Minutes-PC 2000/06/19'~
O'~'H~ ~M c,` R Z
CITY OF ANAHEIM
" ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
/~4NDED ~~,1
DATE: MONDAY, JUNE 19, 2000
MORNING SESSION: Chairperson Boydstun called the Morning Session to order at
9:30 a.m. at the field workshop on telecommunications.
9:30 A.M. • Field Workshop on Telecommunications Facilities along the
Eastern Transportation Corridor near the Mountain Park Specific
Plan Boundary (see page 31 for related discussion.)
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 Chambers and welcomed those in attendance.
1:30 P.M. • Public Hearing Testimony
PLEDGE OF ALlEGIANCE: The Pledge Allegiance was led by Commissioner Vanderbilt.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
Bostwick, Boydstun, Bristol, Koos, Napoles, Vanderbilt
Arnold
Selma Mann
Mary McCloskey
Greg Hastings
Greg McCafferty
Linda Johnson
Della Herrick
Susan Kim
Don Yourstone
Alfred Yalda
Melanie Adams
Margarita Solorio
Ossie Edmundson
Assistant City Attorney
Deputy Planning Director
Zoning Division Manager
Senior Planner
Senior Planner
Associate Planner
Associate Planner
Senior Code Enforcement Officer
Principal Transportation Planner
Associate Civil Engineer
Planning Commission Secretary
Senior Secretary
AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at
4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 14, 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, May 25, 2000.
~
H:DOCS\CLERICALWIINUTESWC050800. DOC
planningcommissionCa~anaheim.net
06-19-00
Page 1
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
American Planning Association Award Ceremony:
Commissioner Koos stated that he recently attended the Orange County Division of the American Planning
Association's award ceremony in which the City of Anaheim received finro planning awards. One was for
the implementation of the Resort Area and the other one was the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use
Plan in a category for specific plans. It was exciting to be in attendance and see the awards presented.
1•
RECEIVING AND APPROVING THE MINUTES FOR THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 5, 2000. (Motion)
ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick abstained and
Commissioner Arnold was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the meeting of June 5, 2000.
Approved
(Vote: 5-0,
Commissioner
Bostwick abstained
and Commissioner
Arnold absent)
1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. a. CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061(b)(3)
b. REQUEST INITIATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND
ZONING RECLASSIFICATION PROCEEDINGS FOR TWO
FREEWAY REMNANT PARCELS: City-initiated (Planning
Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Room 162, Anaheim, CA
92805, City-initiated request to amend the Land Use Element of the
General Plan redesignating subject properties from the Medium Density
Residential Designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential
Designation and to reclassify Parcel 1 from the RM-1200 (Residential,
Multiple-Family) Zone to the RS-5000 (Residential, Single Family) Zone
and Parcel 2 from the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone to
the RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone. Properties are
iocated at (Parcel 1) 1830 West Crescent Avenue and (Parcel 2) 2030
West Greenleaf Avenue.
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold absent),
that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that
the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class
15061 (b) (3), as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR.
Concurred with staff
Initiated a general
plan amendment and
reclassification
proceedings for both
parcels
{Vote for Parcel 1: 5-0,
Commissioner Vanderbilt
declared a conflict of
interest and
Commissioner Arnold wa:
absent)
(Vote for Parcel 2: 6-0,
Commissioner Arnold
was absent)
• Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol
and MO710N CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt declared a conflict of
interest and Commissioner Arnold was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby initiate an amendment to the Land Use Element of
06-19-00
Page 2
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
',
Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold absent), that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby initiate an amendment to the Land Use
Element of the General Plan redesignating 2030 West Greenleaf Avenue
(Parcel 2) from the Medium Density Residential Designation to the Low-Medium
Density Designation and the reclassification of this property from the RM-1200 SR1011 SK.DOC
Zone to the RM-2400 Zone or a less intense zone.
the General Plan redesignating 1830 West Crescent Avenue (Parcel 1) from the
Medium Density Residential Designation to the Low-Medium Density
Residential Designation and the reclassification of this property from the RM-
1200 Zone to the RS-5000 Zone or a less intense zone.
(Commissioner Vanderbilt declared a conflict of interest with one of the parce/s but not the other. He
asked whether Commission could act on those parce/s separately.J
Susan Kim, Associate Planner, introduced this item by stating that this item is a request for Planning
Commission initiation of General Plan Amendment and Zoning Reclassification proceeding for two Santa
Ana (I-5) Fwy. remnant parcels. Parcel 1 is 3.5 acres located south of Crescent Avenue and northeast of
the 5 Fwy. Parcel 2 is 1.2 acres located southwest of the intersection of Glenoaks Avenue and Greenleaf
Avenue off the northeast of the 5 Fwy. Staff recommends initiation of proceedings to designate both of
these properties from the Medium Density Residential designation to the Low-Medium Density
Residential designation.
Staff also recommends initiation of proceedings to reclassify Parcel 1, the Crescent Avenue parcel from
the RM-1200 Zone to the RS-5000 Zone and Parcel 2 to the Glenoaks Greenleaf Parcel from the RM-
1200 Zone to the RM-2400 Zone. She also added that the in addition, per the discussion at the morning
(, session, when this item is advertised for public hearing the option of a less intense zone will be given in
the case of both of these reclassifications. Prior to the freeway widening project Parcel 1 was developed
with a 96-unit apartment complex.
Parcel 2 was developed with a nursery school and a 70-unit apartment complex. Both of the properties
were completely rayed to accommodate the freeway improvements that are currently owned by CalTrans.
The recommended actions would serve to ensure that any future development of these properties occurs
at a density that is compatible with the surrounding neighbors. Therefore, staff recommends initiation of
the proposed General Plan Amendment fo the zoning reciassifications.
Chairperson Boydstun announced that these two parcels would be voted on separately.
Commissioner Bostwick asked if they could request that it be individually parcelized in the reclassification
proceedings. Their action today will initiate reclassification proceedings and at the time of the actual
public hearing of these finro items they could be considered as individual items.
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, confirmed that they could be separated as two separate public hearings
if Commission so desires.
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, advised if they vote on it together then Commissioner Vanderbilt
has elected not to participate. However, if they separate the items then he can participate in the decision
to initiate.
~Commission elected to separate fhe two items.]
•
06-19-00
Page 3
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
/.
B. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) Approved
(b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2844 (CONDITIONAL USE Determined to be in
PERMIT TRACKING NO. 2000-o422s) - REQUEST FOR substantial
SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: Western States Engineering conformance
& Construction, Inc. Attn: Carmen Begay, 1150 North Richfield
Road, Anaheim, CA 92807, request to determine substantial
conformance with previously-approved sign plans and accent (Vote: 6-0,
colors for an existing service station. Property is located at 8275 Commissioner Arnold
East Santa Ana Canyon Road. absent)
ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold
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 8ristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold absent), that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that this
request to modify previously-approved sign plans and the color scheme
for the service station is in substantial conformance with plans approved
in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 2844 based on the
folfowing:
(~
(i) That the proposed change in accent colors, reduced signage and
sign illumination will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses.
(iii) That no additional tra~c or increased parking demand will be
generated by the proposed color change or modified signage.
