Loading...
Minutes-PC 2000/02/28l ° O * '~~Nt,MC,`, CITY OF ANAHEIM } _ ° ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES „~ A~~NOEO ~~~1 DATE: MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2000 MORNING SESSION: Chairperson Boydstun called the Morning Session to order 11:00 a.m. in the Council Chamber. 11:00 A.M. • Staff update to Commission of various City developments and issues (as requested by Planning Commission) • Preliminary Plan Review PUBLIC HEARING: Chairperson Boydstun called the Public Hearing to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber and welcomed those in attendance. 1:30 P.M. • Public Hearing Testimony • PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pled e Alle iance was led b Commissioner Koos. 9 9 Y COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Arnold, Boydstun, Bristol, Koos, Napoles, Vanderbilt COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Bostwick STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Mary McCloskey Greg Hastings Greg McCafferty Marie Newland Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Deputy Planning Director Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Assistant Planner Principal Transportation Planner Associate Civil Engineer Planning Commission Secretary Senior Secretary AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 24, 2000, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, February 3, 2000. ~:DOCS\CLERICALWIINUTES~AC022800.DOC planninacommission(~anaheim, net 02-28-00 Page 1 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AGENDA ~ L J • ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of Approved February 14, 2000. (Motion) (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Bostwick absent) 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3353 - REQUEST FOR Determined to be SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: Richard Demolina, 1520 West in substantial Roosevelt Street, Azusa, CA 91702, request for substantial conformance conformance to construct a 3,000 square foot storage building. Property is located at 1340 South Sanderson Avenue (Phoenix Club). (Vote: 6-0, ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Commissioner gostwick absent) Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bosfinrick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that this request (Revision No. 2 of Exhibit No. 3 and Exhibit Nos. 18 and 19) is in substantial conformance on the basis that: (i) The proposed storage building is accessory to the activities approved for this location and will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses. (ii) Based on the site plan, the site is adequate in size for the proposed storage building while allowing the Phoenix Club to operate in a fashion that is not detrimental to the surrounding land uses. (iii) No additional traffic or increased parking demand will be generated by the proposed storage building. (iv) The applicant include the following information on plans submitted for building permits: 1. The areas adjacent to the storage building shall be paved and striped for parking in accordance with City of Anaheim Municipal Code Vehicle Parking and Loading Requirements. 2. The adjacent chain link fencing (east and north property lines) shall be refurbished. 3. The property owner/developer shall ensure adequate landscape screening (adjacent to the east and north property lines) for the proposed storage building as viewed from the public right-of-way. SR7658VK.DOC 02-28-00 Page 2 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AGENDA i The following is a summary taken from staff notes since there were difficulties with the recording equipment which resulted in this item being inaudible. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating this is a request for determination of substantial conformance to construct a 3,000 square foot metal storage building. Staff is recommending approval as noted on page 4, subparagraph b of the staff report. ~ • 02-28-00 Page 3 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AGENDA • B. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN: County of Orange, Public Facilities & Resources Department, Attn: John D. Pavlik, Chief of PF&RD Right-of-Way Processing, 300 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92702, requests a determination of conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the proposed acquisition for the "Tustin Avenue Widening" project. Property is generally located on Tustin Avenue south of Orangethorpe Avenue and north of Mira Loma Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the County's proposal to acquire City-owned property for the purpose of widening Tustin Avenue, is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. Determined to be in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Bostwick absent) SR7680MN.DOC The following is a summary taken from staff notes since there were difficulties with the recording equipment which resulted in this item being inaudible. Marie Newland, Associate Planner, introduced this item by stating that this is a request to determine conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the proposed acquisition for property • from the City of Anaheim for the purpose of widening Tustin Avenue from Orangethorpe Avenue to 1,100 feet southerly is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. The County's proposal to acquire City property for the purpose of widening Tustin Avenue is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan and therefore, staff is recommending approval. • 02-28-00 Page 4 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AGENDA • C. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4149 - REQUEST REVIEW Approved final OF FINAL ELEVATION PLANS: Philip L. Anthony, 14101 La Pat elevation plans Place, Unit 10, Westminster, CA 92683, request review of final elevation plans to establish a large equipment storage repair and (Vote: 6-0, rental agency. Property is located at 3030-3040 East Miraloma Commissioner Avenue. Bostwick absent) ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final plans and materials board for the building design and exterior construction materials. SR7682KP.DOC The following is a summary taken from staff notes since there were difficulties with the recording equipment which resulted in this item being inaudible. • Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating this is a request for review of final elevation plans for a previously-approved large equipment storage, repair and rental agency. Staff is recommending approvaf of the final plans. Commissioner Koos stated the west elevation shows a canopy above only one of the four doors. He asked the applicant to explain why. Phillip Anthony, 14101 La Pat Place, Unit 10, Westminster, stated that is the door nearest the street and the only one visible from the front public right-of-way. It serves as architectural treatment for the front of the building. Commissioner Bristol asked if that was more like an accent. Phillip Anthony responded yes. Commissioner Koos thought it looked odd from the west elevation. Phillip Anthony stated on their elevation plans the canopy is shown head-on. The public will not be able to see it from that angle. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated there is no way of knowing what the future use of the property next door might be. In looking at the west side of the building it does not have the matching center you would expect. The north elevation is a steel band with yellow and gold projecting out. He asked the applicant if he could consider installing a canopy on the three other service bay doors given it does not appear to be a substantial cost. . Commissioner Koos concurred that the west elevation does not have a matching symmetry. He asked the applicant whether the addition of the other doors would be an excessive cost. 02-28-00 Page 5 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AGENDA ~ Phillip Anthony replied it would definitely put a substantial cost on the project. They could agree to place the canopies above the other three doors to make it more symmetrical, but emphasized, they would not be seen from the street. Commissioner Vanderbilt clarified that Commission was just exploring the possibility. Chairperson Boydstun then walked over to show Mr. Anthony what the concern was. Commissioner Koos asked if the top view is an accurate depiction of this property and the property next door. He explained Commission has been trying to raise the standards. This use is going to be there for a long time. Not knowing what their neighbors would be doing in the future, he wondered whether all the doors should include a canopy above them rather than removing the one canopy. He asked staff if the east elevation was similar to the west one. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, responded the plans indicate similar treatment on the east elevation. Commissioner Bristol stated he does not agree with that recommendation. This is a commercial area. He would suggest to simply not have any canopies at all because it would be easier to add them later than to have to remove them. Chairperson Boydstun indicated the additional canopies would not be seen from the street. Commissioner Bristol felt that additional canopies could put an added financial burden to the applicant. • Commissioner Arnold also agreed that it would be an added cost to the applicant and would serve no useful purpose. • 02-28-00 Page 6 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AGENDA ~ (i) That the determination of substantial conformance will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses growth and development of the area, but rather will enhance the integrity of the site design by maintaining fewer in-line retail shops and securing a major anchor tenant. (ii) That the size and shape of this site is adequate to allow the full development of this proposal in a manner not detrimental to this area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare. (iii) That no additional traffic or increased parking demand will be generated by the modification to the site design. (iv) That the applicant agreed to include the following information on the plans submitted for building permits: 1. That all employees of the in-line retail shops and Staples SuperStore be required to park in the area south and east of the Staples SuperStore. Said information shall be incorporated into the CC&R's and reviewed by the Zoning Division of the Planning Department. 2. That the designated employee parking shall be shown on plans. 3. That the six in-line retail shops shall maintain a minimum floor area of 2,000 square feet each and that no further subdivision of these units shaff be permitted. 4. That the site plan shall show the details shown on the original plans, including the sidewalks, the enhanced treatment of on-site crosswalks and benches around the clock tower. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bosfinrick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bosfinrick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that this request (Revision No.1 of Exhibit Nos. 1 and 5 and Exhibit No. 7) is in substantial conformance with the provisions of the original approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 4128 based on the following: • ~ D. a) b) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (F CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4128 - REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: Dennis McCullough, 17875 Von Karman Avenue, #301, Irvine, CA 92614, requests determination of substantial conformance for a previously-approved commercial retail center to allow reconfiguration of a portion of the site in order to revise the parking layout, adjust one vehicular ingress/egress location, reduce the number of retail units and revise the size of the proposed retail units. Property is located at 600-626 North Brookhurst Street). Approved Determined to be in substantial conformance with previously approved plans SR7685VK.DOC 02-28-00 Page 7 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AGENDA C~ The following is a summary taken from staff notes since there were difficulties with the recording equipment which resulted in this item being inaudible. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating this is a request for determination of substantial conformance to allow reconfiguration of a portion of the site in order to revised the parking layout, adjust one vehicular ingress/egress location, reduce the number of retail units and revise the size of the proposed retail units. He advised the Commission that the developer was present at the meeting if they had any questions. Chairperson Boydstun stated the Commission does have questions and asked the developer to come up to the podium. Commissioner Koos stated there was a concern at the morning session that the site plan had changed considerably enough that Commission might have to reexamine it as a public hearing. The changes have triggered some questions. He was concerned that the parking located behind Staples would become "dead" parking because customers would have to drive to the back and then walk to the front. He asked the applicant to comment on that. Applicant's Statement: Dan Van Rossen, project manager, P, O. Box 2110, Ventura, CA, stated originally the stores were set away from the flood control channel. That area was designated for employee parking on the original plan. Now, the stores are set against the flood control channel and all the parking spaces were moved behind the proposed Staple's building and are readily available. There was no significant changes to the site plan, they just moved the parking to another area. . Commissioner Koos indicated he concurred with that, but some customer spaces were also moved to the back. Dan Van Rossen indicated there were a few customer spaces moved to the back. He could not recall the exact number, but it was not a significant amount. The customer spaces were realigned and not changed significantly. ~ Commissioner Arnold stated the original plans showed more pedestrian walkways. He was concerned that the revised plans do not provide for the pedestrian traffic walking from one store to another. He asked the applicant to comment on why there was that change. Dan Van Rossen stated he respectfully disagreed. He explained nothing in front had changed. The changes occurred in the back of the property. They moved the buildings back, revised the parking layout and adjusted the location of the driveway. Nothing in the front of the entire center changed. Commissioner Arnold asked traffic engineering staff to comment on the pedestrian walkways. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, stated there was a pedestrian access in their original plan, which is not shown on the revised plans. He asked Mr. Van Rossen how pedestrians would get from Staples to Carl's Jr. Dan Van Rossen responded they would walk through the parking lot or cross the driveway. Alfred Yalda stated there is no pedestrian crosswalk between Carl's Jr. and Staples. 