval pertaining to the required parking for an existing private educational inst(tution. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC94140 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None, 1 concerned person spoke PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Glenn Noreen, applicant, explained one of the requirements was to have an agreement with the Baptist Church for parking and that they did have a verbal agreement and they have been using ,'` the parking, but when they actually got the legal language for an agreement, the permanency of the agreement caused them real problems. It was a problem because of the way the property is held in trust. He explained they are requesting that this be a temporary parking agreement which can be terminated. He stated if the parking is not available, the modular classroom could be removed. He stated they will be coming back in three years so the Commission can look at it then and if there is a problem, it can be addressed then. OPPOSITION COMMENTS: Joe White, 809 W. Broadway, stated he still has a few concerns regarding traffic. He referred to No. 15 which says "student access gate located on Chestnut Street shall be moved as far west as possible" and asked the reason for that requirement. He noted there are no students walking on Chestnut. Commissioner Caldwell explained he had found out that "no parking" does not mean "no stopping" and that people can stop to load or unload students. The plan is to move the gate west so that there will be mere room for the cars. Mr. White stated [hare were "no stopping" signs (n the past and now they have been changed to "no parking" and he did not know the reason for that change. There are only two lanes and if people stop in one lane, that leaves only one lane and that people do park there. Mr. White stated he would like to know how they are going to design the northeast corner of the site and what they are going to do where Citron Street narrows and asked if they are going to restripe. Page 18 Chairwoman Boydstun stated the restriping was a condition when this was originally approved. Mr. White referred to No. 18 and a statement that the part of the curb along Citron directly in front of the school shall be designated for bus parking only. He asked if that means the buses will be stopping only there, or will they still be stopping on Chestnut Street, adding he has never seen a bus stop on Citron in front of the school. Commissioner Caldwell stated the Commission has assurance from the school that they will do everything they can to make sure this works. Mr. White stated he still did not think this would make the situation better and thought it probably will get worse and added he has no complaint about the school itself, but traffic is going to get worse and more dangerous. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Jonathan Borrego stated the petitioner has had discussions with the Building Division and whatever decision the Commission makes, they still have to comply with Building Division requirements. He explained the classroom would be considered temporary under this CUP only because there is a time limit, but that does not mean the Building Division will consider it temporary. Mr. Noreen stated he understood when he talked to the Building Department that it was a Planning Department decision whether it would be considered temporary or permanent. He stated he discussed with staff that since they are coming back to Commission in three years, it should be considered temporary. He stated there are different requirements on temporary buildings than on permanent buildings. Chairwoman Boydstun stated they should be required to meet the Fire Department requirements no matter whether it is considered temporary or permanent because there would be children on site. Jonathan Borrego stated he could not speak for the Building Division and whatever their requirements are, the petitioner will have to meet them. Commissioner Peraza asked if the Fire Department will require sprinklers if this is considered temporary. Mr. Borrego stated typically the Fire Department would require sprinklers for any temporary building that is on the property for longer than one year. Commissioner Peraza stated he could only vote for approval if that is the requirement becauso of the safety of the children. Commissioner Messe asked about the term "terminable" and if it means if the church wanted to terminate the agreement, they could and asked if there is a notice period. Jonathan Borrego stated the applicant would Hoed to explain his intent in dealing with the church, but that he would suggest language be added in the condition requiring that the City be notified if the lease is terminated. Mr. Noreen stated they are proposing that the church be required to give them 60 days notice in Page 19 case of termination and also that they would be required to give the church 60 days notice in case they wanted to terminate the lease and they would also need to give 60 days notice to the • City. He stated part of the requirement to use that modular classroom is the parking and if they lose the parking, they would have to