SR7786VK.DOC
(ii) That the site is adequate in size for the proposed revisions to the
accent colors and reduced signage, and further that the changes
are not detrimental to the surrounding land uses.
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating this item is a request to determine
substantial conformance for the modification of the previously-approved sign plans and accent
colors for an existing service station. Staff reviewed the proposed modifications and recommends
approval of the request.
Commissioner Bristol asked whether this was simply a change of color and that they are not adding
any signage.
Greg McCafferty responded that they are actually reducing the amount of signs on the buildings.
~~
06-19-00
Page 4
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
li
C. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED
NO ACTION WAS
TAKEN
~
(b) CONDITlONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4125 (CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TRACKING NO. 2000-04234) - REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF
FINAL PLANS: Howard CDM, Attn: Denise Scribner, 2161
Gundy Avenue, Signal Hill, CA 90806, requests review and
approval of final fencing and landscaping plans for a previously-
approved outdoor swap meet facility wifh waiver of required
parking lot landscaping. Property is located 2150 South State
College Boulevard (Orange Swap Meet).
(THIS ITEM WAS
DELETED FROM
THE AGENDA)
Chairperson Boydstun asked if Commission needed take an action on this item.
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, advised that it is a Reports and Recommendations Item that was
removed prior to finalizing the agenda, therefore, Commission did not have to taken action on this
item.
D. (a) CEQA CATEGORICA~ EXEMPTION, CLASS 3 AND 11 Concurred with staff
(b) FINAL S1TE PLAN NO. 00-06 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND Approved
APPROVAL OF A FINAL SITE PLAN TO INSTALL SIX
FREESTANDING DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, ONE PARKING LOT
TOLL BOOTH AND TWO TICKET DISPENSERS: Pacific (Vote: 6-0,
Islandia California, Inc., 1015 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA Commissioner Arnold
92802, requests review and approval of a Final Site Plan, absent)
including a site plan, elevation plans and sign plans, to install six
(6) freestanding directional signs, one (1) parking lot toll booth
and two (2) ticket dispensers in the Anaheim Sheraton parking
lot. The property is located at 1015 West Ball Road (Anaheim
Sheraton).
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold
absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur
with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical
Exemptions, Class 3 and 11, as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines and
is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an
EIR.
Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold absent), that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Site
Plan (identified as Exhibits Nos. 1 through 14 on file in the Planning
Department) on the basis that the Final Site Plan is in conformance with
the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2.
SR7790DH.DOC
Della Herrick, Associate Planner, introduced this item by stating this is a request for review and
• approval of a Final Site Pfan to instaii 6 freestanding directional signs, 2 parking lot toll booths and
2 ticket dispensers in the Anaheim Sheraton parking lot. Planning staff reviewed the submitted
plans and ~nds that the Final Site Plan is in conformance with the Specific Plan requirements. In
06-19-00
Page 5
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM Pl.ANNlNG COMMISSION MINUTES
addition, the Traffic and Transportation Manager has also reviewed and approved the proposed
', directional signage, toll booths, ticket dispensers and gate arm location.
Staff recommends that the Pianning Commission, by motion, ~nd that the project is Categorically
Exempt from the provisions of CEQA guidelines under Class 3 and 11. Staff also recommends that
the Planning Commission approve Final Site Plan No. 00-06 based upon a finding that the Final
Site Plan is in conformance with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2.
,.
•
06-19-00
Page 6
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
I.
~~
E. (a) CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND Approved
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 004 (PREVIOUSLY-
APPROVED)
(b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4078 - REQUEST FOR Approved
EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL: Pointe Anaheim LLC, Attn: Robert Shelton, 777 (To expire 8-13-01)
Convention Way, Suite 100, Anaheim, CA 92688, requests a
one-year time extension for Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 (Vote: 6-0,
in order to allow the Pointe"Anaheim project developers time Commissioner Arnold
to complete the acquisition of the 29.1-acre project site, was absent)
conclude arranging of financing for the planned improvements
and to implement the project conditions of approval. The
Pointe*Anaheim Lifestyle Retail and Entertainment Project
(hereinafter, "Pointe*Anaheim project) encompasses an
irregularly-shaped area within the Anaheim Resort area,
consisting of ten parcels totaling approximately 29.1 acres
with frontages of approximately 585 feet on the east side of
Harbor Boulevard, 1,483 feet on the south side of Disney
Way, 887 feet on the west side of Freedman Way and 726
feet on the north side of Katella Avenue.
ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold
absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
determine that the previously-approved Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004 are adequate to serve as the
required environmental documentation for the subject request.
Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold absent), that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve a one-year time
extension for Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 (to expire August 13, 2001)
based on the following:
(1) That the subject request for a one-year extension of time does not
exceed the one-year time increment specified in City Council
Resolution No. 99R-136 approving Conditional Use Permit No.
4078;
(2) That the approval remains consistent with the General Plan and The
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1, as amended;
(3) That no Code amendments have occurred that would cause the
approval to be inconsistent with the Zoning Code;
(4) That the subject property has been maintained in a safe, clean, and
aesthetically pleasing condition with no unremediated code
violations on the property, as confirmed by an inspection of the
subject property by the Code Enforcement Division; and,
~•
(5) That no additional information or changed circumstances are
present which contradict the facts necessary to support one or more
of the required findings for approval of the project or enterprise. SR7795LJ.DOC
06-19-00
Page 7
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Linda Johnson, Senior Planner, introduced the item by stating this is a request for a 1-year
', extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 which pertains to the Pointe*Anaheim
project. This conditional use permit wil! expire on August 13, 2000. The applicant is requesting a
1-year extension of time in order to complete financing and acquisition and start implementation of
the projecfi. Staff recommends that the Commission, by motion, determine that the previously-
approved Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004 are adequate to
serve as the required environmental documentation for the subject request. Staff also recommends
that the Commission, by resolution, approve the 1-year extension of time to expire on August 13,
• 2001, bas~d upon the findings listed on page 4 of staff report.
Commissioner Bristol stated that applicants are entitled to two extensions.
Linda Johnson confirmed that the Code allows up to two requests for extensions of time.
(.
~
06-19-00
Page 8
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
PUBLIC HE~ARING ITEMS:
~.
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
2b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 99-00-18
2c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
2d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4184
OWNER: Charles Hance, 828 West Vermont Avenue, Anaheim,
CA 92805
LOCATION: Portion A: 828 West Vermont Avenue *
Portion B: 800 West Vermont Avenue **
Property is 0.9 acre located on the south side of
Vermont Avenue, 110 feet west of the centerline of
Citron Street (Portion A); and a 1.1 acre parcel south of
and contiguous to Portion A with no frontage on a
public street (Portion B).
Reclassification No. 99-00-18 - To reclassify Portion B of subject
property from RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone to CL
(Commercial Limited) Zone.
Conditional Use Permit No. 4184 - To permit and retain an existing
unpermitted truck rental facility in connection with an existing permitted
auto sales dealer with waiver of (a) required number of trees, (b) required
parking lot landscaping, (c) required landscaped setback adjacent to an
arterial highway and (d) required landscaped setback adjacent to any
residential zone.
" Coast Corvette.
"" Formerly A-1 Body and Paint.
