Loading...
Minutes-PC 2000/10/09(. i'~PHE~M~,`AZ CITY OF ANAHEIM ° ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~~VNDFD \4y1 DATE: MONDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2000 MORNING SESSION: Chairperson Koos called the Morning Session to order at 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 Koos 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 Pledge Allegiance was led by Commissioner Bristol. COMMISSIONERS P.RESENT: Arnold, Bristol, Boydstun, Koos, Napoles, Vanderbilt COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Bostwick STAFF PRESENT: Carol Flynn Greg Hastings Greg McCafferty Don Yourstone Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Deputy City Attorney Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Principal Transportation Planner Associate Engineer Planning Commission Secretary Senior Secretary AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 4, 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, September 14, 2000. 1~ H:\DOCS\CLERI CAUM I N UTESWC 100900. DOC planningcommission C«~anaheim.net 10-09-00 Page 1 OCTOBER 9, 20Q0 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (. I. 1. IIEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None RECEIVING AND APPROVING THE MINUTES FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25. 2000. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of September 25, 2000. Approved (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Bostwick absent) 10-9-00 Page 2 OCTOBER 9, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~. 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 322 (PREV.-CERTIFIED) Approved CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4034 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000- Approved 04258 : Polygon Development, Attn: Bentley Kerr, 200 East Baker Street, #100, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, requests a retroactive extension (To expire 2-17-2001) of time to comply with conditions of approval for a previously-approved 982,000 square foot commercial mixed-use center consisting of a 290,000 square foot, 10-story office building; two, 180,000 square foot (Vote: 6-0, (each), 6-story office buildings; a 160,000 square foot, 4-story office Commissioner building; a 5,000 square foot day care facility; a 7,000 square foot Bostwick absent) restaurant building; a 200-room, 160,000 square foot hotel; a 3-level parking structure; and a 4-level parking structure with waiver of minimum landscaped setback adjacent to the interior property lines. This petition was originally approved on August 17, 1998 and expired on February 17, 2000. Property is located at 1500 South Douglass Road (proposed Arena Corporate Centre). ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified Environmental Impact Report No. 322 serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this request ~ Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for an eighteen (18) month retroactive extension of time to expire on February 17, 2001, based on the following: (i) That the proposed plan remains in conformance with the current zoning code and General Plan land use designation, and that there have been no code amendments that would cause the original approval to be inconsistent with the zoning code. (ii) That the property is adequately maintained, with no code violations, and further that there is no additional information or circumstances that would contradict the findings made at the time of the original approval. (iii) That this is the first extension of time for this permit and the extension does not exceed the 18 month time limitation approved in the original resolution. SR2038DS.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 4034, for property located at 1500 South Douglass Road (proposed Arena Corporate Centre). (. 10-9-00 Page 3 OCTOBER 9, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1, OWNER: The Roman Catholic Bishop of Orange, 5800 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Andrade Architects, Attn: Stan Andrade, 24502 Del Prado Suite D-1, Dana Point, CA 92629 LOCATION: 5800 East Santa Ana Canvon Road. Property is 6.0 acres located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Solomon Drive- (San Antonio Catholic Church). To permit and construct a two-story religious education building in conjunction with an existing church with waiver of (a) required parking lot landscaping and (b) permitted roof-mounted equipment. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3042 (READVERTISED) (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000-04251) Concurred w/staff Approved, in part Approved, in part Continued from the Commission meeting of September 25, 2000. (. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-114 Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit No. 3042, to construct a two-story religious education building in conjunction with an existing church with waivers. Waiver (a) regarding parking lot landscaping has been deleted subsequent to the advertisement and Waiver (b) still remains. Commissioner Napoles stated for the record that he was a member of the San Antonio Catholic Church and would be abstaining from this item. Chairperson Koos asked Father Seamus whether he would like this item trailed until their architect arrives and he responded that he would. This item was then trailed and heard after Item No. 3. Applicant's Statement: Stan Andrade, architect, explained that this is a new religious education building approximately 10,000 square feet. It will be used to support some existing programs that they have on-site already in an overcrowded situation. They had a concern about item 25, sub-item 1, page 6 of the staff report, pertaining to trash storage areas. They determined that they have an ample trash enclosure location existing on the site and were hoping to work with the Sanitation Division to see if that would be acceptable without having to add more. Public Testimony: SR7766KB.DOC Stefanie Perry, stated she is representing a group called the Concerned Citizens of the Canyon. They are a group based in Anaheim Hills. They help residents understand issues of land use. They have been (, contacted by several neighbors of this proposed project who have stated that they are not against the project, but have not had an opportunity to review the plans. They would like to request a continuance of this matter so that the church can meet with the residents and give them the opportunity to review the 10-9-00 Page 4 OCTOBER 9, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES plans. They asked Father Seamus whether he could meet with the residents to give them the opportunity ', to see the plans, but he indicated they would have to get the plans from the City. They were very frustrated because they were denied the opportunity to speak with church representatives. They are not against the church building on their own property, but would like the residents to have the opportunity to review the plans. Commissioner Koos asked Ms. Perry when they contacted the church. Stefanie Perry responded that they contacted the church on September 25'" and were not provided the plans so they drove to the Planning Department and spoke with Mr. Dave See and he showed them the plans. Roy Brown, stated he lives on Calle Diaz and he also contacted the Concerned Citizens of the Canyon and asked if they could perhaps intervene for the neighbors and establish some open lines of communication with the parish. They were unsuccessful. The neighbors in the area, particularly on Calle Diaz, have not had the best relationship with the parish, mainly over concerns of a parish festival, which is held yearly. They have had the police out a number of times to try to get the parish to come into compliance with the Code. They do not have any animosity against the parish, they would simply like their peace and quiet in their neighborhood and their neighbors to comply with Code. There was a prior Conditional Use Permit No. 3042 regarding the construction of the parish center. They raised the issue of overcrowding in terms of parking on the streets and also the church parking lot had turned into an amateur "drag strip". It was a member of Commissioner that came up with a good suggestion which was to gate the parking lot while the church is not being used and ensure that there is no simultaneous activity in the church sanctuary while it is being done in the parish center. That was agreed upon but it never came to pass. He mentioned this because he wanted to lay down the groundwork for a difficult relationship that they have had over a number of years with this parish. '. He was concerned about a document that he received from Kevin Bass and the fact that the proposed usage is very vague. Religious education centers as they are operated in the Orange County Archdiocese carry on a variety of activities. One of which is bringing in a large number of children from elementary school and high school onto the property during non-public school hours (early evening to mid-evening and Saturdays). There will be a substantial amount of children on that property. He felt that this would be a whole set of issues that would need to be taken into consideration. Item 12 of the staff report. This is a piece of property that is surrounded on three sides by residential homes and was concerned about a two-story building with windows that will be facing directly to the windows of the residences in the neighborhood. Item 15 of the staff report addresses the letter of operation. He is concerned about the hours of operation listed; there is a difference between hours of operation and hours of use. He feels that an Environmental Impact Report should be required in this instance. The exemption listed in the staff report where an EIR is not necessary refers to the fact that it