remove that classroom. ACTION: Found that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental document for this request. Approved modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 2667, as readvertised. Mod(fied Condition No. 11, of Resolution No. PC94.95 to read as follows: "11. That twenty-two (22) parking spaces shall be provided, and that if ali such parking cannot be provided on-site, or in the adjacent easement to the northeast of subject property, additional off-site parking must be provided subject to a recorded terminable parking agreement (n a form satisfactory to the City Attorney and Traffic and Transportation Manager, and shall be recorded with the Office of the Orange County Recorder. Should any such agreement be terminated without a satisfactory ' replacement, the maximum student enrollment shall revert to 225 students and the modular classroom shall be removed. A copy of the recorded agreement shall be submitted to the Zoning Division." Added the following conditions: 'That the modular unit shall be permitted for a period not to exceed three (3) years from the original date of approval (July 25, 1994) to expire July 25, 1997." '"` VOTE: 7.0 t Right of appeal within 22 days presented. Page 20 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Previously Approved) Approved 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Withdrawn 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3538 (Readvertised) Approved, in part OWNER: GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH, Attn: David D. Rader, 2530 W. La Palma, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 2530 W. La Palma Avenue. (Grace Baptist Church). Property is approximately 2.5 acres located on the south side of La Palma Avenue and approximately 665 feet east of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue. Amendment to previous exhibits and to a condition of approval pertaining to the maximum permitted student enrollment of a previously approved private educational facility (8th through 12th grades) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC94141 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: l M David Rader, agent, explained they have been given access to additional classroom space and would like to increase enrollment from 119 to 150 students. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Messe pointed out it was brought to Commission's attention that the plans meet the new parking codes and no waiver is required and that the request should be withdrawn. Mr. Rader withdrew his request for the parking waiver. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Accepted request to withdraw the Waiver of Code Requirement on the basis that the proposed parking meets the Parking Code Approved, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 3538, as readvertised. Modified Condition Nos. 1 and 4 of Resolution No. PC92.110 to read as follows: "t. That subject facility shall be limited to a maximum enrollment of 150 students. 4. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anahelm by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Revision No. 1 of Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 and Exhibit No. 3. Page 21 6 ~. 1. ,~ Added the following condition: 8. That prior to the Increase in student enrollment, a fee in the amount of $433.13 shall be paid to the City of Anaheim for sewer capacity mitigation purposes." VOTE: 7.0 22•day appeal rights were presented. ''~f. Page 22 i~ 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3723 Granted, in part OWNER: CALIFnRNIA STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM, 7667 Folsom Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95626 AGENT: Donahue Schriber, Attn: Mark Whitfield, 3501 Jamboree Rd., Ste. 300, Newport Beach, Ca 92660 LOCATION: 600 North Euclid Street. Property is approximately 9.02 acres located at the northeast corner of Crescent Avenue and Euclid Street. To permit a temporary bank and office building with waiver of (a) minimum landscape requirements, (b) minimum parking lot landscaping required and (c) required landscaped setback abutting any reside~ttial zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC94142 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIO',V. Commissioner Tait declared a conflict of interest. OPPOSITION: None I?obert Gilley, Architect, Cal Fed Bank, was present to answer any questions. He responded to Chairwoman Boydstun that they have agreed to put landscaping on Euclid as required by The Planning Department. He clarified for Commissioner Henninger that they have oriented the air conditioning units away from Euclid. Commissioner Messe stated they have indicated t9 employees at the largest shift and only have 26 parking spaces. Mr. Gilley responded there is not that much traffic at that location and people are not there very long, and he thought about five minutes. Commissioner Messe stated his experience at this facility has been that it :ales longer than five minutes. Mr. Giliey stated they have plenty of parking at this facility and could increase the number provided, but thought they have rnat the Zoniny requirements. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, stated it appears portions of the plan are not drawn to scale, particularly the public right of way, and that Condition No. 5 should be modified to read that the measurement is taken accurately from the ultimate right of way which is 53 feet from the centerline of Euclid Street. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement: Denied waiver (a) on the basis that the property provides sufficient area to comply with the code required landscaping and minimum Page 23 number of trees adjacent Euclid Street; Approved waivers (b) and (c). ~"1 (Commissioner Henninger asked if the waivers are still required and Mr. Borrego responded waivers b a~9 c are necessary; that waiver b pertains to required parking lot landscaping which will ultimately be provided when the property is developed as a part of the Anaheim Plaza project and waver c relates to the landscaping required adjacent to the Carbon Creek Flood Control Channel. Preliminary site plans for the Anaheim Plaza project include a 10-foot wide landscape strip adjacent to the channel.) Concerning the trees to be placed along Euclid in boxes, Mr. Borrogo stated the trees would temporarily be kept in the box and once the property is developed, they would be planted in the ground, ~^ basically that is acceptable under Code. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 3723 Modified Condition No. 5 to read as follows: 5. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the Ci~y of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2; provided, however, that the final site plan shall accurately reflect the location of the ultimate right of way at Euclid Street. Added the following cond(tion: That the buildings shall be reoriented so that the air conditioning units do not front on Euclid Street. r„ VOTE: 6.0 (Commissioner Tait declared a conflict of interest) 1 . 1 Page 24 f°~ lr 7. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3575 -REQUEST FOR Approved RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH (to expire 1-25-95) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Steve Macke with Pinetree Village, 3333 S. Brea Canyon Rd., ate. 219, Diamond Bar, CA 91765, requests an eMension of time to comply with conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit'Jo. 3575 (to permit the conversion of an existing 40-unit apartment complex to a l0-unit condominium complex) to expire January 25, 1995. Property (s located at 500 North Tustin Avenue. Continued from the September 7, 19, and October 3, 1994 Planning Commission meetings. B. VARIANCE N0. 4182 -REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Blash Approveu (to expire 5-18-95) Momeny, 27762 Pebble Beach, Mission Vie)o, CA 92692, requests an xtension of time to comply with conditions of approval for Variance Added a condition e 4182 (waiver of the required lot frontage, minimum building site No that there shall be . minimum building site width and required location and orientation area monthly inspections, , of structures to construct 8 single-family residences) to expire May 18, by the p 1995. Property is located at 2260 W. Orange Avenue. etitioner P Continued from the September 19 and October 3, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. C. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 93-9402 -REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE Approved EXTENSION CF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF (to expire 9.20-95) APPROVAL -Thomas G. Kieviet for Farano and Kleviet, 2100 S. State (Messe abstained) College Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92806, requests an extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for Reclassification No. 93-94-02 (Reclassification from :he RM-1200 Zone to the ML Zone) to expire September 20, 1995. Property is located a1406.412 South Kroeger Street. Page 25 I ~4 ,~ J 1 ~'°-. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3716 -REVIEW OF FINAL PLANS: Approved final Lewis R. Schmid C/0 Jason Schmid, 1725 S:~Douglass Rd., Anaheim, sfte plans CA 92806, requests review of final plan pertaining to parking iot Irndscaping, minimum aisle width and handicapped parking for Condftional Use Permit No. 3716 (to permft an automobile panting lot for event-type parking purposes). Property is located at 1725-1751 South Douglass Road. E. SPECIFIC PLAN NO 9401 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Inftiated application NO 334 -REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATION: for SP94-01 and Request for Pi,3nning Commission Inftiation of the Northeast Industrial GPA 334 Area Specific Pian No. 94-01 and General Plan Amendment No. 334. The proposed 2,645 acre project area is generally bounded by the Orange (57) and Riverside (91} freeways, Orangethorpe Avenue and Imperial Highway which incorporates tho Canyon Industrial Area and properties within and surrounding the boundaries of redevelopment Project Area Alpha. INITIATION RESOLUTION NO. PC941~~ ~.. i.:eETING ADJOURNED AT 3:30 P.M. TO THE OCTOBER 31, 1994, PLANNING COMMISSION MORNING SESSION AT 10:00 A.M. Resp ull fitted, ith LHarris Page 26