Continuance from the Commission meeting of March 27, 2000.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
Withdrawn
SR7749KB.DOC
There was no discussion of this item.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold absent), that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby accept the request to withdraw this proposal.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Amold absent)
• DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (1:31-1:33)
06-19-00
Page 9
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
't
3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
3b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2000-00025
3c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
3d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04224
Continued to
July 3, 2000
OWNER: Charles Hance, 828 West Vermont Avenue, Anaheim,
CA 92805
AGENT: Valli Architectural Group, 81 Columbia, Suite 200, Aliso
Viejo, CA 92656
LOCATION: Portion A: 828 West Vermont Avenue. Property is
0.9 acre located on the south side of Vermont Avenue,
110 feet west of the centerline of Citron Street (Coast
Corvette).
Portion B: 800 West Vermont Avenue. Property is
1.1 acre located on the west side of a public alley, 315
feet south of the centerline of Vermont Avenue
(Formerly A-1 Body and Paint).
Reclassification No. 2000-00025 - To reclassify Portion B of subject
property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone to the CL
(Commercial, Limited) Zone.
(•
Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04224 - To permit and retain an
existing unpermitted truck rental facility and permit a self-storage facility
with waiver of (a) required setback adjacent to a freeway and (b} required
interior setback adjacent to any residential zone boundary.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITI~NAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
SR7748K6.DOC
Commissioner Napoles offered a motion for continuance to July 3, 2000, seconded by Commissioner
Bristol, vote taken and motion carried.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Continued subject request to the July 3, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order
for the petitioner to submit revised plans for staff review for the proposed self-storage
facility in order to provide the Code required landscaping for this site.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent)
DISCUSStON T'IME: This item was not discussed.
•
06-19-00
Page 10
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
I.
4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTlON-CLASS 3
4b. VARIANCE NO. 2000-04397
Concurred with staff
Denied
OWNER: John H. Haney, 668 South Pathfinder Trail, Anaheim,
CA 92807
AGENT: Gloria D. Haney, 668 South Pathfinder Trail, Anaheim,
CA 92807
LOCATION: 668 South Pathfinder Trail. Property is 0.24 acre
located on the south side of Pathfinder Trail, 690 feet
east of the centerline of Scout Trail.
Waiver of (a) maximum fence height and (b) required side yard setback,
to retain a patio structure and built up wall.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-81
SR7793KP.DOC
Applicant's Statement:
I.
~
Gloria Haney 668 South Pathfinder 7rail, Anaheim, CA 92807, stated that initially they wanted the City to
approve the extension of the roof to the garage portion that has been there since 1986. When they had
the cement roof replace the wood shake roof the contractor on that addition to the garage also included
the cement with the City inspectors noting all of that at the time. They are asking to maintain the roof that
is extending out from the garage and replacing the garage appearance with a wrought iron gate instead
because the home is surrounded with wrought iron fencing and would like it to maintain a consistency.
They are asking Commission to approve the roof extension of the garage.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairperson Boydstun asked if the garage is built up against the fence.
Gloria Haney responded that the garage is not right up against the fence. There is a space between the
garage and the fence.
Chairperson Boydstun stated that according to the photographs it appears the extension of the garage is
right against the fence.
Gloria Haney explained that the roof extension of the garage is up against the fence. That is why they
are asking to maintain the roof of the garage and take down the other and install wrought iron fencing.
Chairperson Boydstun asked if they are going to take it all the way back or only take it back the 3 feet so
that the storage room remains.
Gloria Haney explained they are going to take it all the way back to the end of the original garage.
Commissioner Bristol asked Ms. Haney if she was living at the property when the extension was built.
Gloria Haney responded yes. They have been there since October 1980.
Commissioner Bristol asked Ms. Haney whether she knew that it was not legal to build to the sidewall.
06-19-00
Page 11
JUNE 19, 20Q0
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
. Gloria Haney stated that if they had known that then it would not have been done. They have had a
' number additions to their home since then and have had several individuals come to inspect the home
and there was never any indication given that it was not legal.
Commissioner Koos asked whether they constructed it themselves or hired a contractor.
Gloria Haney responded that her husband did the construction.
Commissioner Koos stated that any building contractor alerted them that they would have needed to
obtain a building permit.
Gloria Haney explained that they changed the wood shake roof to the cement roof and were not informed
that there were any problems with that.
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, advised that normally when a re-roofing is being done that it requires
an inspection if not a permit from the Building Division. If it were illustrated on a site plan that they were
extending the roof and enclosing it to make a false garage then they would have referred that to the
Zoning Division. Therefo~e, there would have been some record that it was approved through the Zoning
Code which there is no such record on file.
Chairperson Boydstun asked if they had a permit for that re-roofing.
Gloria Haney responded they did. The inspector came out at least two or three different times before the
final approval was granted and did not mention anything concern.
Commissioner Koos suggested that perhaps a building inspector may have gone out to their home and
assumed erroneously that they already had a permitted addition and as a result might not have caught it
since the inspector was looking at roofing issues and not at structural issues to the house. They are
(~ talking about the whole structure within the setback and not just the roof.
Greg McCafferty confirmed that they are discussing the whole structure.
Commissioner Koos stated that it appears that the whole structure is an illegal use and she is requesting
approval for a retroactive permit for the entire structure.
Gloria Haney asked for clarification.
Commissioner Bristol explained that the setback from her neighbor, which is 6 feet, and the assumption is
that the wall that separates her home from the neighbor is probably the property line and she can not
build in that setback area period. This means that the whole structure is not legal.
Gloria Haney stated she is seeking approval for that portion of the roof and not the entire structure to be
approved.
Commissioner Koos asked staff to verify that the variance is for the entire structure as well as the garage
addition.
Greg McCafferty explained that according to the Code that it is a free and clear 6-foot setback.
Commissioner Koos asked Ms. Haney if she is aware that they are discussing the entire building.
Gloria Haney responded that she is aware of that now because Commissioner Koos explained it to her
but she is oniy referring to the roof portion.
• Commissioner Koos asked staff whether the advertisement covered the entire setback issue.
06-19-00
Page 12
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Greg McCafferty advised Code requires that they have a 6-foot clear setback, which the applicant does
~, not currently have for any part of the structure that they built.
Chairperson Boydstun asked if the building was taken down and the roof was left then it would be like a
carport and asked if Ms. Haney would need a variance if it was that way.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, responded that it would require a variance. In particular
because the roof is likely not built out as such where it can cantilever out that far and the Building Code
will most likely require a solid wall at the end. Basically, Ms. Haney is referring to the elimination of the
garage door itself and placing a wrought iron gate there instead.
Chairperson Boydstun asked if the sidewall would also be taken down.
Gloria Haney responded that they would do whatever necessary to maintain the roof.
Chairperson Boydstun stated that Ms. Haney would have to have a contractor to ensure there was
enough support to handle the weight.
Greg Hastings added that the Building Code would require some type of firewall since it is built right at the
property line, which means a solid wall to go up above the roof.
Chairperson Boydstun asked if they take the wall down why would there be a firewall required.
Greg Hastings explained that the Building Code would require a firewall at the property line itself if the
roof extends out to the property line. At some of the older neighborhoods there are no firewalls but the
existing Building Code would require that. At this point the wall can not be removed for two reasons: (1)
They have to have a firewall which likely has to extend above the roofline. (2) The support of the
. overhang, any structure element would require a variance.