is the exception based upon the existing facilities. When the law states existing facilities assumes the same use, but in this case this is a different use. There is a very different type of activity that is going to take place in this building as compared to the parish center and the church sanctuary. He is concerned that they will be having an increase in traffic, congestion and increased noise in their neighborhood which is what an EIR is designed to evaluate. The purpose of parking waivers is not to place an undue burden to another party. There are times when there are justifications for waiver of parking because of the particular unique business being conducted, buf in this case the parking spaces are down Santa Ana Canyon Road. People are going to tend not to . park that far away and instead park in the residential areas that are surrounding this property. ~ 10-9-00 Page 5 OCTOBER 9, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES He is concerned that there needs to be a definition in writing of which building is which and what they are ', going to be used for. They are not against the proposed use. As long as it is consistent with the activities of the church and do it in a way that does not burden the neighborhood. He is unclear why it is necessary that they construct a two-story building when it would be very easy to use the area in front of the church in between the existing parish center. Instead they are talking about constructing a two-story building that is going to look directly in the windows of neighbors. He felt that is not what P(anning and Zoning is for. The entire purpose of this is to try to find some compatibility between neighbors. He suggested a continuance for the purpose of trying to open some communication and understanding so they can discuss with their neighbors their design and what they are proposing. He asked that Commission request the parish meet with the neighbors. Pete Tsachpinis, stated that he lives on the corner of Calle Diaz and Cicero Rd. He contacted the church and spoke with Father Seamus and was told he needed to come down to the City, which he did and reviewed the plans. Nis concern is that the architect (Stan Andrade) indicated that it would relieve overcrowding. He hoped they could revise their plans. It is already very congested on Sundays and he did not feel that a few more spaces would help. He also asked that this item be continued so the church can meet with the neighbors to discuss this proposal. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Father Seamus, stated he is the pastor of San Antonio Catholic Church. The only person he recalled speaking with is Mr. Tsachpinis. When he called him that day he indicated that he went to the City and his questions had been answered. He did not recall speaking with Ms. Perry and has only spoken with a reporter from a local newspaper and to Mr. Tsachpinis. He apologized for any lack of communication that has occurred. He is more that willing to speak with anyone. For the last 20 years he has had a ~, conversation with Mr. Brown each year about his concerns with the parish festival, but on this specific proposal Mr. Brown has not requested to meet with him. Chairperson Koos asked Father Seamus if he is requesting that they continue this item so they can meet with the neighbors or prefers Commission to go through the proceedings today. Father Seamus preferred that the proceedings move forward today. Stan Andrade requested that they come to some resolution today and not continue the matter. There are time issues within the parish that they are trying to fulfill. Commissioner Boydstun stated if they continue this and meet with their neighbors so that something is worked out agreeable to everyone then they can approve it and they are not running as much a chance of going through another hearing with the City Council. Stan Andrade acknowledged that he understood that and asked again that Commission review this project and make a decision today. Stan Andrade stated this building would be used for religious education from 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Their current facility is not adequate in size to accommodate the religious education. They are not asking for a parking waiver it was actually a landscape waiver, but later dropped. The only waiver they are asking for is for the roof-mounted equipment. They reviewed other alternative sites on their property, but they did not work and this seemed to be the best location. Commissioner Bristol asked about the elevations on the west side. Stan Andrade responded they could easily remove those windows on that west side facing the neighbors. ~. 10-9-00 Page 6 OCTOBER 9, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairperson Koos stated in the morning session they discussed parking and institutional development ', standards for churches that have a fellowship hall. The current code requires that they have to require parking for the total square footage and have waivers. They are actually looking at the issue of the staggered usage. He asked staff when Commission will be discussing this topic at their morning workshops. Greg McCafferty replied it would be in the near future. This proposal does not require a parking waiver the way the parking code is written. If this is an accessory, such as Sunday school or school activity to the church, then the Code does not require additional parking for the building. Chairperson Koos stated he has been to the annual festival and it seems that where the carnival, rides, booths were located is where the parking is proposed. He wondered whether the festival would continue on an annual basis and if so then is the footprint of this new building and parking going to cause more people to be parking on the street. Stan Andrade replied that they meet with the festival committee for the parish. That is the area allotted that is going to become a parking lot which is now a grass area which will continue to be where the rides and booths are. They are going to install underground utilities to service that in the future and the result would be no impact to the festival. Chairperson Koos stated even though it is separate from the land use entitlements and what goes on the property, there is other City permitting that goes on with that. It is such an impact that it seems that it goes to the whole use of the property. He wondered whether it would be prudent to address that as part of the land use of the property. Stan Andrade stated he knows that a number of parishes he works with it is a separate permit process that they go through each year. The feeling of most of the parishes that he works with is that they feet it ', is a community event as an enhancement and see it as positive to the community. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, stated that there is a Greek Orthodox Church on Dale Avenue (Saint John the Baptist) that has similar events every year. They receive a parking permit and have an agreement with nearby parking facilities and shuttle people to the event. He thought this might be a good idea for the church to consider. He agreed with Chairperson Koos that they do impact the area every year and people park all over the residential neighborhoods. Father Seamus stated that the festival committee is aware of the loss of property and plan reducing the size of the festival from this point on due to this additional building. They offer the neighbors complimentary access to every activity and dinners on the grounds that weekend. Commissioner Boydstun indicated that the applicant might take into consideration Mr. Yalda's suggestion of the shuttle service. Chairperson Koos asked the City Attorney if if would be appropriate to link the festival to this entitlement. The applicant has indicated that they are going to reduce the size of the festival but this proposal is taking up space from the festival. If they reduce the carnival rides, etc. then the revenue will also be reduced and asked if there is any way to demonstrate that there is a connection between this proposed building and the festival. Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, did not see a legal nexus between this permit and the festival. However, keep in mind that there is a separate permitting process with issues such as parking can be addressed at that time. In terms of what is before Commission currently she did not feel it would be appropriate. Mr. Brown stated this is an incredible burden on the neighborhood. He has had 10 outhouses backed up (, against his fence 50 feet from his kitchen. He has had idling diesel trucks all night long parked in back of his home. He also has individuals who follow the carnival circuit living in his neighborhood during that 10-9-00 Page 7 OCTOBER 9, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES time who bath in the sprinklers behind his home. When he called this year to speak with someone from ', the parish his phone calls were never returned. Chairperson Koos stated that he has a problem continuing this item on the basis that the church did not engage the public. There is a public notification process and asked if the City received any letters of opposition. Mr. Brown stated that when he spoke with Mr. Kevin Bass, the planner, regarding this issue he specifically indicated that what the Commission likes is that they like to see communication between the applicant and the neighbors. Chairperson Koos clarified that they are not discounting their presence in the least, but they are 3 people and the public notification was a 300-foot radius in every direction. This item was originally scheduled 2 weeks ago. Mr. Brown stated that they knew ahead of time that the meeting was going to be continued. The meeting is the middle of a business day and he had to close down in order to come today. Greg McCafferty confirmed that there were that there were no letters of opposition on file, but he does know that the planner, Mr. Bass, had been in discussion with some of the surrounding residents. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated there is an existing parish center and existing religious education building. It appears that there is a need that is already being accomplished through the existing buildings. He wondered how do other parishes handle this problem that are more landlocked. Are they anticipating an increase in the number of participants or are they already at capacity? Father Seamus explained that the number of students has increased slightly, but not significantly. At the ', present time they are turning two of their classrooms into adult meeting rooms and using the new building for those classrooms. They currently do not have offices for the staff and are getting them offices in the new building. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if there had been any thought in the past in addressing the parking issue such as turning the existing grass area into parking spaces. Father Seamus responded they have been waiting for several years to turn the existing grass area into parking and have been pianning this building for the last 3 to 4 years and waiting to do it all at one time. Now they are talking about replacing the grass with parking. Commissioner Arnold asked the staff to explain for the record the CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 1 and why it applies since it is not detailed in the staff report. Greg McCafferty expfained the CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 1 has to do with expansion and modifications to existing facilities, but they could also use other exemptions since the exemption itself does not require formal public notification. There is also a"Class 3" which is new small structures and there is also a"Class 14" that has to do with additions to schools and if this is being used for religious education it could be used as well. Commissioner Arnold stated this clearly falls in these Categorical Exemptions because there is good precedent for that historically. He agreed with Chairperson Koos that it is not appropriate for the Commission to try to force applicants into a pre-hearing meeting with local neighbors, although he was somewhat surprised that the church is not looking to do this. One of the clear benefits would be to hear the concerns of the neighbors which the applicant could then consider modifying such as the window orientation. Some of the impacts on the local neighborhood of religious institutions is simply the price we pay in this society for religious freedom. There needs to be some recognition that religious institutes ', provide a lot of good in society. The concern of the orientation of the windows is appropriate for 10-9-00 Page 8 OCTOBER 9, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commission to evaluate because they do have impacts to the neighbors. He is not in favor of continuing ', this item merely to force a meeting, which the applicant does not seem to be interested in having. Chairperson Koos stated the proposal at-hand is simple and goes back to the issues they are discussing on these institutional/religious uses. Much of it is hours of operation based and in this situation there is a Monday through Friday facility with additional parking, which will help the weekend situation. The proposed building wilt not be used on weekends. It will actually help the parking situation on the weekend because the applicant is adding "true" parking on-site. It is an overall improvement for the existing situation. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that the neighbors present are not necessarily opposed to the project, but asked for clarification of the project, and based on that then they would be able to form opposition or support depending on what type of information they gather. He has visited the site and has seen the existing parking and traffic conditions that the neighbors discussed. Commission must make a determination that this conditional use permit will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and improve the traffic situation in this area. He is having difficulty trying to determine that because he feels that the public's input is very relevant. Yet the issue is still somewhat unclear because this communication has not occurred. He would prefer a continuance, which does not appear will happen. • ~ ~ ~ - • ~ • • ~ ~ OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke with concerns. ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. '. Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement as follows: Denied waiver (a) pertaining to required parking lot landscaping on the basis that it was deleted following public notification; and, approved waiver (b) pertaining to permitted roof-mounted equipment. VOTE ON WAIVERS: 4-1 (Commissioner Vanderbilt voted no, Commissioner Napoles declared a conflict of interest and Commissioner Bostwick was absent) Approved modification of Conditional Use Permit No. 3042 (CUP Tracking No. 2000- 04251) (to construct a two-story religious education building with waiver of permitted roof-mounted in conjunction with an existing church). Amended Resolution Nos. PC88-202, PC88-279 and PC92-63, in their entirety, and replaced them with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum 1-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. 2. That any roof-mounted equipment shall be subject to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.84.062.032 pertaining to the "SC" Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. Such information showing complete screening of the roof-mounted equipment (, shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 10-9-00 Page 9 OCTOBER 9, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3. That all existing air conditioning facilities and other roof and ground mounted ', equipment shall continue to be properly shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent residential properties. 4. That existing and proposed lighting fixtures in any proposed parking area located adjacent to any residential property shall be decorative and shall be down-lighted with a maximum height of twelve (12) feet. Said lighting fixtures shall be directed away from adjacent residential property lines to protect the residential integrity of the area. Any new lighting fixtures shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 5. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the RS-A- 43,000(SC) Zone unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the Planning Commission. 6. That driveway gates or any other device discouraging vehicles from speeding through the parking lot during hours the church is not in operation shall be installed and maintained as reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 7. That the existing parish center and the proposed religious education building shall not be used concurrently with the main sanctuary. 8. That since this project has landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet, a separate irrigation meter shall be installed and comply with City Ordinance No. 5349 and Chapter 10.19 of Anaheim Municipal Code. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. '. 9. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his review and approval showing conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. Subject property shail thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. 10. That all new driveways shall be reconstructed to accommodate ten (10) foot radius curb returns in conformance with Engineering Department Standard No. 137. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 11. That 3-foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the view of the street or adjacent properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 12. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 13. That the legal property owner shall provide the City of Anaheim with a public utility easement for electrical facilities (primary and transformer). Said easement shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim prior to connection of electrical service. 14. That church activities within the existing parish center and the proposed religious education building shall end before 10 p.m., except on special church holidays. (. 10-9-00 Page 10 OCTOBER 9, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1, 15. 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. 16. That a landscape and irrigation plan for the new landscaping showing minimum 24-inch box sized trees shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. Any decision made by the Zoning Division regarding said plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission and/or City Council. 17. That there shall be no windows on the west elevation. Revised elevations eliminating said windows shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 18. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No. 1(CUP No. 3042) and Exhibit Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, and as conditioned herein. 1, 19. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 16, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 20. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, whichever occurs first, Condition No. 18, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 21. 