Loading...
Minutes-PC 2000/11/06t~ 0 ~ aPHE'MCA`'~ CITY OF ANAHEIM a Z v ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~~VNDED ~Sy1 . DATE: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2000 MORNING SESSION: Chairperson Koos called the Morning Session to order at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chamber. 9:00 A.M. • Zoning discussion pertaining to religious institutions and schools and related parking requirements (continued from Commission meeting of September 25, 2000.) • Staff update to Commission of various City developments and issues (as requested by Planning Commission) • Preliminary Plan Review PUBLIC HEARING: 1:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Chairperson Koos called the Public Hearing to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber and welcomed those in attendance. Public Hearing Testimony The Pledge Allegiance was led by Commissioner Boydstun. Arnold, Bristol, Bostwick, Boydstun, Koos, Napoles, Vanderbilt Selma Mann Greg Hastings Greg McCafferty Don Yourstone Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant 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 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 2, 2000, inside the dispiay case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, October 26, 2000. H:\DOCS\CLERICAL\MiNUTESWC1106Q0.DOC planninqcommission(a~anaheim.net (. 11-06-00 Page 1 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 C(TY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~, '. (. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None DISCUSSION I7EM: Request for reappointment of Planning Commission Anaheim Transportation Network Board of Directors. representative: Commissioner Tom ~resentative for the rrent ACTfON: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner oB~cy s~un and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby appoint Commissioner Paul Bostwick as the representative for the Anaheim Transportation Network Board of Directors. Appointed Commissioner Paul Bostwick (Vote: 7-0) RECEIVING AND APPROVING THE MINUTES FOR THE PLANNING COMMfSSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 23. 2000. o ion ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by o~ssioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approved the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of October 23, 2000. Approved (Vote: 7-0) 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04242 (CUP 7RACKING NO. 2000-04289 - REQUEST FOR A NUNC PRO TUNC RESOLUTION: i y o na eim anning ommission Secretary), 200 Sout Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests a nunc pro tunc resolution to correct Condition No. 20 contained in Resolution No. PC2000-94 adopted in connection with the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04242. Property is located at 404-452 North Lakeview Avenue. NUNC PRO TUNC RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-119 Approved (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Bristol abstained) SR7834.MS.DOC 11-06-00 Page 2 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this item is a request to correct a ', previously-approved resolution that Commission adopted. Staff recommended that Commission adopt the Nunc Pro Tunc resolution. (Commissioner Bristol abstained from this item since he was not present during the action of this item.) 1, (. 11-06-00 Page 3 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ', B. a. CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061(b)(3) Concurred w/staff b. MISCELLANEOUS 2Q00-00003: City of Anaheim (Planning Approved with Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, changes as discussed requests review and approval of revised applications for Conditional Use Permits and Variances. (Vote: 7-0) ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 14061 (b)(3), as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Procedure and Submittal Requirements List (Section 2) and the revised Petition for Conditional Use Permit or Variance (Section 3) with the following changes to Section 2: 1. Added the following language to the fourth paragraph on Page 1: That a violation of a zoning code or a condition of approval cannot serve as justification for granting a conditional use permit or a variance. '. ~. 2. Deleted the "200 South Anaheim Boulevard" address and phone numbers at the top of the page SR7841 BM.DOC Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, introduced fhis item stating this is a staff request for approval of a new dual-use conditional use permit and variance application, which is attached to the staff report. Major revisions have been noted in the staff report. At the morning session, Commission asked for one change to Section 2, specifically to add language to the fourth paragraph of page 1. In order to add the language to Section 2 they will need to eliminate the 200 South Anaheim Boulevard address and phone number at the top of the page. She felt this should not be a problem because the address and phone number are noted on Section 3. 11-06-00 Page 4 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '~ /. (. C. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2000-00023 (RCL TRACKING NO. 2000- 00042), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2000-00376 (GPA TRACKING NO. 2000-00385) AND CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2000- 00002 (ZCA TRACKING NO. 2000-00004) - INFORMATIONAL ITEM: City of Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, 10th floor, Anaheim, CA 92805. The proposed 430-acre South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor (SABC) Overlay Zone is located within the southcentral portion of the City, along the east and west sides of South Anaheim Boulevard between Broadway to the north and the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway to the south. The SABC Overlay Zone area includes properties fronting both Anaheim Boufevard and abutting neighborhoods. Major portions of the proposed SABC Overlay Zone area lie within the southern portion of Anaheim's Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Project Area. No action was taken (Additional Commission comments will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration) SR7779JB.