02-28-00 Page 8 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AGENDA ~ Commissioner Arnold stated the original plans seemed to have better pedestrian.access. Staples is now surrounded by streets and parking and it is likely people may find themselves caught in traffic. Dan Van Rossen stated Staples is now a freestanding building, whereas, before it was a building attached to retail businesses. The building was moved towards Gramercy which gave the possibility for pedestrian travel. Pedestrians could also walk around the greenbelt. The center has not changed other than the new pad created for Staples, the relocation of the employee and a few customers parking spaces, and the retail space is smaller now. He felt the this request is substantially in conformance with originally approved plans. Alfred Yalda asked the applicant if he was going to provide a sidewalk from Staples to Brookhurst. Dan Van Rossen responded no. Alfred Yalda stated the old plan showed a sidewalk there. He showed the old plans to the appficant and the Commissioners. Commissioner Koos stated it seems to him that the revised plans show a loss of functional parking spaces. Commissioner Bristol explained that at the morning session there was discussion that it appeared that there was a crosswalk on Gramercy. A crosswalk at that location would encourage people to cross Gramercy from Home Depot to this site and that creates a safety concern. Dan Van Rossen explained that was not the intent. They can easily eliminate it from the plans. ~ Chairperson Boydstun asked how many parking spaces are they proposing behind Staples. Dan Van Rossen responded approximately 140 parking spaces. Commissioner Koos is concerned with the number of parking spaces that would go un-used leaving the front very crowded. He feels Commission needs to get a firm handle on the amount of parking spaces available and is not sure if they could determine that at the meeting today. They also need to determine if the plans have not changed considerably. Dan Van Rossen explained they need to resolve this today because of their tight time frame. Two weeks ago they felt that the City would be favorable to their request. They would like to resolve this today. Commissioner Arnold asked if moving Staples up to Gramercy was very important. Dan Van Rossen responded it is a requirement of Staples that they have a stand-alone building. It was not their original intent, the site was redesigned to meet Staple's requirement. Commissioner Arnold stated there are two major concerns. They are the way this new plan differs in pedestrian traffic flow and the parking. Chairperson Boydstun suggested moving the building to the east all the way to the corner and shift one row of parking spaces. Dan Van Rossen explained Staples was insistent that they lineup with Home Depot. • Commissioner Koos asked staff if this is a typical way of handling changes such as this one. 02-28-00 Page 9 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AGENDA ~ Greg Hastings explained generally, if staff feeis there is an insignificant change, it is brought before the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item, but, if issues arise at the meeting, staff recommends that Commission hold a public hearing. Commissioner Koos stated he is concerned that the applicant might have received some assurances that this woutd be approved and now they are in a bind. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated it was indicated to the applicant that this should come before the Commission as a readvertised public hearing, however, there was a strong desire by the applicant to move forward with it as a substantial conformance request. Commissioner Bristol stated there are two issues. The pedestrian traffic flow on the site and the parking spaces. He felt that pedestrian traffic is actually the applicant's problem since they will be effected by lack of customers if this proves to be a problem. He wondered whether Commission may be micro-managing this issue. Chairperson Boydstun stated parking is her main concern. They are taking 80 parking spaces from the front and designating them as employee parking. That is 80 less customer spaces. Customers will now be walking further than before. Dan Van Rossen stated he understands the concern. There will be a net loss of parking, but it is not that significant. There is some parking that is now closer to the retail businesses, so there are trade-offs back and forth. He believes it will be functional and it will not create any more traffic or parking issues, it is just different. Chairperson Boydstun recommended that the applicant stipulate to incorporate into the CC&R's . that the closest parking spaces will be designated for customers and the farthest parking spaces for employees. Dan Van Rossen responded they have CC&R's and that is something they can do. Commissioner Koos stated he would like to see an enhanced pedestrian walkway, a rock way for example. He asked staff how Commission could condition that. Chairperson Boydstun asked if the applicant could agree to that. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated some applicants stipulate to comply with something, but advised they may not add the requirement as a condition. Commission may also require an area for employee parking on the plan itself, but not as a condition of approval. Commissioner Koos asked the applicant if that could be included on the site plan. Selma Mann stated that can be done, but Commission is taking a risk for something that is truly not in substantial conformance. She reminded Commission that, although their decision is final, the City Council may review any of the Planning Commission's decisions. Dan Van Rossen stated there was a condition that speci~ed there would be a walkway and it is on the plans. They can easily continue it across to Staples. With regards to the parking, they can provide an agreement with the CC&R's designating employee parking behind staples and attaching it to all of the leases at the time they are completed. Chairperson Boydstun asked if he is willing to stipulate to that, then she felt comfortable with the revised plans. ~ Dan Van Rossen stated they do not want any further hearings and would like a decision today. 02-28-00 Page 10 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AGENDA • Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer suggested that an alternative to the pedestrian access would be to extend the sidewalk to the Staple's center and then install small "bumps", if the applicant is willing. During the Action: Commissioner Bristol stated the applicant has agreed to incorporate into the CC&R's that the employee parking be located behind Staples. Commissioner Arnold stated his observation is that this will help increase customers to the center. Commissioner Bristol stated if the applicant wants to help the circulation, they will provide a sidewalk. Commissioner Koos stated language should be added that the site plan needs to reflect details of the original site plan. For example, that it not just indicate asphalt, but that it describe the type of enhanced treatment that will be used for the sidewalks, the on-site crosswalks and benches around the clock tower. Dan Van Rossen stated he had no problem with those recommendations. Greg Hastings advised that staff is recommending that the six in-line retail shops shall maintain a minimum floor area of 2,000 square feet each and that no further subdivision of these units shall be permitted. . Commissioner Bristol agreed to that recommendation. u 02-28-00 Page 11 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AGENDA ~ ~ ~ E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3571 - REQUEST FOR A NUNC PRO TUNC RESOLUTION TO CORRECT CONDITION Approved NO. 10 OF RESOLUTION NO. PC98-79:City-initiated (Planning (Vote: 5-0, Commission Secretary), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, Commissioner CA 92805, requests a nunc pro tunc resolution to correct Koos declared a Condition No. 10 of Resolution No. PC98-79 adopted in conflict of interest connection with the reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. and Commissioner 3571. Property Is located at 1527 East Broadway (a portion of Bostwick was Lincoln Park). absent) RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-19 SR1149MS.DOC Commissioner Koos declared a conflict of interest and abstained from this item due to his association with AirTouch Cellular. 