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 ON CUP: 4-1 (Commissioner Vanderbift voted no, Commissioner Napoles declared a conflict of interest and Commissioner Bostwick was absent) Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 55 minutes (2:01-2:56) /, 10-9-00 Page 11 OCTOBER 9, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1, 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04250 Approved Approved, in part Granted, in part OWNER: State of California (Caltrans), Attn: Daniel J. Hing, 3347 Michelson Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92612 AGENT: Hardin Honda, Attn: Dennis Hardin, 1381 Auto Center Drive, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: Auto Center Drive/Caltrans riqht-of wav. Property is 0.11 acre and is a portion of the SR-57 (Orange) Freeway right-of-way located at the southeast corner of Ball Road and the SR-57 northbound off-ramp and north of the Anaheim Auto Center. To construct an employee parking lot for an existing automobile dealership with waiver of (a) permitted encroachment into required yards and (b) parking lot landscaping. Continued from the Commission meeting of September 25, 2000. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-115 SR1067TW.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request which involves a portion of ~, the Caltrans right-of-way along the 57 Freeway. It is a request to construct an employee parking lot for an existing automobile dealership with waiver (a) permitted encroachment into required yards and waiver (b) parking lot landscaping. Applicant's Statement: Dennis Hardin, 489 Westridge Circle, Anaheim, stated he and father are owners of Hardin Honda, Hardin Pontiac, Buick, GMC. Their business has more than doubled in the last two years. This has put a lot of pressure on the use of property for their dealership and that is the reason they have moved forward in securing this Caltrans land as additional space for their employees to park. W ithin the last two months they also moved their General Motors operation to the Anaheim Auto Center next to the Honda dealer. They now have Buick, Pontiac and GMC next to the Honda dealer. The land there is approximately half has much as they had at the Anaheim Boulevard site and they anticipate doing twice as much business with the new store location. There is going to be additional pressure there for space and land utilization. Due to the lack of lack of space he is concerned about the City's requirement for landscaping on this Caltrans property. He can understand under normal conditions the need for having proper landscaping, but felt that a review of this particular situation will show that this is a unique situation. It is unique because there is landscape all around that property from Caltrans. To the west of the property there are 34 Eucalyptus trees that average about 30 to 40 feet high, planted by Caltrans not counting Oleander bushes and other groundcover landscaping around that off-ramp on the 57 Freeway. The actual off-ramp itself is elevated approximately 20 feet above the parking lot that they are proposing. The only thing that motorist can see exiting the 57 Freeway would be the tops of their cars. ', They have also agreed to install a wrought iron fence around the property and plant Bougainvilleas that will eventually totally cover the wrought iron fence. He submitted photos to Commission that showed the degree of landscaping. Due to their need for space and existing landscaping around that property, he 10-9-00 Page 12 OCTOBER 9, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES requested a waiver on that property regarding the landscaping. He feels this is a hardship to give up ', those parking spaces to landscaping when there is already so much landscaping in the area and the property is barely visible to the motorist driving off the freeway. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun suggested Mr. Hardin install a couple of trees along the Caltrans side as a buffer, which could be added as a condition of approval. The Eucalyptus trees along there are tall trees that can be seen through. Dennis Hardin responded they would be happy to do that but it is Caltrans land and they are very particular about their land and how it is used and could not speak for them. He indicated that Caltrans is going to be using that space between their parking lot and the sloped part of the off-ramp as access for their maintenance vehicles. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated Mr. Hardin mentioned the trees not only provide screening of the cars, but there are other reasons why trees are intended for parking lots such as provide shade. He did not think that the Eucalyptus trees on the perimeter may provide shade for this intended parking lot even though they are in the area. There may be some benefits to his employees because they may tend to park close to those planters because they do find that it protects their cars and keeps them cool. Dennis Hardin stated he sees his point of view. He personally does not prefer parking under trees because they can leave sap all over his cars. Commissioner Bristol addressed the issue of the interior trees in the parking lot. He agreed with Commissioner Boydstun's suggestion of adding a cluster of trees in that one area off of the ramp to the right would be helpful. At the morning session it was suggested that they could contact Caltrans to see if ', they would be in agreement. Dennis Hardin stated that he did not have a problem with that, but his only hesitation is dealing with Caltrans because they are sometimes difficult to deal with. Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer, explained that the applicant would be responsible for initiating that conversation with Caltrans but the Public Works Department could facilitate coordinating that effort once Mr. Hardin has made the initial contact. They would not necessarily know what that time frame would be because Caltrans tends to move on their own time. The applicant would be responsible for processing applications and any payments associated with that. Greg McCafferty suggested a compromise where the applicant would provide treewells or diamonds instead so they would not lose parking spaces. This would mean the applicant would then not need to deal with Caltrans and would comply with the Code by providing trees on-site. Chairperson Koos suggested continuing of this matter because he does not feel comfortable with a condition that would be difficult to enforce if it had an uncertain stipulation because it does not really address the Code concerns. He does not feel comfortable pointing to other property as mitigation for what the applicant would have to do by Code. There would be no guarantee that those trees would continue to exist. Commissioner Bristol stated according to their site plan there is an area that is open and if they could plant some trees that would eliminate that line-of-sight from the Caltrans off-ramp then that would suffice the concern. Dennis Hardin stated that his engineer just advised him that Caltrans will use this area for their access for ~, maintenance along the 57 Freeway in the future. He would not like to build their hopes on the fact that they are going to get approval from Caltrans for additional trees when it does not appear that is going to be very likely since Caltrans is going to need to get their trucks back in that area. 10-9-00 Page 13 OCTOBER 9, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ', Commissioner Boydstun states since there is going to be a water line for the Bougainvilleas, asked the applicant if they could install a few diamonds with trees in that area on his side of the fence to block the view and comply with Code. Dennis Hardin stated he is willing to do whatever the City requests. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved the Negative Declaration Approved, in part, the Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows: Approved waiver (a) pertaining to permitted encroachments into required yards; and, approved, in part, waiver (b) pertaining to required parking lot landscaping requiring 4 broadheaded trees planted in diamond-shaped tree wells along the western boundary line of the parking lot where the fence faces the freeway off-ramp. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04250 with the following change to the conditions of approval: Modified Condition No. 8 to read as follows: 8. That a minimum 2-foot wide landscaped and irrigated planter strip shall be installed adjacent to the proposed wrought-iron fence and shall be planted with ', shrubs and clinging vines on 3-foot centers that will grow together and screen the parking area within two (2) years. That four (4) 24-inch box broadheaded trees shall be planted, irrigated and maintained in diamond-shaped tree wells along the western boundary line of the parking area. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 18 minutes (1:42-2:00) ', 10-9-00 Page 14 OCTOBER 9, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1, 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4035 Denied reinstatement (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000-04264) OWNER: Alex Bahrami, 24895 Stonegate Lane, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 AGENT: Bob Mickelson, 121 West Rose Avenue, Orange, CA 92867 LOCATION: 329-331 North State Colleae Boulevard. Property is 0.37 acre located on the west side of State College Boulevard, 150 feet south of the centerline of Redwood Avenue (Kris Kars). To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (originally approved on August 18, 1999, to expire on August 18, 2000) to retain an existing automobile sales lot with a maximum of five (5) display vehicles. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-116 SR7827KP.DOC 1, Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4035 for property located at 329-331 North State College Boulevard (Kris Kars). Applicant's Statement: Alex Bahrami, 329-331 North State College Boulevard, Anaheim, stated that he is present requesting a reinstatement for Conditional Use Permit No. 4035, for a period of 3 years. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Bahrami if he was the owner of the building or owner of Kris Kars. Alex Bahrami stated he is the owner of the building and also works with the operator of the business. Commissioner Bristol stated that he originally voted against this because he felt this was not an appropriate land use for this business. According to Code Enforcement they have gone beyond the 5- vehicle limit. Yesterday he personally observed 8 vehicles stored there. Alex Bahrami explained they are a finance company. They have not received any complaints or have never had a parking problem. He submitted photos to Commission taken in an afternoon during their busiest time. They still have 6 to 8 parking spaces available for customers. In August when Code Enforcement came for an inspection there were extra vehicles. He explained to the Code Enforcement officer that those cars are not display cars. They have 5 display cars at all times. The other 17 extra parking spaces is for customer and employee parking. Some of cars belong to customers, which have been sold but have not been picked up. They have also removed the gate. There is no longer a gate which makes it look better. 1, Commissioner Bristol asked if they work on consignment. 10-9-00 Page 15 OCTOBER 9, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Alex Bahrami explained when other car lots have a customer that they cannot finance they fax the ', paperwork to Kris Kars and send that customer over. Many times when they sell a car it does not even come to their location. Commissioner Bristol stated that they still have cars on their lot, which exceed 5 vehicles on the lot. Alex Bahrami stated that they are not display vehicles. Of the 12 inspections by Code Enforcement the last instance where there were 3 cars exceeding the limit, those 3 cars did not belong to Kris Kars, but belonged to the carpet business. Commissioner Bristol stated that Mr. Bahrami is stating that they have never exceeded 5 vehicles in that parking lot. Alex Bahrami explained they never exceeded the 5 display vehicles, but there have been 13 cars overnight, 5 of which are the display cars and the others 8 vehicles belong to the customers of Kris Kars since they cannot release the cars to them until they submit the completed paperwork. There are also instances when there are vehicles that are sold that need repairs done. Commissioner Bristol stated that they are storing vehicles at night, which he is not allowed to do. He cannot have more than 5 vehicles tied to his business. Alex Bahrami said he spoke with the carpet company informing them that they cannot have cars stored there. He indicated that they have done a lot to improve the property. They have not had any complaints from neighbors. He originally requested a 3-year reinstatement but staff is recommending a 1-year reinstatement, which is acceptable to him. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated he passes at various times by this site and has seen additional vehicles ', being stored outside which is not permitted by the CUP and is not consistent with what was approved. Alex Bahrami stated the problem of storage of vehicles overnight is a recent problem during the August inspection by a Code Enforcement Officer. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that it has actually been a problem for the last 12 months. He has driven by his property frequently and has seen cars that are being stored. The problem was raised then and a year later the problem continues. Alex Bahrami stated that the CUP stated 5 displayed cars but they never stated that the customers could not park their vehicles, but if it is a new condition then it can be added. Commissioner Vanderbilt explained that it is an ordinance issue and not a CUP issue that vehicles cannot be stored overnight. Alex Bahrami stated that he was not aware of that. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked why the chainlink fence was removed. Alex Bahrami stated that they have not had a problem with theft at night. The financing part of their business is the reasoning for the cars parked there because there are various steps required before they can release the cars, but many times the car is removed from the premises to another location. Commissioner Boydstun asked what is the average time that cars are parked there. Alex Bahrami approximately two days for cars waiting to be repaired, and cars waiting for completion of ', the financing can take up to one week. 10-9-00 Page 16 OCTOBER 9, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Arnold stated that this is a situation in which someone is seeking reinstatement of a permit ', based on a situation where they are violating the Code. They are parking as many as 13 cars overnight in violation of the Code. Unless this situation is remedied then he cannot vote for the reinstatement of this CUP. Chairperson Koos stated the fact that they have to "police" the applicant is evidence enough that he is not complying with what Commission asked him to do a year ago. Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, responded to Chairperson Koos question by indicating that the applicant does not know when Code Enforcement is coming to do an inspection. Commissioner Arnold stated there are two Commissioners that have seen more than 5 cars parked overnight and the applicant has indicated that it is their practice. Commissioner Boydstun felt that the lot is too crowded. She passes by there frequently and has observed on several occasions more cars than is permitted. This is a business which needs more space and suggested giving the applicant a 6-month permit to allow the applicant time to locate another site. Commissioner Arnold stated that when they have people seeking reinstatements of CUPs where they are clearly in violation, then by granting additional time prolongs the situation. He felt to deny it would put more pressure on the applicant to move faster. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve ', as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Denied reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4035 (CUP Tracking No. 2000- 04264) on the basis that the permit is not being exercised in conformance with all the conditions and stipulations originally approved by the City Council. VOTE: 5-1 (Commissioner Boydstun voted no and Commissioner Bostwick was absent) Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TlME: 21 minutes (2:57-3:18) /, 10-9-00 Page 17 OCTOBER 9, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1, 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 Continued to 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 11-20-2000 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04259 OWNER: Robert A. Little and Mary Ellen Mahan, 1590 West Flippen Way, Anaheim, CA 92802 AGENT: Wendy Calhoun, 23120 Lyons Avenue #462, Santa Clarita, CA 91321 LOCATION: 1590 West Fliqpen Wav. Property is 0.33 acre located on the south side of Flippen Way, 269 feet west of the centerline of Flippen Drive. To permit a granny unit in conjunction with an existing single-family residence with waiver of minimum rear yard setback (waiver deleted). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. II SR7827VN.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is Conditional Use Permit No. 2000- 04295 for property located at 1590 Flippen Way. They are requesting a granny unit in conjunction with a existing single-family residence. The waiver proposed has since been deleted. ', ApplicanYs Statement: Susan Amroyan, 23120 Lyons Avenue, Unit 462, Santa Clarita, stated they are representing the owners and the request for a granny unit on the lot. This unit is for the mother of one of the owners, Mary Ellen Mahan. She is requesting that they put a granny unit on the lot because here mother is elderly and needs care. The granny unit will be 994 square feet. They are abiding with all the requirements of the setbacks and are providing parking. The mother owns one car but does not drive very much. She has been in the neighborhood for over 40 years. It is a matter of relocating closer to her daughter as she does require some care. They provided photos showing that one side of this property is a flood control channel, which would not be affected. The other side is a neighbor separated by a block wall. The elevation does not exceed 11 feet and will not be above the level of the existing home. Public Testimony: James Murphy, 1887 South Eileen Drive, Anaheim, CA 92802, stated he has some questions and possible concerns about the project. He referred to the exhibit showing the housing in the area. His property is the 3`d lot north on Eileen Drive and he has been asked to speak also on behalf of the two lots (north) adjacent to the subject property. The area has access only by Bayless Drive off of Katella Avenue. It is a series of short streets. The area is very close to the Resort Area. There is projected to be 13,000 new employees there. Low cost housing is going to be an extreme premium in the area. They have no problem with the people currently living there now and their intention, but their concern is for the future. In comparison with other CUPs that were applied for this type of dwelling (see page 3 of the staff report), none are anywhere near this size of this proposed unit. He questions whether an elderly person would need three bedrooms and two baths because it lends itself more to a regular dwelling unit. He asked what is enforceable, by the City, to ensure that these conditions are met. /, There has seen a small addition made to the front driveway. He is not certain if that would qualify for the additional parking space required. 