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by explaining that this is an informational item. Staff recommends that Commission review the proposed revisions, and if appropriate, provide additional comments to the City Council regarding the changes for an upcoming consideration at the City Council meeting. The Redevelopment Agency, as well as Planning staff, were present to answer any questions. (Commissioner Bostwick abstained from this item as he owns property within the Redevelopment Area.) Chairperson Koos stated that at the morning session there were a number of suggestions regarding the language and asked if that woufd be included and forwarded to City Council. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, confirmed that the recommendations made would be included in the draft to the City Council. 11-06-00 Page 5 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '. OWNER: Sanderson J. Ray Development, 2699 White Road, II (To expire 11-06-2005) Irvine, CA 92614 AGENT: Compass Telecom, Attn: Adan Madrid, 17870 Skypark Circle, Suite 102, Irvine, CA 92614 LOCATION: 3364 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 2.79 acres located on the north side of Riverside (91) Freeway, and is accessed via a 652-foot long, 32-foot wide ingress/egress easement on the south side of La Palma Avenue, 9,240 feet east of the centerline of Shepard Street (Concourse Bowling Alley). PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04233 Approved Granted for 5 years To retain an existing legal-nonconforming freestanding telecommunication monopole and to construct and co-locate an additional telecommunication antenna facility on the existing legal non-conforming telecommunication monopole with accessory roof-mounted equipment. ~. Continued from the Commission meetings of Ju(y 17, August 14, September 11, and October 23, 2000. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-120 SR7846KP.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this continued item. The petitioner is requesting to co-locate an additionaf telecommunications antenna facility on an existing legal non-conforming AT&T monopole. This was continued at the request of Commission to explore flush mounting or vertically stacking the antenna arrays on the existing monopole. After review of the proposed revisions to the plans, staff continues to recommend denial since staff feels they are still projecting from the monopole and do not meet the intent of Commission's direction at the last public hearing. ApplicanYs Statement: Adan Madrid, Compass Telecom Services representing Sprint PCS. At the previous Commission public hearing he discussed the different property alternatives that they explored and the reasons why those properties did not work from a feasibility perspective. Commission requested that they explore the feasibility of flush-mounting the antennas onto the existing A7&T monopole, which they have done. Their new design proposed reduces the number of antennas from 4 per sector to 2 per sector, which is half of what they initially proposed. By doing that the outer antennas are only 3 feet apart and only project approximately 1'h feet out from the pole. It is significantly less intrusive than the previous design. He faxed a letter to staff this morning, which Commission received copies, explaining why they cannot flush-mount. They feel they have done everything possible to address Commission as well as staff concerns. (• Commission Boydstun felt that due to the existing pole and the time limit, she does not have a problem with it. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 11-06-00 Page 6 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~, Chairperson Koos thanked Mr. Madrid for exploring those options. He also felt that this is an acceptable solution and meets the intent of consolidating cell sites into one location. He is glad that they reduced the antennas from 12 to 6 and is in support of this revised proposal. Commissioner Arnold a(so agreed that this is a good solution and does not see that the visual impacts are significant as to justify denial of the CUP. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMlSSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04233 for 5 years (to expire November 6, 2005) subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (1:40-1:46) /. ~. 11-06-00 Page 7 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~~ 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04265 Approved Approved, in part Granted, in part OWNER: William and Patsy Keough; Eugene and Marie Pardella; et al., Attn: Allen Wattenberg, 15234 Matisse Circle, La Mirada, CA 90638 AGENT: Mercy Charities Housing California, Attn: Dara Kovel, 500 South Main Street, #110, Orange, CA 92868 LOCATION: 2240 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 1.92 acres located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, 515 feet west of the centerline of Brookhurst Street. To construct an affordable (including density bonus) 3-story, 81-unit senior citizen's apartment complex with waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces and (b) maximum structural height. Continued from Commission meeting of October 23, 2000. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-121 II SR2031 DS.