I Chairperson Boydstun asked why there are carports permitted on Dwyer going right to the lot.
Greg Hastings explained that it is an RS-10, 000 Zone, which allows for that. If those were built today
some of those may require firewalls, if built right at the property line.
Commissioner Koos stated that it is a variance, which they would need to establish specific findings. He
could not identify any findings that would be applicable to this property. This is a master planned part of
the City where planning standards have been high for many years and could not justify this variance.
Gloria Haney stated they have been there at their home for almost 20 years and there were several
inspectors and organizations out to the home making sure that everything was being complied with. She
emphasized that she is only asking for an approval of the new roofing.
Commissioner Bostwick stated that there is no way to do that. They could take the cement shingles that
are on that part of the roof and repair the edge of the original garage that was there.
Chairperson Boydstun asked staff whether a carport is allowed within a 10,000 square foot lot.
Greg Hastings indicated that the RS-10, 000 Zone, which is a zone particularly by the Anaheim Plaza
area, does have allowance for carport.
Chairperson Boydstun stated that this property is in a 10,000 square foot zone and Ms. Haney has over
10,000 square feet in her lot according to the records.
• Greg Hastings explained that it is an RS-HS-10, 000 Zone, (Hillside Zone) as opposed to the RS-10, 000.
They have som~ minimum lot requirements in terms of square footage but the development standards
are completely different.
06-19-00
Page 13
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ ~
Following the Action:
Gloria Haney indicated that Commissioner Koos stated that when the inspectors come out to check a
property they are not required to know about Building Codes, etc. But she went to the City of Anaheim
Human Resources Office and found out that the inspectors that come out are required to know the
Building Codes and are suppose to be prepared in order to inform the homeowners when there are
violations.
Commissioner Koos explained that he did not state that they would not know. He stated that it is
hypothetically possibte that the inspectors checking the roofing issue did not know that she did not have a
permitted structure. They built the garage addition in 1986 and had the roofing changed in 1990's, and
the inspector might not have known that the entire structure was a non-permitted structure.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical
Exemptions, Class 3, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR.
Denied Variance No. 2000-04397 based upon the following:
~~
(i) That there are no special circumstances applicable to the property consisting of
size, shape, topography, surroundings and building location which do not apply
to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity to justify the proposed
waivers.
(ii) That this property is sufficient in size and shape to accommodate this type of
structure elsewhere on the site in conformance with Code requirements.
(iii) That the existing structure does not comply with Uniform Building Code
requirements for fire protection.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 20 minutes (1:48-2:08)
•
06-19-00
Page 14
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
u
5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 15
5b. TENTATIi/E PARCEL MAP NO. 2000-00159
Concurred with staff
Approved
OWNER: R.S. Hoyt, Jr., Trustee of R.S. Hoyt Jr., Family Trust,
146 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92803
AGENT: Anacal Engineering, 1900 East La Palma Avenue,
#202, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 1537-1567 West Embassv Street. Property is 2.2
acres located at the northeast corner of Loara Street
and Embassy Street.
To establish a 4-lot industrial subdivision.
SR2024DS. DOC
Applicant's Statement:
Cal Queyral, Anacal Engineering, 1900 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, stated that he was in
agreement with the conditions of approval in the staff report.
OPPOSITION: None
~•
ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical
Exemptions, Class 15, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR.
Approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 2000-00159 subject to the conditions of approval
listed in the staff report.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnoid absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (2:09-2:11)
•
06-19-00
Page 15
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
(•
6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APP
6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3693
(CUP TRACKING NO. 2000-04218)
Approved
Approved reinstatement
OWNER: Paul Mittman and Margaret Ann Mittman, 14501 Phillip ~Removed the time
Lane, Sonora, CA 95370 limitation)
AGENT: Anthony Fasano, Jr., 1011 North Harbor Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 1011 North Harbor Boulevard. Property is 0.76 acre
located on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, 250 feet
north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue (Calvary
Chapel Open Door).
To consider reinstatement of this permit which has a time limitation
(originally approved on August 18, 1997, to expire June 27, 2000) to
retain a church including on-site food collection, distribution, and storage
facilities in conjunction with church activities.
~
CONDITI~NAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-82
SR7746KB. DOC
~Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos acted as chairperson for this item while Chairperson Boydstun stepped
away but remained in the Council Chambers hearing this item and later returned to act as chairperson to
conduct the voting.]
Applicant's Statement:
Roger Stahlhut, Sr. Pastor, Calvary Chapel Open Door, 1011 North Harbor Boulevard, stated that they
request that they be granted a permanent conditional use permit to occupy the facility as a church.
THE PUBLIC HEAR(NG WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Koos asked Pastor Stahlhut if he was in agreement with the conditions of approval and the
staff report recommendations.
Pastor Roger Stahlhut acknowledged he was in agreement and explained that they have tried to relocate
the church to other places and it has not worked out. They originally thought they would be there for 3
years and have now been there 6 years. They met with their landlord and are in the process of
negotiating the purchase of the facility, based upon this approval.
Commissioner Bristol stated, for the record, that a letter was received from the applicant informing
Commission that their activities would not include on-site food collection, distribution and/or storage of
same.
Pastor Stahlhut explained when they originally came into the facility they co-partnered with a ministry
called "G.I.R.L. International" which was a food distribution organization. It was very difficult merging the
two together and two years after they were together then "G.I.R.L. International" left and went to another
facility. Therefore, they have not operated any food distribution for over 3 years.
•
OPPOSITION: None
06-19-00
Page 16
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
1.
ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve
as the required environmental documentation for subject request.
Approved Reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3693 (CUP Tracking No. 2000-
04218) and removed the time limitation, Amended Resolution Nos. 94R-207 and
PC97-120, in their entirety, and replaced them with a new resolution which includes
the following conditions of approval:
1. That there shall be no on-site food collection, storage or distribution permitted at
this location. Any existing storage facilities, including freezers, shal( be removed
from the premises.
2. That there shall be a minimum of forty-five (45) on-site parking spaces provided
and maintained for the church.
3. That a minimum eight (8) foot fully landscaped setback shall be maintained
along the north property line abutting the single-family residential properties.
4. That a minimum of eight (8) canopy-type trees shall be maintained at not more
than twenty (20) feet on-center to provide an effective visual screen between the
church and adjacent residential uses abutting the north property line.
5. That the number of people in attendance at any worship service or church-
related activity shall be limited to a maximum of sevenfy (70) persons on
Sundays and twenty (20) persons at all other times. This condition may be
modified by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item
upon recommendation of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager.
I~
6. That no outdoor activity shal! occur on this property between the hours of 10:00
p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
7. That afl signage for this use shall be subject to review and approval by the
Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendation item.
8. That subject property shail be developed and maintained substantially in
accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by
the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked
Exhibit Nos. 1 through 5 and as conditioned herein.
9. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request
only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and
any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not
include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request
regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeai rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (2:12-2:14)
~
06-19-00
Page 17
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~.