02-28-00 Page 12 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AGENDA ~ PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 371 2c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 99-00-12 INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim (Planning Department}, 200 South Anaheim Blvd., Suite 162, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 848-930 South Knott Street and 3411-3441 West Ball Road. Property is 7.0 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Knott Street and Ball Road. General Plan Amendment No. 371 - Request for amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate the subject properties from the Low Density Residential designation to the General Commercial designation; and the General Commercial, Low Density Residential, and Medium Density Residential designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential designation. Reclassification No. 99-00-12 - Request for withdrawal of this application. ~ Continued from the Commission meetings of ,lanuary 19, January 31, and February 14, 2000. Approved Recommended approval and adoption of Exhibit B to City Council Withdrawn GENERAL PLAN RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-20 SR2001 DS. DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stated that this is a City initiated request for General Plan Amendment No. 371 and Reclassification No. 99-00-12. Staff recommends that the Commission adopt Exhibit B to redesignate the General Plan for that location to Low-Medium Density Residential. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Recommended that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 371 by adopting Exhibit "B" for a Low-Medium Density Residential Designation. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bosfinrick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the request for withdrawal of Reclassification No. 99-00-12. ~ VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) 02-28-00 Page 13 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AGENDA ~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated this item will be scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (2:33-2:36) ~ s 02_2$_~0 Page 14 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AGENDA • ~ 3a. 3b. 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4170 (READVERTISED) 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 southwest corner of Kaiser Boulevard and Chaparral Court (Light of the Canyon United Methodist Church). To permit a two-story, 35 to 40 foot high church facility with accessory training center classrooms and roof mounted equipment with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the Commission meeting of Decembe~ 20, 1999 and February 14, 2000. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to March 13, 2000 SR7669KP. DOC Commissioner Bristol offered a motion for a continuance to March 13, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and motion carried. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 13, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order for staff to complete the review of the parking study. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~~ 02-28-00 Page 15 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AGENDA ~ 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4181 OWNER: Govind Bhakta; Jon and Nancy Dowell; Gabriel and Virginia Patin; Shirley and William Almand; Willa Jean Cornett; Wilton and Ruth Abplanalp, 3335 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 Approved Granted AGENT: Pacific National Development, Attn: AI Marshafl, 1041 West 18th Street, #104A, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 LOCATION: 3335-3351 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 3.70 acres located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, 970 feet east of the centerline of Knott Street (Lazy Living Mobile Home Park and Madrid Motel). To construct a 3-story, 132-unit affordable senior citizen's apartment complex. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-21 SR2000DS.DOC AI Marshall, Pacific National Development, 930 East 16th Street, Suite E-2, in Costa Mesa, stated they have refined their prior proposal after meeting with WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development • Council) and the Anaheim Housing Authority. The new proposal for the senior citizen's apartments now front better on Lincoln Avenue; parking is more accessible to all the units; the interior courtyards work with pedestrian access; the elevators are more centrally located and there have been two trash chutes added. There is now an excess of parking which they may want to change to green space at a later point in time. Their intent is to convert 16 of the additional parking spaces into some private gardens for the residents to plant themselves. There are no waivers due to the way it has been designed. Esther Wallace, Chairman of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council) stated that they are very pleased to see the zoning changes made on Item No. 2. Regarding Item 4, this is the best senior citizen's apartment complex that they have seen thus far. She asked whether there would be a laundry room on each floor, the size of the pool and garden area for the seniors. They are pleased with the proposed facility. Judith Ann Gollette agreed with Ms. Wallace and added that they appreciate the City Council and Planning Commission's efforts to package lots together. This design brings a quality of life to seniors. She is concerned about the pedestrian crossing on Lincoln Avenue and would like to see another design to present jaywalking. Applicant's Rebuttal: AI Marshall responded that the pool size has not been established yet, but it will be standard and will only be 3%z feet deep. Laundry facilities are on all three floors. They support WAND's concerns about jaywalking. Many of the commercial facilities that the residents will use are on the same side of the street as this facility, but there is one restaurant across the street that could draw in seniors. They are in favor of the private gardens and will let management decide how residents select their garden site. It can be ~ done in the process of getting the building permit. 02-28-00 Page 16 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AGENDA ~ Commissioner Koos thought it would be better to be established at Commission rather than over the counter. Suggested it could return as a Reports and Recommendations item. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, advised Commissioner Koos that it is already included as part of the Reports and Recommendations item for all the finishes. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol feels that is a great proposal and Chairperson Boydstun agreed. He asked Mr. % Yalda to comment on the concern of jaywallking. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, stated there are 15 to 17 uncontrolled crosswalks that the City is in the process of removing. They are not safe for anyone to cross on any busy street. Commissioner Koos felt this project has come a long way and is in support of the project. • • ~ •- • ~ ~ • ~ • IN SUPPORT: 2 people spoke in favor of the proposal. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4181 as conditioned in the staff report and with the applicant stipulating that laundry facilities would be included on all three floors ~ and that the parking spaces in excess of the Code requirement would be replaced with a community garden. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bosfinrick absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 11 minutes (2:37-2:48) ,~~~~~,~,~,~,~,~~~,~,~,~~~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~~~~.~~,~,~,,~,~~~~~,~,~,~,~,~,~~~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,.~,~~~,~,~,~,~~~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~, ,~,~,~~~,~,~,~~ ,~~~,~,~~~ A BREAK WAS TAKEN AFTER TH/S ITEM (2:49-2:53) • 02-28-00 Page 17 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AGENDA ~ ~ ~ _..~ 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 99-00-16 5c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 5d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4178 OWNER: David and Sandra Huarte, Trustees of the, Joseph Huarte Trust UDT, 5036 Tierra Del Oro, Carisbad, CA 92008-4350 AGENT: Joseph Boules, 20575 Easthill Drive, Yorba Linda, CA 92887 LOCATION: 891 South State College Boulevard. Property is 1.54 acre located at the r-orthwest corner of Vermont Avenue and State College Boulevard (St. Verna Orthodox Coptic Church). Reclassification No. 99-00-16 - To reclassify subject property from CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone, RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone and RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone to RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Agricultural) Zone. ~ Conditional Use Permit No. 4178 - To construct a church facility (including a multiple purpose assembly hall and Sunday school classrooms) in three phases, including a temporary trailer for church use before and during construction with waiver of (a) required setback for institutional uses adjacent to residential zones, (b) minimum number of parking spaces, (c) maximum structural height, (d) required front yard setback, (e) required rear yard setback and (~ minimum dimensions of parking spaces. RECLASSIFICATION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to March 13, 2000 SR7690KP.DOC ApplicanYs Statement: Father Joseph Boules stated he is the agent for owners of property, which are in escrow contingent upon approval of this conditional use permit. The escrow is scheduled to close at the beginning of April. He gave a presentation of the plans for church. They are Coptic Orthodox, who are the majority Christians in Egypt. He gave an explanation of Coptic Church. The Church is to be built on the northwest corner of State College Boulevard and Vermont Avenue and to will be completed in three phases. One is the placement of two, (2) 22 foot by 60-foot modular buildings on the property and another one for the Sunday school while the first building is being constructed. • The Coptic Orthodox Church has to conform to one of three shapes, a cross, an arc or a circle and must face the east. They chose the form of a cross for their church. That is why their altar area has to be facing the east. They could not reorient the buildings in any other way to bring into conformance what the staff had requested to do which he will address later. 02-28-00 Page 18 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AGENDA ~ The site plan shows the church separated into three unequal parts. Only the priests and the deacons are allowed to use the altar area. The parishioners are not permitted to stand in this area during the prayer service. In the back there is a room for baptisms which has to be in the back of the church symbolizing that before people are accepted in the church they must be baptized. On the plans submitted the actual sanctuary area of the church is very small compared to the footprint of the building. That is why it would be difficult for them to reduce the building size to conform to the waivers that they are requesting. The church must also have two pillars at the beginning as indicated in the plan. They must be very high and took the maximum height of 75 feet for what was a commercial lot for them at the beginning. The dome is also a characteristic of a Coptic Orthodox Church. Staff advised them that they would like to see the lot rezoned to residential to conform with the General Plan. They are happy to do it as long as it does not hinder the church in the process, but commercial lots only require a 10-foot setback. They are requesting two waivers which staff is recommending denial. The waiver off of State College Boulevard is a request for a 15-foot setback instead of 25 feet, and emphasized this is an area of the church that will only be used by priests and deacons. No parishioners are allowed in this part of the church. The side and rear yards now require 15 foot setbacks instead of 10 feet, so the rezoning is causing tougher setback requirements for the lot. They are providing the complete setbacks required by the City and the second waiver is requesting an overhang approval otherwise, they must apply for an encroachment because carports are permitted to encroach on setbacks. He gave reasons why Commission should approve the project. • • Consider the cooperation of the applicant with the City to bring back the lot's conformance with the City's General Plan. • If lot is purchased and they approved this project, CL zoning will be gone forever, which works in favor of the City. • He feels neighbors would prefer to see a church rather than a motel or liquor store there. • Physical buildings of the church are over 50 feet away from the nearest neighbors and 90 feet from another neighbors. • Setbacks are designed for residential uses but they are talking about a church not a house. • If they are not permitted to overhang for 2%2 feet, they would like a waiver for the setback of 12%2 feet instead of 15 feet they can add the 2%z feet to the already existing 15%z feet giving a full length of 18 feet for the parking lot. • If encroachment cannot be granted, they would like Commission to consider the Code requirements regarding carports. • Neighbors would enjoy a beautiful landscaping along with a 6-foot high fence which will be a noise buffer. • They cannot make the church smaller because of the space needed for the altar and deacons area. He concluded by stating that they are excited to have this opportunity to buitd a Coptic Church in Anaheim. It will be the first church in the United States named after Saint Varina, who is famous throughout Switzerland and has over 70 cathedrals. He hoped that they consider their project favorably. Public Testimony: Georgette Farag, 699 Pathfinder Trail, Anaheim Hills, stated she is a very active member in her community. She is currently the activities coordinator for Saint Varina and explained her involvement in the church and the benefits it gives to the community with its activities for the children and congregation. • Being involved in the community and working with the youth and adults, she has seen a positive influence 02-28-00 Page 19 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AGENDA ~ on children when they are active in their church. She feels having Saint Varina in Anaheim will be a great asset to the City of Anaheim. Ray Reymundo, 1816 East Tyrol Place, Anaheim, stated he owns the house next to the vacant lot. He is concerned with the height of the church, the danger to children in neighborhood due to increased traffic and overflow parking on Tyrol Place. He wondered where people are going to park. The parking at Boysen Park across the street is always busy and full. When he purchased his home he was told single story housing would be built at the proposed site. He is really concerned about the height of the church compared to all the homes there. He asked if he could get a petition from the neighbors who oppose it and submit it. Chairperson Boydstun advised he should have submitted the petition today, but he could appeal to City Council, or if there is another hearing he could bring it in then. He should stay until this item is finished to know the outcome and what he could do next. Ray Reymundo stated that the steeple is going to be higher than any other buildings in the area. Chairperson Boydstun stated that she thought the church at State College Boulevard and Wagner is also the same height as what is being proposed. Greg McCatferty advised that the church at State College Boulevard and Wagner Avenue is 80 feet to the top of the cross and the structure is 60 feet. Ray Reymundo emphasized that he felt the church will not have enough parking and it will overflow to the streets. ~ Michael Tadros, 1244 East Sandalwood Avenue, Anaheim, stated that Mr. Reymundo is on the back cul- Robert Elsner, RHE Investments, 18377 Beach Blvd., Huntington Beach, stated he represents the owners of property. Feels it is the best use for this property because it is not a viable location for retail. The neighbors would strongly object if multi-family housing was built. It is also too small for residential housing and would have to have residential houses back right up to State College Boulevard, a busy street. de-sac and the church driveways are at State College and Vermont so the parishioners will have to walk all the way around the b-ock to get to church. He explained how important the church is for the youth groups and how the church really helps guide the youth. Doug McBratney, 1991 Royal Oak Road, Tustin, asked for approval because church provides a spiritual center for the family and it needs a permanent home. He feels the church helps bond the community and makes it stronger. Fr. Joseph Boules, stated there is no access to the church from Tyrol Street and there is a 6-foot fence separating them from the neighbors. Since it is a commercial lot, it could have had a structure up to 75 feet high. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Boydstun asked if the church would be used in the evenings; their proposal only shows Tuesdays and Saturdays. Fr. Joseph Boules indicated that there is an error in the hours. They do not have evening services except on Tuesday and Saturday nights, and occasionally on Friday night. There might be Ionger services on Saturday nights about 10 times a year (such as Easter, Christmas, etc.). ~ Chairperson Boydstun asked if their activities would go later than 10:00 p.m. 02-28-00 Page 20 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AGENDA ~ Fr. Joseph Boules responded they would not during the weekdays but on Saturdays they actually go up to 11:30 p.m. for the Midnight Praise usually attended by 10 to 20 people. On Tuesdays and Fridays it only goes until 10:00 p.m. Friday nights are sporadic. The Liturgy is on Wednesday, Friday and Sunday morning with the exception of the spec+al occasions. Their religion does not allow them to have Liturgy in the evening with the exception of a few special days. They requested that the Condition be changed from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. with the exception of Saturday night until 11:30 p.m. Commissioner Arnold stated this property is unique in location and size and it seems the setback increases with the reclassification. The reclassification will benefit the City in terms of intensity of use. He asked about the assembly hall. He indicated Fr. Boules offered a number of reasons in which they could not conduct a religious use on the facility with a smaller sanctuary building, but asked about the assembly hall. Fr. Joseph Boules responded the problem arises in the second story of this building. In Phase 1 they plan to have this building built because it is going to be cheaper and because it is going to be a simple building. There will be Sunday school rooms upstairs. The elevator and assembly half will be on the first floor. While the church is being built in Phase 2, they are proposing the assembly hafl as the temporary prayer area for this time. The front area will become the alter which imposes all the restrictions mentioned earlier and the may not have anything above it. The second story will not be built until the completion of Phase 2. That is the restriction that they are facing. Commissioner Arnold asked Fr. Boules if he is stating that because they are going to be using the assembly hafl for services in the interim that that is what necessitates its strength. Fr. Joseph Boules confirmed that was what he had stated. • Commissioner Vanderbilt asked about the current location that they are using in a Baptist church which does not contain the architectural elements that are consistent with their faith, yet they are still able to congregate there. Asked how they justify meeting in a church without the required elements. Fr. Joseph Boules responded they are proposing to build a church from the ground up and it would be a shame to build an incorrect church. They are working with it because it is ternporary such as the Assembly hall. He neglected to mention earlier that the inside of the church must have four columns to signify the four Gospels of the Bibfe. It may atso have 12 columns instead to signify the 12 Apostles. For the long term they want what is preferable. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated it is an issue to him because some of the variances requested are set based on the requirements of faith, and while it is important to respect it, there also appears to be other avenues. There was some question as to the length of time and whether the City may have an issue with it. Fr. Joseph Boules explained that it is not their intention to buy property to simply put a trailer on it. They are going to work as fast as they can and decided to build the assembly hall rather than the church first because it can go up relatively cheaply and will save the cost of the rent which will only help them to expedite this process. Commissioner Arnold stated they are going to have to deal with whether or not they can meet the requirements of the Code. He suggested they may want to spend more time working with the surrounding neighbors, they are going to be part of the community and the gentleman (Mr. Reymundo) had some real concerns. Fr. Joseph Boules stated he has every intention to pursue that, but he had not heard that there was any • opposition and heard to the contrary of that. They are limited by the escrow deadline and have non- 02-28-00 Page 21 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AGENDA ~ refundable fees every time they ask for an extension. They have been working with staff since October; the size of church has already been reduced. Commissioner Arnold asked if they had a meeting with surrounding neighbors. Fr. Joseph Boules responded that he drove around and talked to one person (Mr. Romero) who said he was not opposed to church. He also knocked on a coupie of doors but there was not response. Commissioner Napoles stated he has friends that were not notified. If they had been notified he thought they would have been present today. Fr. Joseph Boules stated they complied with the 300-foot radius requirements and submitted this to the City. He said he would not know how to go about gathering neighbors in a meeting, other than driving by and talking to them. Chairperson Boydstun stated that everyone was notified within 300 feet and asked if there were any ca11s from those that were notified. Fr. Joseph Boules responded the only call he received had concerns over access from the alley and they assured staff that they have no access from the alley. Greg McCafferty stated there were a total of four calls received. One expressed concern and the other three only asked questions about what was going on, nothing in direct opposition. Chairperson Boydstun felt if this property was developed the way it is proposed, there would be a 10-foot setback on State College Boulevard, but if it was built as a market instead, for example, it would be very ~ much the same situation that there is at State College Boulevard and La Palma Avenue, where Albertsons was. The cul-de-sac behind it backs up to it; the residents have the back of the stores where the trash enclosures are located and the truck traffic. She would not fike to see that situation on this corner. Chairperson Boydstun stated she would like to see them work with Traffic Engineering to see two feet taken ofF of the outside of the planter, 13 feet instead of 15 feet. Parking in the middle is a problem because it is short. ~r. Joseph Boules indicated the island can be removed. Commissioner Koos stated his major problem is with the parking variance and the width of the parking stalls. They would have to readvertise a waiver on the landscaping if it was traded off. Greg McCafferty advised each waiver has to be specifically advertised as to tie to a code section. Chairperson Boydstun stated she would like to continue this item to readvertise and see if they could work with Mr. Yalda in Traffic Engineering to get some solutions on parking. ~r. Joseph Soules stated they had petitioned for a waiver of 2%2 feet from the back, sides, front and height. They can discuss the encroachment waiver versus a variance waiver. He is just concerned about the limits of escrow. Commissioner Koos stated even if the median is removed, there is still parking adjacent to the buildings, which stifl require a variance as well. Greg McCafferty explained Waiver A and F should cover both of those circumstances, both the landscape ~ setback that is 15 feet and the minimum dimensions of parking spaces, which require 18 feet. If the Commission wanted to do something today, there is the possibility. 02-28-00 Page 22 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AGENDA ~ Commissioner Koos asked about the other parking lot strips. George Behman, architect of the project, stated all parking lots are meeting minimum size of the parking stalls. The only issue is the overhang next to the two 15-foot setbacks. All others are meeting minimum standards which is 18 feet. Commissioner Bristol was concerned about temporary buildings for one or finro years on State College Boulevard. Commission does not have any idea what they look like and would like to see the renderings. He is also concerned with parking. George Behman stated there are proposed Conditions by the staff to work with them to have all screening for buildings as well as the trash enclosure. Commissioner Bristol stated this is a very visible street for the City. Chairperson Boydstun suggested Commission could ask for approval of trailers and landscaping as a Reports and Recommendations Item. Greg McCafferty advised there is already a condition that requires them to return with permanent buildings and they could include it to say the modular buildings as well. Chairperson Boydstun stated Waiver C proposes 78.5 feet proposed and asked if they could keep it at 75 feet so that this property would be at Code if it had stayed commercial. Fr. Joseph Boules responded yes. • Chairperson Boydstun asked if they could use Waiver A if they cut 2%2 feet from the planter and enlarged the parking space. Greg McCafferty advised Waiver A could be used to reduce the institutionat setback. The building complies; it is the 15 feet where the parking encroaches into landscaping. Therefore, it would either be the space dimension or the landscape setback. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, advised that area is just an overhang so it is double-counted, physically you would not notice any difference. Commission could approve Waiver A but deny Waiver F. Chairperson Boydstun stated the only other concern was the setback issue. Only the central part of each building is within the 15 feet, the rest of it is less. Greg McCafferty referenced on page 5 of Paragraph No. 22 of staff report; the front setback for both buildings on State College varies from 15 to 40 feet. In some cases they comply and in others they do not, due to the angle of the property. Chairperson Boydstun did not have a problem with it because with the offset building and with it going back farther in some places, it is very minor and it could have been 10 feet if it were commercial. She would approve Waiver A and deny Waiver F if the others meet Code. Commissioner Arnold agreed the front setback is not a problem. Commissioner Koos asked staff what the landscape setback requirement is for CL Zone adjacent to residential. ~ Greg McCafferty responded it starts out at 10 feet and for additional stories over two it is an additional two feet per story, in this case there is no defined second story. Therefore, it would be difficult to apply that. 02-28-00 Page 23 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AGENDA ~ Commissioner Koos stated some Commissioners are witling to rationalize the waiver based on the previous zoning for one variance and not apply the same standard of the CL Zone to another variance. He is not certain if they are being consistent. George Behman stated Mr. McCafferty explained it very well. Had they applied the commercial zone, they would have had a front setback of 10 feet, right and rear 10 feet only. They are exceeding it. They could have had 12-foot setback with a two-story right next to the property line on the side and back. Commissioner Koos asked if this was a structural issue. Greg McCafferty explained there is one constant that applies to this property regardless of what it is zoned, that is the 15 feet landscaped institutional setback is required whether it is in CL or RSA-43,000. The applicant is referring to another Code Section stating if it were CL Zone that requires not less than a 10-foot landscape setback and for buildings over two stories in height, the