10-9-00 Page 18 OCTOBER 9, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ', The property adjacent to the north at 1899 South Eileen Drive, which is the property of Sherry and Mike Adams, outlined their concerns in the form of questions, which he submitted to Commission. Their major concern is the visibility of this proposal and what it will look like. He asked about the covenants attached to the property. Commissioner Arnold answered his question about the covenants by explaining that legally they do go with the property as a whole and do not just apply to the applicant. Frank Hazelton, 1881 South Eileen Drive, Anaheim, CA 92802, stated he lives directly north of Mr. Murphy and about the fourth house north of subject property. He has lived there for thirteen years. This neighborhood is approximately 65 homes in a middle class, single-family neighborhood, one way in/out, adjacent to Stoddard School and the park. This neighborhood has withstood some external impacts and through all of this the neighborhood has persevered. He is not so sure that this neighborhood can accommodate the "multiple-family component" being proposed. He also does not wish to be an obstructionist to their newest neighbor and their intent to accommodate their elderly mother. At the same time he wants the neighborhood to remain the way it is. He felt increasing density and additional people can provide a significant impact to a neighborhood. The government code offers an option on how to accommodate a second unit or granny housing. It allows for not only a separate detached unit up to 1,200 square feet, but it also allows attached units, basically a room addition that could have a separate entry up to one-third the size of the floor area of the house. He felt this is a very good solution to this problem. He would rather have it as an attached portion of the same main house and not a modular home that is placed separately of almost 1,000 square feet in ', the back corner of their lot. He does not feel that the Commission is obligated to approve this because it is not allowed by right. He suggested in order to accommodate both the applicant desires and the neighborhood's desires to remain as a single-family neighborhood is to allow them to attach to their existing primary dwelling unit. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Susan Amroyan stated that they are going to provide additional landscaping. One side of the building is the flood channel and they have heard no opposition from the neighbors behind subject property. They have also spoken with some neighbors and they do not feel that it would adversely impact them at all. The (elderly mother) has lived in that community for over 40 years so for her to move onto the property is not adversely impacting the community. They have provided 1 parking space which is what was required. Regarding the 3 bedrooms, they are going to use one of the bedrooms as a den. One of the rooms will be available for her daughter or caregiver to use. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Boydstun asked if this is the mother of the couple that live in the house. Susan Amroyan replied she is the mother of the Ms. Mahan who has lived in the this house. Commissioner Boydstun stated she has never seen a 3-bedroom 2-bath granny unit. She felt this is more of a house. Susan Amroyan stated she understands that it is 994 square foot granny unit which is a little larger but it ', is less than half the size of the existing house that is on there. 10-9-00 Page 19 OCTOBER 9, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Boydstun emphasized that she felt this is not a granny unit. The way this is laid out as a 3 ', bedroom, 2 baths is a manufactured home that a family or someone could live in. From her personal experience caring for an elderly member of the family she knows first-hand what the needs are of seniors. Commissioner Bristol asked how Ms. Amroyan is involved with this proposal. Susan Amroyan exptained that they are representing the owners of the property. They also work with the manufactured home company. Commissioner Arnold wondered what is going to happen 10 or 20 years from now if the mother is no longer living there or the applicants. There is going to be essentially a 1,000 square foot, 3 bedroom home on this property, in addition to the primary home. Asked if this might operate as if it were a duplex. Susan Amroyan stated that they are recording a covenant stating that it is a family member that is going to be staying at that unit. This is for the family member that needs care. They have not discussed how long the elderly person or family will be living there. They can change that down to 2 bedrooms and a den. Commissioner Arnold stated in order to qualify this provision of the California Code it has to be someone who is 62 years of age or and older. Is she indicating that this is not going to be a situation where it get leased out to someone older buy the primary house and then have an adult child move in with their family. He mentioned this to show that it may end up being very difficult to ensure with something this size that it is not used for more long-term regular residence. Susan Amroyan stated the couple that is currently at the main home plan to be living there for sometime. In the future if the elderly person is no longer there that they have someone else live in that house. The covenant states that it has to be an elderly person, a family member that is 62 years or older to live there. ', They do want to change the 3`d bedroom to a den. It is 994 square feet now because it is the size of the manufactured home that was chosen to have on the site. Greg McCafferty advised that the State Code does provide flexibility for the local agency to establish both minimum and maximum sizes for the units, but it has to be at least the allowance for an efficiency unit to be constructed and compliance with local development standards but it does not define what an "efficiency" unit is. Commissioner Arnold asked staff if they feel that there might be an enforcement problem with this type of unit. 1s part of the assumptions of what a granny unit is tied to the way it is constructed/configured on the lot, etc. Perhaps it is easier to assume that it will be used only as a granny unit if it tends to be a small room above a garage or an addition to the house. Greg McCafferty stated that normally for a single-family home it requires a 2-car garage plus 2 spaces in tandem to that garage. Obviously, if it were being viewed as a stand-alone unit would be much more stringent. Commissioner BristoV stated that Commissioner Arnold and Commissioner Boydstun brought up valid concerns. He also agreed that he does not see this as a granny unit, but it is more of a house. He would either deny it because he cannot determine it is a granny unit or continue it because currently he does not know what a granny unit is exactly, but he did not feel this proposal is it. Commissioner Boydstun stated this is not a granny unit and therefore felt she could not vote for this. Greg McCafferty stated that in listening to Commission's concerns it appears that staff needs to provide Commission with more information with how the State Code complies in this particular instance. This ', would also give the petitioner the opportunity to go back and rethink whether they really need a 3- bedroom unit. 10-9-00 Page 20 OCTOBER 9, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Bristol offered a motion for a continuance to November 20, 2000, seconded by (. Commissioner Arnold, vote taken and motion carried. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke with concerns. 1 letter was received expressing concerns on the proposed project. ACTION: Continued subject request to the November 20, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order for staff to provide additional information to the Planning Commission pertaining to project compliance with the State Code and to give the petitioner the opportunity to reconsider the size of the unit. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 32 minutes (3:19-3:51) ', I, 10-9-00 Page 21 OCTOBER 9, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (. 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04262 Approved Approved Granted for 3 years OWNER: The Realty Associates, Fund IV L.P., Attn: James O. (To expire 10-9-2003) Buckingham, 4100 Newport Place, Newport Beach, CA 92660 AGENT: TA Associates Realty, Attn: James O. Buckingham, 4100 Newport Place Suite 830, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 2121 West Crescent Avenue. Unit B. Property is 3.4 acres located at the northeast corner of Crescent Avenue and Valley Street. To permit a church with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-117 ~~ SR7767KB.DOC /. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request to permit a church within an existing industrial complex with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ApplicanYs Statement: Vincent Salazar, 2121 West Crescent Avenue, stated they submitted the additional information requested for approval of this CUP, which was submitted as a traffic summary for the parking. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol asked if they are already in operation and if they were in agreement with the conditions of approval. Vincent Salazar replied they read the conditions and they are providing plenty of parking. They were over by 6 spaces according to the Code. All their operations generally occur during off-peak hours. Asked about the condition requiring the address to be above the bui{ding. Commissioner Bristol explained to Mr. Salazar that the condition is standard with a conditional use permit. It simply makes it much easier for the Police Department to identify their building from up above. • • ~ ~ ' • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04262 for 3 years (to expire October 9, 2003) subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report. ', VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) 10-9-00 Page 22 OCTOBER 9, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Carol Flynn, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. (. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (3:52-3:55) /, ~, 10-9-00 Page 23 OCTOBER 9, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (. 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04263 Continued to 10-23-2000 OWNER: Living Stream, Attn: John Pester, 2431 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 2441 West La Palma Avenue. Property is 27.9 acres located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street (Living Stream Ministry). To permit a teleconferencing center and private conference/training center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ~~ SR1066TW.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request to permit a teleconferencing center and private conference/training center with waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces. ApplicanYs Statement: John Pester, 513 South Valley, Anaheim, stated he is present on behalf of Living Stream Ministry, the owner of Anaheim Palms Corporate Center at 2411 through 2461 West La Palma Avenue. They have been worked with City staff over the past 6 months in order to develop Anaheim Palms into a center of ', economic generation related to their strategic focation along with their fiber optic network with many of the nations principle telecommunications providers. It is their hope that this development will serve not only the broader needs to their community but the specific needs of Living Stream Ministry whose corporate headquarters are located at Anaheim Palms. They are requesting a CUP to permit a teleconferencing center and private conference-training center. The details of their proposed operation are outlined in their letter of operation attached to the staff report. Their request for a waiver of the minimum number of parking spaces is supported by the traffic and parking study prepared by Katz, Okitsu & Associates which was provided earlier to Commission. He reviewed the staff report and the conditions of approval and they are all acceptable to them. Although there are two matters of consideration, Condition Nos. 27 and 28, they are not opposed to any of the stipulations in the conditions but realize that the timing of several of these items are beyond their power to control. Specifically, items 1, 2, 3 and 12 of Condition No. 27. It is their hope to be able to hold a private conference in this facility in late December of this year. They feel they cannot meet those conditions in that short of a time frame. Tenant improvements to this building are minor and can be completed in time for their late December conference. They are more than willing to submit plans for the completion of these items prior to this time and if there was a request for bonding or security then they would put that forward also to ensure that those items would be completed. Condition No. 24 stipulates that this permit shall expire 2 years from the date of this resolution on October 9, 2002. As their letter of operation indicates that they anticipate the completion of the construction of a permanent teleconferencing facility in January 2003, the expiration date as it now stands would eliminate their ability to hold a conference in December 2002. They ask that they be granted an extension to January 9, 2003. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ', Commissioner Bristol discussed that the difference between the private versus public meetings on the site. The private being potentially 4,000 people coming on the site between off-peak hours and 1,500 coming peak hours during the week to the site. Mr. Miller came up with a figure in their study regarding the 4,000 10-9-00 Page 24 OCTOBER 9, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES of 3 persons per vehicle t~ip per automobile using 60% of 4,000. On the traffic study on page 30 on Ball (. Road and came up with 1.81 per person on the study. Rock Miller, traffic engineer consultant with Katz, Okitsu & Associates, responded that was correct. They assumed 1.81 for events that would be held during business hours. They assume 3 for special events that would be held after hours that would act somewhat like a special event generator. Commissioner Bristol asked on the 21 days a year are they convinced that 3.0 will come in cars. Rock Miller responded that was correct or the parking forecasting that they have made for the occupancy of that building would be in proportion to the buses they forecast to arrive as well as the occupancy of the cars. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Miller to explain how they came up with that because he tried to find out how they can gather all that information from the Ball site. Rock Miller stated that they did not gather any information on the vehicle occupancy for large special events from the Ball site. The only information they obtained from the Ball site was to run a similar but smaller teleconferencing facility at the Ball site that generates traffic into and out of the facility before and after events. They measured the occupancy of those vehicles to determine whether people arrived for those events at one, two or three to a car. They found four of those events which would occur between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. normal business hours that the occupancies of those events was approximately 1.83 (less than 2) but higher that the 1.1 that would be measured if the employee reporting to their own work site prior to work. They did that because it is typical to assume a rate of 3 per car when dealing with theatres, churches, assembly areas, and types of uses that have very large parking lot and usage. That rate seemed very appropriate for the use for this facility on the basis that the types of large events that they hold they bring in people from out of town and stay overnight in nearby hotels/motels and would be ', very logical to assume that they would carpool or use the bus transportation provided to arrive at the site. They would not have assumed that for public use of the facility. Commissioner Bristol stated assuming they gather 1500 as a maximum amount, the hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. which puts them at peak hours. He is trying to determine how they came up with these totals, the AM and PM peak hours of the traffic study for the public as approximately 68 trips. Rock Miller responded probably because that is the hour that staff arrived during the peak hour whereas the events would not start until the facility had actually opened. Commissioner Bristol asked how they came up with the numbers on page 13 of the traffic study regarding trip generation for the proposed project on Ball Road that they are applying to the public event. Rock Miller explained that the numbers are not connected with each other. The number on Table 5(page 13) of the traffic study is the traffic that arrives at the site generally before 8:00 a.m. in the morning. It is the employees associated with the teleconferencing facility, the people that get the facility ready. The public use of the facility would not occur promptly at 8:00 a.m. because the facility is open at 8:00 a.m. They would arrive at the facility, get it ready to hold an event and then the people who actually attend the facility do not arrive during the AM peak hour. That would be a number larger than 63, a number closer to the parking that they forecast for the site, but would not occur during the morning peak of the street because the hours of the use of the facility do not allow it to be used before 8:00 a.m. Commissioner Bristol asked what would be between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. if there were 1500 people coming. Rock Miller replied the people would arrive at a rate of about 1.8 per car, if it was a fully used facility, which ', would be 700 to 800. Commissioner Bristol asked if that is noted in the study. 10-9-00 Page 25 OCTOBER 9, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (. Rock Miiler indicated they have the parking requirement for those people in the study. They did not do a traffic analysis during the peak hour that the facility arrives because the peak hour of the street was deemed to be of greater concern to the City staff. Commissioner Bristol stated that he noticed a sign on the outside of the building that appears there will be doing some web-hosting. John Pester referred to the site plan and indicated that there is a section of the building that is the northeast corner of building that they are proposing for the teleconferencing center that is indicated as "telecom lease pending". That is the site that will have the co-location. It is actually more machinery than people. Commissioner Bristol asked if they apply another traffic count instead of 3 per vehicle and used the 1.1 to the private convention their parking would be increased by 400 to 500. A concern was the impact to the residents to south of La Palma, especially the fact that they are off peak hours. One of the conditions was buses leaving by 10:30 p.m. Regarding the relocation of buses from the area to the front of the northern part of the property La Palma (staging area where buses would end up) to the rear area. He thought that would be the best area where it does not impact the residents and also to go off of Woodland, potentially for the buses. Rock Miller stated they had identified any area that they felt would be appropriate for bus parking based upon the proposed location of the facility and the proportion of people that would use it. They would be happy to refine the bus access routes to the facility if it is deemed that there is a better place on the site for bus parking and bus access. There are some physical turning constraints that may exist today for bringing the buses in on Woodland, however, there are probably issues of slight adjustments of