7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY
7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3843
(CUP TRACKING NO. 2000-04220)
Approved reinstatement
for 3 years
OWNER: Shakour and Yahya Cyrus, 2600 West Lincoln Avenue, I~ (To expire 6-19-2003)
Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: 2600 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 0.29 acre
located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and
Magnolia Avenue (Wheel Service Texaco).
To consider reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of
a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (originally approved
on June 10, 1996, to expire on June 10, 2000) to retain retai! tire sales
and installation, automobile repair with accessory sales of parts, and used
automobile sales.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-83
SR2025DS.DOC
ApplicanYs Statement:
(~
Shakour Cyrus, 2600 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, stated that he is requesting that Commission
consider removing the condition of approval on Conditional Use Permit No. 3843 pertaining to a time
limitation which was previously-approved in 1996.
THE PUBLiC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Koos indicated to Mr. Cyrus that he has done a good job in the last couple of years, since
he has been on the Commission. He drove by the site this morning and observed a vehicle, Chevrolet
Suburban, being worked on outside. He reminded Mr. Cyrus of the condition of approval that does not
allow vehicl~s to be worked on outside the bays.
Shakour Cyrus responded that he was not there at the time but if he had been present he would not have
allowed it to happen.
Commissioner Bristol also agreed that the property is now much better than it was a few years ago. He
reminded Mr. Cyrus that the vehicles are suppose to be worked on inside.
Chairperson Boydstun suggested that perhaps there should be periodic Code Enforcement inspections of
the property.
Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, was in agreement if Commission wished to impose
that as part of the conditions of approval on this permit.
Chairperson Boydstun added that the applicant should pay for those inspections.
Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that he visited the site a few times over the weekend and his concern
was that the photographs presented with the application do not reflect the current status of the
landscaping. He noticed the landscaping was overgrown and appeared not to have been attended to in a
while. There are stipulations in the conditions that the landscaping be maintained.
•
Shakour Cyrus admitted that since the photographs were taken, 3 to 4 months ago, the landscaping has
changed such as the trees have grown but explained that these types of trees seem to drop their leaves
06-19-00
Page 18
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• daily which means that they are constantly cleaning them up. He also added that he has a gardener
( come in to maintain the landscaping.
Commissioner Vanderbilt reminded Mr. Cyrus about the condition that states that the landscaping needs
to be maintained.
Chairperson Boydstun suggested that they could request Code Enforcement to also check the
landscaping when they conduct their inspections.
Don Yourstone confirmed that they could check that. He also asked for clarification that the property
owner would pay the cost for inspections.
Chairperson Boydstun confirmed that the property owner would pay for those inspections.
Shakour Cyrus explained that he does not have the extra money to be able to pay for those inspections.
In the past he was paying for them but he does not actually have that money and asked if they could
eliminate that cost.
Commissioner Bostwick asked Mr. Yourstone what the cost is of an inspection is.
Don Yourstone responded that inspections are currently $60. Therefore, 4 inspections would be $240.
Commissioner Bostwick asked what the fee is for a CUP reinstatement application.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, indicated they would check on that and let them know shortly.
Commissioner Bostwick suggested that the applicant's permit be extended for 3 years instead of 2 years
. and Mr. Cyrus pay Code Enforcement inspections every 3 months. He felt it was a fair proposal.
Commissioner Koos suggested they might explore a sliding scale approach, such as the first year if there
are no problems then they could reduce the inspections to bi-annual inspections.
Commissioner Bostwick felt it would be better off for the applicant to pay for the Code Enforcement
inspections and if he complies with all the conditions then that may be taken in consideration when he
returns again before Commission.
Shakour Cyrus stated he could not predict how well he will be doing and whether he will be able to afford
to pay for the inspection, but at this point every dollar he can save for his family he would like to do that.
He appreciates Commission's concern on this matter.
Greg McCafferty responded to Commissioner Bostwick's earlier question by stating that the cost for a
reinstatement fee is $340.
Following the Action:
Shakour Cyrus thanked Commission and indicated he will continue to try to do his best to abide with the
conditions.
Commissioner Bristol indicated that Commissioner Vanderbilt was correct. The landscaping at times
does not look well maintained and reminded him not to work on vehicles outside. He has come along
way and those are the two items that will be monitored carefully.
• • ~ ~- • ~ ~ • ~ •
• OPPOSITION: None
06-19-00
Page 19
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ ACTION: Determined that the previously approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve
as the required environmental documentation for subject request.
Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3843 (CUP Tracking No. 2000-
04220) for 3 years, to expire on June 19, 2003. Amended Resolution Nos. PC96-55,
PC97-158, PC98-106, and PC99-89, in their entirety, and replaced them with a new
resolution which includes the following conditions of approval:
1. That this permit shall expire three (3) years from the date of this resolution on
June 19, 2003.
2. That the parking lot shall be maintained and repaired when necessary to
prevent potholes and uneven surfaces.
3. That no outdoor storage of, display of, or work on vehicles or vehicular parts
shall be permitted, and that all work on vehicles shall be conducted wholly
inside the building.
4. That no banners, pennants or balloons shall be permitted unless a Special
Event Permit is first obtained.
5. That no banners or other advertising shall be displayed within the service bays
facing the public rights-of-way unless a Special Event Permit has first been
issued.
6. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event
~ that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dies.
7. That no inoperable vehicles or parts shall be stored on the premises outside
the building.
8. That a maximum of four (4) cars available for sale shall be displayed at any
one time.
That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans
and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which
plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1.
10. That the existing wrought-iron fence shall be continuously maintained in good
condition.
11. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by
providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and
removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence.
12. That signage for this business shall be limited to the existing permitted wall
sign.
13. That the applicant shall pay for Code Enforcement inspections twice annually.
14. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request
only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and
• any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not
include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request
regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
06-19-00
Page 20
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
I~ VOTE: 5-1 (Commissioner Boydstun voted no and Commissioner Arnold was absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (2:15-2:25)
~.
~
06-19-00
Page 21
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~
8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
8b. WAIVER O~ CODE REQUIREMENT
8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04221
OWNER: Evergreen Royalle, 12631 Sunswept Avenue #1,
Garden Grove, CA 92843
Continued to
July 17, 2000
AGENT: O'Neal Communications Group, Attn: Saied Naaseh,
18500 Von Karman Avenue #870, Irvine, CA 92606
LOCATION: 1919 East Center Street. Property is 3.1 acres
located on the north side of Center Street, 310 feet
west of the centerline of State College Boulevard
(Evergreen Motel).
To construct a telecommunications monopole with waiver of minimum
interior yard setback.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ~~ SR1051TW.DOC
Applicant's Statement:
Saied Naaseh, O'Neal Communications Group, 18500 Von Karman Avenue Suite 870, Irvine, CA 92606,
stated that he represents PacBell Wireless. Their project is on Center Street at the Evergreen Motel.
. They will be located in the back of the property between a block wall and a building. Their proposal is to
construct a 55-foot monopole. The staff report indicates 60 feet but they have reduced the height since
the staff report was prepared. They are requesting an approval for a waiver and also a conditional use
permit.
He explained to Commission the process that they go through in selecting a site.