required setback area shall be increased in width two additional feet for each story that the building exceeds two stories in height. Commissioner Koos asked if that is relevant. If an element of the building exceeds the second story by a certain number of feet is it irrelevant based on Code. George Behman stated hypothetically they could have a six-story o~ce building 12 feet away from the rear and side property lines. Commissioner Koos asked if that would be next to residential. George Behman advised that is what the Code states hypothetically, however, it will never be achieved. ~ Commissioner Koos stated Commission is being put in a bad position when an appeal is made that they need to approved this right away due to escrow timing. They need to go through the process and feel comfortable on what they are voting on. He is not comfortable with parking and landscaping issues, the fact that they did not speak to the neighbors. Commission is trying to decide on a land use decision, which would last years into the future. He, therefore, feels more comfortable continuing this item. Commissioner Arnold stated Commissioner Koos makes a very important point. He felt given this particular proposal, he is prepared to vote for it based on what they have before them. However, he is concerned about statements made that it is going to cost so much or lose a tenant if they wait another two weeks. The applicants have to take into account when they are going through this process, there are going to be issues raised. The potential cost could be much greater to ignore the neighbors. This is not the last decision body that will be evaluating their proposal; City Council will also consider it. Sometimes items that seem relatively uncontroversial at Planning Commission sometime become controversial at City Council level. Fr. Joseph Boules stated he understands their concerns but they are not going to be happy in a place where there is a problem with the neighbors. They will resolve the problem. He intends to meet with the neighbors. They just want to know if it will be acceptable to the City with the constraints. Commissioner Koos explained it is not just the applicant's conduct, it is a tall structure and that is part of the concern. Fr. Joseph Boules stated they purchased their property next to a commercial lot and the lot allows a high structure. If somebody misrepresented the property to the buyers, they should not have to pay the price for that. ~ 02-28-00 Page 24 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AGENDA ~ Commissioner Bristol stated this is a nice use, a beautiful church, going on a tight site, asking to visually impact a very busy street in Anaheim. He feels this should be continued. He would like to see elevations and why they should allow a temporary structure for two years because they do not do it for anybody else, except for public schools and a church in Anaheim Hills that is not visible from the public streets. He is also concerned about parking and using a public park for overflow. It is not prudent planning. Fr. Joseph Boules explained that the park usage is only for Christmas Eve at night. Commissioner Koos stated if Commission is prudent and tries to resolve this the best they can then it makes the City Council's job much easier. Commissioner Bristol stated he would like the applicant to bring back elevations, temporary building, phasing of property and parking. Commissioner Arnold exp{ained that although the Commission is focused on the details, they are excited about the use and this will be a great addition to the surrounding area. It is that the details need careful attention. Chairperson Boydstun asked how long staff would recommend that this item be continued. Greg McCafferty responded that there are no additional waivers to advertise. It is just a matter of the applicant meeting with Planning and Traffic staff to meet to address Commission's concerns. F'r. Boules asked for a clarification whether Commission would allow 12%Z feet from the back and side or is this something that they want them to discuss with staff. ~ Chairperson Boydstun confirmed that is what Commission wants them to discuss with staff to see which would be the best alternative. She thought it would be better if they allowed the 12% feet and then they would have the full length of space for the parking. Commissioner Koos added that in reviewing their site plan the ultimate goal is to have no waivers, which may not be possible but he would like them to keep that in mind as an ultimate goal to eliminate all waiver, if possible. Chairperson Boydstun stated she would feel more comfortable if their height would be 75 feet, which would conform to the Code. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion for a motion for a continuance to March 13, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and motion carried. • • ~ ~ - • ~ • • ~ • IN SUPPORT: 2 people spoke in favor of the proposal. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition to the request. ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 13, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to (1) meet with adjacent neighbors, (2) meet with traffic staff to review the parking space dimensions, (3) meet with planning staff to see if iYs possible to delete the proposed waivers, (4) submit elevation plans, (5) submit the phasing of the development, and (6) for further review of the temporary building ~ request. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) 02-28-00 Page 25 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AGENDA ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 19 minutes (2:54-4:13) ~ ~ 02-28-00 Page 26 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AGENDA ~ 6a. CEQA NEGATiVE DECLARATION 6b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 99-00-17 Withdrawn OWNER: Medtronic, Inc., 3850 Victoria Street North, Shoreview, MN 55126 AGENT: Hogle-Ireland, Inc., Attn: Kelly Carlyle, 4200 Latham Street, Suite B, Riverside, CA 92501 LOCATION: 4633 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 1.82 acre located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Hancock Street. To reclassify subject property from the Specific Plan No. 94-1, Development Area No. 5- Commercial Area to Specific Plan No. 94-1, Development Area No. 2- Expanded Industrial Area. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 7674V. DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner stated that staff is recommending that the Commission accept a withdrawal of Reclassification No. 99-00-17 in order to readvertise this request as a specific plan amendment for the March 13, 2000 Planning Commission Public Hearing. . FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF TNE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the request for withdrawal of Reclassification No. 99-00-17 in order readvertise this request as a specific plan amendment for the March 13, 2000 Commission meeting. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (1:32-1:33) . 02-28-00 Page 27 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINI ACTION AGENDA ~ THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:15 P.M. TO MONDAY, MARCH 13, 2000 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW Respectfully submitted: 0 ~~ Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary . o~. ,~.~,.~-~~.a, ~o.~.~..~s.~.~~ Simonne Fannin Senior Office Specialist ~ Received and approved by the P{anning Commission on 3-- i~- C~lJ ~ 02-28-00 Page 28