landscaped areas adjacent to building or planters. It is a matter of laying a"turn template" for a bus vehicle on the plan and ', determine whether any of the landscape interferes with it. That type of information was shown on the parking area that was proposed. They can certainly find an alternate location on the site for bus parking if that is Commission's desire. Commissioner Bristol stated that staff questioned how much width they had between parked cars. On the other hand, this would be the best location for those buses to come down on because there are no residents impacted. John Pester stated they are in agreement. They identified the Vocation adjacent to the proposed teleconference center based upon conversations they had with members of the Traffic and Engineering Division based on their recommendation. They see that there is a way to bring buses in off of Woodland and park them in the back of the area to minimize the impacts and even to make it easier for those buses to maneuver. Commissioner Vanderbilt indicated when he drove the site on Friday; it appeared that there were some improvements down to the west side of the college that eliminated a number of parking spaces. It appeared there was possibly a utility structure and more construction going on against the west side of the building. He wondered if the parking study was based on this plan and those improvements have been done it appears that the calculations might be off. Rock Milier stated that the parking plan is based upon the number of parking spaces that exist or would be provided when the facility is completed. It is largely the same as the existing parking plan, but there are some slight changes. He thought a portion of the remote corners of this site was temporarily loaned to the contractor for the ongoing freeway construction which is nearly completed and that may have caused some short term disruptions. ' Commissioner Vanderbilt stated he was referring to something that looked permanent and he saw trailers , on the north side of the site and some areas that are screened off. If these plans submitted are the ones 10-9-00 Page 26 OCTOBER 9, 2000 CiTY OF ANAHEiM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES being used to come up with the calculations for parking use and do not accurately reflect the possible (, future layout then that is a concern. Rock Miller stated the parking supply that they assume to exist is a combination of what they count out there in areas that are clearly shown consistent with the site plan plus what would be provided there in the areas that were temporarily out of use due to outside activities. The parking supply that they indicated would exist there is the parking supply that they are reasonably sure will exist when this becomes the combination of uses that occur on the site. Greg McCafferty confirmed that Commissioner Vanderbilt was correct. If the plan before Commission and the plan they are going to adopt as an exhibit is different from what is showing physically at the site currently then they need the correct plan. If the applicant is stating that this is the correct plan and those are the parking spaces that are striped and what they based their parking calculations on then that is fine. However, if it is different out in the field then they need to be consistent. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that in front of the College building they have some spaces that are indicated as "handicapped". When he counted them those spaces they were extra large to accommodate a van and did not reflect on this plan because at some point someone decided to restripe them (in blue) so they could accommodate a van and take up two up 1%2 to 2 spaces. He hoped that they provide updated plans. Greg McCafferty suggested that Mr. Pester clarify whether this plan that reflects existing conditions and if not then perhaps they might consider a continuance of this item not only to address that issue but also the bus template on the plan. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated if the bus template shows even without these parking spaces and those new structures in place then that would be satisfy this process. '. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, stated that simply the design of the traffic signal itself for that turning movement he estimated would be longer than December. It would take at least 2 months for the plan check review and then the process of changing the signal is going to be rather hectic because there is a 6-month waiting list on some of the parts that are produced. Rock Miller stated that is why the applicant requested some alternate arrangement for the improvements. They would like to run an event this coming December, during the Christmas holidays, and it would not be possible to accomplish the physical improvements that are indicated in the staff report by that time, especially the traffic signal issue. There is about a 6-month wait on most traffic signal parts. Therefore, they asked for consideration with a relief on that through bonding to get the improvement done afterwards. It just cannot be done in time for the event they are hoping to hold this December. Commissioner Bristol was also in agreement to continue this item. Asked if Commission wanted any activity regarding La Palma. Buses coming westbound on La Palma going right on Magnolia going through the property and going to the back area, essentially staying off of La Palma, or is it permissible to have buses on La Palma before 6:00 p.m. but after 6:00 p.m. they would stay off of La Palma and go off of Woodland. A{fred Ya1da advised that the applicant speak with the Police Department because he was not certain even if this was approved and conditioning whether the police could handle the traffic control because they may not have adequate personnel with the amount of work there is already in the City at other facilities. Rock Miller stated that there is a traffic signal out there. The requirement was to left-turn phasing to it. Actually, the left-turn phasing would be most conducive to traffic that arrived at Magnolia, turn left on La Palma and left into the site. If they redo the access pattern so that all bus activity arrives on Magnolia, possibly even reduce the need for that, lt has been their presumption all along that the Police Department ', would want to do event traffic control here and would be able to provide for it. He could only presume they 10-9-00 Page 27 OCTOBER 9, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANN{NG COMMISSION MINUTES would have expressed some reservation had they felt they would be unable to provide that level of service. (. He hoped that the application was routed to the Police Department routinely. Alfred Yalda stated that generally it is routed to the Police Department, but it does not go directly to the traffic control section, therefore, he suggested that the applicant contact the Police Department and speak with the actual section that handles the work in the field. Rock Miller stated that they actually have a sizeable surplus of parking forecast. They are assuming use of these buildings simultaneous with their major events. The destiny of the property seems to be that more and more of it is getting directly into Living Stream's own uses. When they are assuming 300 parking spaces that may be needed for other tenants after hours, which may not be true, as soon as those tenants vacate. Commissioner Bristol suggested a continuance to allow time to discuss the things they talked about regarding internal circulation, Woodland and La Palma not impacting the residents and on Condition No. 22 on page 11, he suggested to extending the hours of operation to 11:00 p.m. Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer, stated concerning Condition No. 12 with the sidewalks, she felt that the applicant could construct that before their opening in December. All they would need to do is have their civil engineer prepare plans, which she indicated she could review with them at a meeting. She thought that it would take 1 to 2 weeks to install the sidewalk. John Pesta requested a two-week continuance because he felt most of the issues of concern could be addressed very quickly. Greg McCafferty agreed that a two-week continuance would be acceptable as long as the plans are received on Wednesday or Thursday of this week. Based on Commissions concerns they would need to ', do a template along Woodland Drive to exit, modify the site plan so it reflects the existing parking that is out there and meet with the Police Department to work out off-site traffic management until the traffic signal is constructed. Alfred Yalda suggested that the applicant reflect that in their traffic study, which could be submitted up to 5 days before the hearing date. Commissioner Bristol offered a continuance to October 23, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Arnold, vote taken and motion carried. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the October 23, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to revise the site plan to show the existing parking layout at the west property line and to determine the feasibility of bus access to Electric Way and Woodland Drive, and to meet with Police Department staff to work out off-site traffic management until the traffic signal at La Palma and Gilbert is upgraded. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 30 minutes (3:56-4:26) ,, 10-9-00 Page 28 OCTOBER 9, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (• THE MEETiNG ADJOURNED AT 4:30 P.M. TO MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2000 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW ~~ ', RespectfuAy submitted: ~..r~..~.~ ~^ Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~°-~ 3~ ~~ Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary 10-9-00 Page 29