First their RF engineers issue a search where they contact the property owners and City staff about their
proposal of an antenna approved in that area. This is narrowed down to one (sometimes two) property
owner and work with them to secure a lease. In this process the property owner tells them where they
are allowed to place the antenna on their property. The owners also place other restrictions on the
location, for example, at this site the property owners wanted to place a barbecue in the back and that
area prevents them from meeting the setbacks for the BTS cabinets.
They went through preliminary review early in the year and received their final City staff comments in
March. At that time the City staff requested that they look into co-location with other carriers within their
"search ring". They also requested that they look at stealth applicants on existing buildings and also
requested that they look at flag poles and light standards as stealth facilities. Before they proceeded with
their project for a monopole, they did look to co-locate with other carriers and there are no carriers in their
search ring that they can co-locate with. They also looked at existing buildings that lend themselves for a
stealth proposal as architectural element or extension of an element. They found that fhere were none
that could really lend themselves to this application because most of the buildings in the vicinity are single
or finro-story and they were requesting a 55-foot. They also looked at flag poles and light standards and
their RF engineers indicated that they could not really use that design because it is not full diversity and
cannot down tilt as much and that particular site needed a full diversity application.
In receiving staff's comments they did not receive any specific information about which areas to locate in
• their search ring. They did indicate that they should look at properties at the intersection of Lincotn and
State College Boulevard. Initially they thought they had staff support and near the preparation of the staff
report he received a telephone call from a planner that they are not receiving a recommendation for an
06-19-00
Page 22
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
approval. The preliminary comments back in March 2000 did not specifically indicate that they did not
(, support their project but rather indicated to look into other options.
They feel that Commission has set a precedent by approving four monopalms as stated in the staff report,
that monopalms are a good application. This is the only location that they found and the only design that
they have come up with that works for them and provides their customers with fhe service needed.
They believe the Commission can make the findings for approval. Specifically, the staff report indicates 2
findings that the Commission should make in order to approve their project for the waiver that there are
special circumstance applicable to the property such as size, shape typography, location, surrounding
which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity. They believe that this property is
special in size and shape. The property owner has directed them to locate between an existing block wall
and the building. The space between there is about 18 feet and there is an existing 4-foot wide sidewalk.
Their BTS cabinets, gates and doors occupy approximately 12 feet, which would leave them with about 2
feet of setback instead of 10 feet required by Code. They can make a few feet of concession, such as
instead of using swing out gates they can use a sliding gate instead which could save a few feet which
would bring them to a total of 5 feet.
The location of the BTS cabinets has no impact on the surrounding uses. It is adjacent to a parking lot
that is hardly used. Their BTS cabinets have no noise and do not emit any fumes or smoke and creates
not traffic.
They believe that a strict application of this Code deprives the property its full use because they could
only occupy 500 to 600 square feet and not the entire three acres of this site. They cannot use it unless a
waiver is granted for their BTS cabinets.
They feel that the findings for approval of a conditional use permif can be made such as:
• • That there are no impacts on the surrounding uses with fumes, noise or traffic.
• There are no impacts on growth and development of the area.
• No evidence exists that a grove of palm trees along with their antenna will have impacts on the
economic viability of the commercial centers in the vicinity.
• The size and shape of this leased area is adequate in size to accommodate their antenna, the
proposed palm trees and their BTS cabinets.
• There is no evidence that would suggest that there is a detriment to the peace, health, safety and
general welfare of the surrounding uses.
He. asked for the following conditions of approva! be amended:
• Condition Nos. 4 and 5 require them to match the species of the proposed palm but they want to use
Mexican Fan Palms because they are readily avai(able and receptive to transplanting and have a
higher survival rate.
• Condition No. 7, they question that there is a"nexus" between this project and upgrading all of the
trash enclosures for a 3-acre site.
• Condition No. 9 be deleted because the fronds need to be higher than the antennas to visually create
a natural looking palm.
• THE PUBLIC FiEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Bostwick: Commented that he would like to see something tied into the center at State
College and Lincoln as an architectural element rather than having this. He appreciates the time
06-19-00
Page 23
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
. constraints, but would like to see something tied into that center rather than as a palm tree at the back of
( this moteL
Commissioner Bristo! stated this antenna and the direction of the City to place utilities underground will
cause this Mexican palm/antenna to be the only thing that is seen and will stick out. Staff informed him in
June that they were going to recommend denial and they wanted him to look elsewhere.
Mr. Nasseh advised he took over the project in March and cannot give any history on it. Initial
conversation with staff was positive and it changed all of a sudden. They followed staff's guidelines to
find another site or solution and thought they did that. That center is not totally within their search ring,
the bulk of the center is outside of the side of the search ring.
Commissioner Bostwick stated in reading the performance deals, they have the performance without CM-
321 and moving it to the corner of Lincoln and State College puts it closer to targeting the center of the
ring. It is farther north of where it needs to be for coverage area.
Mr. Nasseh stated it seems to make sense and the graphs are prepared to assist them, the Commission
and City staff. They are not the only criteria that they use and calculated with no buildings or
interruptions. He will consult his engineer again.
Commissioner Koos stated the entitlement goes with the land. It is not entirely true that they have no
control over the setback because that is where the landlord is placing them. 7hey develop their proposal,
try to follow the Code, then present that proposal to the City. He has been to the site and feels there is
plenty of land. Cellular providers often locate within a tenant space and that motel is probably not 100%
occupied. They could go interior if they had to on that site. This is more of a self-imposed hardship. The
applicant is creating a waiver because the property owner does not want them to go anywhere else on
the property. It is hard for Commission to justify that the applicant has a hardship of any kind when the
~ proposal is clear. He could very easily locate the equipment 10 feet off or in another location.
Mr. Nasseh indicated if the landlord was willing to do that it would make the situation much easier.
Commissioner Koos felt that should not be Commission's concern. The applicant is representing the
landlord and is indicating that he is not willing to do that. A waiver is granted when the applicant has a
special circumstance that prevents them from complying with the Code and not simply to circumvent the
Code. Based on testimony, Commission can not grant a waiver simply because the property owner does
not want to work with the applicant. With respect to some of the telecommunications issues, the
statement that the engineers did not like a vertical stacking type of options, PacBell has done that before.
While they prefer the arrays, they will do it if it is a requirement. If he wanted a slimmer design, he could
come back with some options of different pole varieties and it could be continued.
He does not want to outright deny the applicant but thought the site plan could be improved. The
applicant needs to return to the property owner and figure out how to eliminate that waiver. At the same
time look at other locations as well. He is hesitant to indicate to the applicant that he needs to go here,
even though he would personally support the redesign of that shopping center with a nice feature that
would include a telecommunications facility.
Mr. Nasseh stated the main part of the shopping center may be out of the search ring, but there may be
some options there.
Commissioner Bristol agreed with Commissioner Koos and felt this item should be continued.
Commissioner Bostwick stated with a continuation they could talk about locating the cabinet inside the
building as an option. The property owner will have an economic gain and he can certainly apply that to
• fixing his trash containers.
Commissioner Koos asked Ms. Mann to comment on the "nexus" issue of conditioning the trash issue.
06-19-00
Page 24
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, advised with regard to the nexus, the Commission understands that
. the only conditions that may be placed on an application are those that relate both proportionately and in
type to what it is that is being asked for. What is being asked for here is a cellular facility. The trash
enclosure that is being used by the applicant is related to the application, but as far as the proportionality
of making sure that what is being requested is related to the degree of expansion that is being sought
here, is something that the Commission needs to look at. There is also a relationship in aesthetics. It is
up to Commissiorr to determine what the relationships are. If standing from a particular location, looking
at this structure, has a visual impact and having flowering plants mitigates that, Commission could
determine that there is a nexus by finding that sort of relationship. If there is something similar to that that
can be done with the trash enclosure, it would be up to the Commission to identify.
Mr. Nasseh asked for a clear direction from Commission as to what they would or would not support so
he can go to his client and get it done in 30 days. He would like to stay with the same property. He will
go back to their RF engineer and try to redesign the proposal.
Chairwoman Boydstun stated that there are palm trees scattered all over that area any where you look
and felt this is the best solution. She would like to see the waiver.
Commissioner Koos thought it is essential that the waiver be eliminated because it is completely self
created. The property is large enough and it is not too difficult to tell the property owner that the
Commission will deny this, which would result in no revenue if it can not be taken care of.
He hoped that they return with some alternatives regarding the actual design. There are many innovative
designs currently used. The applicant may need to emphasize the importance to them that they may
loose the site if there is no other alternative proposed. Commission Boydstun stated she has preference
over the palm tree, which might be the most acceptable solution, but thought the other Commissioners
would benefit from seeing other options. They can vertically stack the antennas on the pole, flush
• mounted and put a canister around it. Given the height of the area, they already came down 5 feet, but
he thought they could look into moving another 5 or 10 feet given the fact that this area is very low density
in terms of it's height. There are not many tall structures in the area and the typography is very flat so he
encouraged the applicant check with the engineers as to what would be the lowest height that they can
go.
Commissioner Bostwick stated he would prefer the shopping center but given the constraints that might
be two or three years off, and the fact that they may not be ready to tear something down in a short-lived
time, the palm tree, in this particular location probably looks the best. He likes the idea of mounting the
equipment inside the building rather than having the variance.
Commissioner Bristol stated he does not want it close to residents and is not in favor of the waiver. If it
looks like a monopole then he would be opposed to it, but if there is a better way of hiding it, such as
Commissioner Koos suggested, then that would be preferable.
Mr. Nasseh stated the reason palms are preferable is because you can introduce natural vegetation, a
grove affect with flag pole and light poles. You can probably still plant the palms or trees around it. It
does not make a difference to them other than the RF engineer standpoint regarding the design, which is
a cylinder design, is a limiting factor. When you go with those designs the range is less. It is possible
and they do it all the time. !t works for some sites and not for others. Basically the number of antennas
that they ultimately are going have are increased because the coverage of the antennas is reduced.
Commissioner Bristol stated that he has seen some sites where it is di~cult to see the arrays of/or the
antennas and indicated there is one off the 22 Fwy. and it looks acceptable.
Mr. Nasseh stated that they look like cylinders, an 8-foot longer cylinder and 18 inches in diameter. The
• antennas are in the cylinder and it is a fiberglass enclosure, but it does not have the range of the regular
antennas that come out of a pole.
06-19-00
Page 25
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
. They will return to the property owner and request to have more land so they do not need to request a
( waiver. They will bring in photo simulations of other designs for Commission's review for a cylinder
design such as a flag pole or light pole. They will put trees around the flag pole and light pole to show
what it would look like in the photo simulation. They will contact the other property owner, the shopping
center on Lincoln and State College Boulevard, to see what their timing is. This is a site that has to be up
and running this year. They will accomplish that and report back to Commission. Therefore, he
requested that this item be continued to July 17, 2000.
Commissioner Bostwick offered motion for a continuance to July 17, 2000, seconded by Commissioner
Bristol, vote taken and motion carried.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Continued subject request to the July 17, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in
order for the applicant to (1) delete the requested setback waiver; (2) evaluate other
design options for the site and submit photo simulations of these designs for
Commission's review; (3) contact the East Anaheim Shopping Center property owner
to find out what the renovation timing is to determine the possibility of placing the
antenna on that property.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: 35 minutes (2:25-3:00)
~
~
06-19-00
Page 26
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
(~
9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved
9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4115 Approved reinstatement
(CUP TRACKING NO. 2000-04219) for 5 years
OWNER: Melvyn Lane Henkin Trust, 1300 Quail Street #106,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
AGENT: Bob Portale, 5242 Argosy, Huntington Beach, CA
92649
LOCATION: 5634-5636 East ~a Palma Avenue. Property
is 3.2 acres located south and west of the
southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and
Imperial Highway.
To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains
a time limitation (originally approved on June 7, 1999, to expire
on June 7, 2000) to retain an amusement device arcade with up
to 170 amusement devices within a family entertainment center.
~
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-84
(To expire 6-7-2005)
SR7785VK.DOC
Applicant's Statement:
Steve Burgess, 5242 Argosy Drive, Huntington Beach, stated that he is presenting Mr. Bob Portale. They
are requesting their conditional use permit be reinstated.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEp.
Chairperson Boydstun indicated that they have had no Code Enforcement problems and asked if he was
in agreement with the condifions of approval in the staff report.
Steve Burgess responded they were.
Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that the photographs provided showed a banner "OPEN UNTIL
MIDNIGHT' which would be contrary to Condition No. 17 which indicates that the signage for this
business shall be limited to the existing permitted wall sign and shall be maintained in compliance with
Code requirements.
Steve Burgess explained that they did have a permit from the City for a banner, which has since been
taken down.
Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if they had di~culty with the modified condition that indicates that during
school hours minors shall not be allowed on the premises without being accompanied by an adult. He
thought it might be prudent to add a stipulation that might extend those limits to minors without guardians
for the evening hours on school nights. He asked if Mr. Burgess had a concern with the stipulation being
extended to state that no minors allowed during school hours or after 10:00 p.m. on school nights.
Steve Burgess stated they would follows the Commission's recommendations. They are open until
midnight at all locations except this location, 7 days a week.
~
Commissioner Vanderbilt asked for a clarification on the banner that states that they are open until
midnight is not accurate.
06-19-00
Page 27
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Steve Burgess responded that it was only put up on a couple of days on a Friday and Saturday, which is
i~ approved until midnight. They had another banner up for birthday parties during the 9-day banner permit
period.
Commissioner Bristol stated that he was not present for the original vote on this a year ago. He indicated
that Condition No. 10 appears odd to him, which states that no minors shall be allowed on the premises
without parental/guardian supervision during normal school hours. Asked staff why it was put in
originally.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, explained that originally there was a concern that this would
become a"hangouY' for the Canyon High School students.
Steve Burgess indicated that the difficulty is that different schools are out at different times and they do
receive a schedule for a!I of their locations of all the school districts. It is hard to keep track of private
schools versus public schools schedules.
Chairperson Boydstun added that Anaheim is on "year-round" school so there is always a portion of the
population off.
Commissioner Bostwick agreed with Commissioner Koos when he questioned what is wrong with this
being a"hang out" if they have supervision and security guards.
Steve Burgess stated they actually discourage being a"hang out" location. They purposely charge an
admission fee, which does not a!!ow kids from going in and out without repaying the admission. They are
closer to a"Chuck E. Cheese" type of business, which includes birthday parties, family type outings and
they do enforce their rules very strictly.
. Commissioner Bristol asked about the 170 machines that they have approval for and asked if that was
enough machines.
Steve Burgess responded they actually do not have that many machines because they can not get that
many in there.
Commissioner Koos stated that the reason he brought it up at the morning session was because it was a
clean up concern. Suppose they wanted to remove some bulky machines and add smaller ones. He
does not understand the relationship between the number of devices.
Steve Burgess stated that there is certain relationship on average between square footage of the site and
the number of average size entertainment pieces and confirmed that they are comfortable with the limit of
170 machines.
Chairperson Boydstun recalled that they approved 170 machines to allow them a"comfort zone", that if
they wanted to exchange machines that they could, but if they decided to rent the unit next door to them
in order to expand then they would need to return to Commission at that time.
Steve Burgess added that even in their larger facilities, i.e. their Upland location which has 6,500 square
feet, even there they rarely exceed 170 to 175 games which is the maximum that they can get into their
facilities comfortably. They need to allow for party room space, bathrooms, a large prize counter, storage
space, and office space, etc. which all take up square footage.
Commissioner Koos asked Mr. Burgess to comment on their relationship with the landowner regarding
lighting and maintenance of the parking lot as it relates to Condition Nos. 13 and 14.
Steve Burgess stated that from a parking standpoint even during their busiest periods they have many
• empty parking spaces. 7hey have a relationship with the landlord and also help to maintain the parking
lot themselves in their immediate vicinity. They do that no matter where their locations are. They have
added new small signage that were approved in the parking lot areas. Overall the maintenance has been
06-19-00
Page 28
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
excellent. The lighting is very adequate and is being maintained past their closing period, which makes it
,• safe for people coming and going including their employees.
During the Action:
Commissioner Vanderbilt thought that midnight might be too late to stay open on school nights. He would
prefer modified language on Condition No. 10 and is not comfortable with eliminating it completely.
Steve Burgess indicated that he was comfortable with that condition being approved because they do not
want this location to become a"hang out" and therefore supports retaining that condition.
• • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ •
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve
as the required environmental documentation for subject request.
Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4115 (CUP Tracking No. 2000-
04219) for 5 years, to expire June 7, 2005. Amended Resolution No. PC99-100 in its
entirety, and replaced it with a new resolution which includes the following conditions
of approval:
1. That subject use permit shall expire in five (5) years on June 7, 2005.
2. That the hours of operation for the family entertainment center/amusement
device arcade shall be limited to the following:
~ Noon to 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday
11:00 a.m. to midnight on Friday, Saturday and Holidays
3. That the number of amusement devices shall not exceed 170 devices.
4. That no exterior vending machines or games shall be permitted.
5. That no exterior telephones (i.e., telephones outside the building where this
use is located) shall be installed.
6. That if any public telephones are proposed inside the business, they shall be
located near the front counter as shown on the floor plan (Exhibit No. 2) in
order to provide adequate supervision to minimize the opportunify of prank
telephone calls. The phones shall not be located near the restroom area.
7. That food sales shall be (imited to vending machines located inside the
building.
8. That no pool tables or billiards shall be allowed.
9. That no alcoholic beverages shall be sold or consumed on the premises.
10. That no minors shall be allowed on the premises without guardian supervision
during normal school hours.
• 11. That no loud-speaker devices shall be utilized. Noise levels shall not be so
great as to impact other nearby businesses. That the business shall comply
with the requirements of Chapter 6.70 "Sound Pressure Levels".
06-19-00
Page 29
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ 12. That a licensed uniform security guard, approved by the Anaheim Police
Department, shall be present from dusk to closing in order to specifically
provide security, and to discourage vandalism, trespassing and/or loitering
upon or adjacent to the subject property. Said security guard shall remain on-
duty as determined to be necessary by the Anaheim Police Department.
13. That the applicant shall continue to work with the shopping center owner to
maintain the adequacy of parking lot lighting.
14. That the applicant shall continue to work with the shopping center owner to
maintain the parking lot.
15. That the majority of the interior of the facility shall be maintained as open area
and the entire facility shall be adequately lighted at all times.
16. That there shall be no fewer than two (2) employees present before 4 p.m. and
no fewer than three (3) employees present after 4 p.m. in addition to security
personnel.
17. That the signage for this business shall be limited to the existing permitted wall
sign and shall be maintained in compliance with Code requirements.
1$. That no window signage shall be permitted.
19. That a valid business license shall continue to be maintained with the City of
Anaheim, Business License Division of the ~inance Department.
~
20. That no "in and ouY' privileges shall be permitted for customers.
21. That the owner of the subject property shall submit a letter requesting
termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2417 (on-sale beer and wine in a
sandwich shop) and Variance No. 1721 (to permit on-sale beer and wine in fwo
proposed restaurants) for 5634 and 5638 East La Palma Avenue to the Zoning
Division.
22. That subject property shall remain substantially in accordance with plans and
specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which
plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 of
Conditional Use Permit No. 4115 and as conditioned herein.
23. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request
only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and
any other applicable City, State and Federal regufations. Approval does not
include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request
regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
•
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TlME: 13 minutes (3:01-3:14)
06-19-00
Page 30
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
C J
Discussion related to Field Workshop on Telecommunications Facilities:
Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, asked Commission if there were any recommer~dations that they would
like to forward on to the Transit Corridor Agency with regard to the location of towers.
Chairperson Boydstun stated that she would have preferred gray but understood their reasoning. She did
not feel it is going to affect Anaheim.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated staff will be contacting the Agency and would like to get
Commission's consensus on this or whether there is any particular aspect they would like to pass on as a
recommendation.
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, advised that she did not believe that there was an action that was
agendized other than a scheduled field workshop. !f Commission wishes to informally let iYs feeling be
known then that could be passed on to the Agency. Otherwise if staff would like some type of action by the
Commission then that should be agendized to a future meeting.
Greg Hastings stated that they would like to get back to the Agency quickly on this. As Ms. Mann indicated
there would be no formal action taken, however, staff coufd report observations from the Workshop.
Chairperson Boydstun stated that according to the sites they visited this morning she felt it did not affect
Anaheim very much.
•
Commissioner Bostwick agreed with Chairperson Boydstun. He asked staff as they go forward and as
they get closer to Mountain Park being developed then they would need some type of a cohesive uniform
design or code for that particular area, for cellular sites. It is something that they are going to have to
address from this point on and it will be the last master planned area and should therefore be addressed in
the master plan.
Chairpers~n Boydstun stated they would probably be seeing several requests in the future.
Greg Hastings stated that staff would take that into consideration.
~
06-19-00
Page 31
JUNE 19, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~
C~
u
THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:17 P.M.
TO MONDAY, JULY 3, 2000 AT 11:00 A.M. TO
REVIEW PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW.
Respectfully submitted,
~...~~-~
Ossie Edmundson
Senior Secretary
~~~li~''L'l`'x'rt~ ~~1C~~°~~.c,,°,L~
Simonne Fannin
Senior Office Specialist
Received and approved by the Planning Commission on 7- 3- 00
06-19-00
Page 32