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating that the request is to construct a 3-story 81- ', unit affordable housing project including density bonus for senior citizens. There were two waivers that were previously requested and the waiver regarding the (b} maximum structural height was deleted since the CUP establishes that. Waiver (a) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces still remains. Staff recommended approval of the project as conditioned. ApplicanYs Statement: Dara Kovel, Mercy Charities Housing California, 500 South Main Street, Orange, gave a narrative slide presentation of their proposal. Mercy Housing of California is a nationally recognized non-profit affordable housing development corporation. They are sponsored by 11 congregations of nuns and have been developing throughout California since the early 1970s. They bring an investment in the West Anaheim community and by virtue of developing there they plan to be there for the long term. They will be owning and managing the property for the life of the building. They will also have a manager as well as assistant manager on-site. They were invited into Orange County by the Sisters of Saint Joseph of Orange and the Saint Joseph Health System who recognize the affordable housing crisis in Orange County. They prioritize high quality design so that all of their buildings will look great for years to come. They develop resident services that are tailored to improve the quality of lives of all of their residents. Their Community Resident Initiatives Program is a very unique component of what they do, and believe this is one of the reasons why the residents of their buildings take pride in ownership of the properties. They are creating 81 new senior units in the very low-income category. They are committed to participation of the community and have been meeting and working very closely with neighbors of the sites. As a result, they incorporated a lot of concerns including maintaining a fwo-story facade along Lincoln Avenue, creating a nice size courtyard and extensive landscaping that will add to the appearance (• of the property. There were 9 letters of support from people who live directly to the north of the proposed 11-06-00 Page 8 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES development who will have direct impact from this development. They have also had extensive input ', from the Community Development staff and thanked the Planning staff for their cooperation. She indicated that the variances are definitely necessary to create the best development and affordability The parking study justifies that a 1:1 ratio will be more than sufficient to park the site and also consistent with their housing experience. Mark Pettit, Lauterbaugh and Associates Architects, also gave a narrative slide presentation of the design of the project by highlighting some of the amenities pertaining to each building such as: secured parking along with garages and ample lighting; throughout the property they allowed for handicapped requirements and all the units are adaptable; a main lobby for each building; multiple laundry rooms; iarge area for additional locker storage for the residents, elevators available; a large community room with a kitchen, fire place and a large balcony that overlooks the courtyard; mail center; a computer room; and trash locations outside of each building. They chose to give the appearance of two buildings rather than one large projecf and befween the two buildings there will be a courtyard plaza. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun stated that she has looked into their other developments, which are well- maintained and an asset to the community; however, she is very disappointed that this is a senior project. She is aware that it is beyond their control, but what is needed is affordable for families in this area. This would have been a high quality project that would have been maintained. Due to that she was opposed to this proposal. ~. Commissioner Arnold was in agreement with Commissioner Boydstun; however, he was in favor of the project. There is a need for affordable housing for families, but unfortunately the applicant did not have much choice in the matter. This is a very great project and is in support of it. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that there are many cars from the adjacent apartment buildings that use the curb in front of this property, and wondered whether the applicant is going to address the issue with the City such as installation of a handicap striped parking stall. Dara Kovel responded that there is currently much overflow from adjacent property. They are under the impression that some of those cars could be parking at the garage beneath the property next door because it is frequently less than 50% full and are parking at the site more out of convenience. The on- site management wil! be able to monitor very carefully the parking situation, and if it becomes an issue then they will work with the City to resolve the problem. Commissioner Bristol felt that the applicant has done a good job. He also agreed with Commissioner Boydstun that affordable housing is needed, but is also concerned about the senior housing. His only concern was the back parking, but it appears they are now comfortable with that. Dara Kovel confirmed that they are working with their management company to determine what the best way to monitor those spaces. Chairperson Koos stated what they are presenting today does not have true relationship in terms of their decision of what was proposed before. He also agreed that it is tragic that City staff chose not to bring the proposal forward to allow the City Council to enter into a loan agreement with applicant on their famil~r development project. This is a great project and they have a very good track record; therefore, and is pleased to support this project. ~• Dara Kovel stated that they are actively pursuing sites and look forward to being before Commission in the future with a family development of the quality of the proposal earlier this year. 11-06-00 Page 9 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES f. Commissioner Napoles stated he went to view their project in Oxnard and thought it was a wonderful project. He is in support of this project because it is a great thing for Anaheim. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved, in part, the Waiver of Code Requirement as follows: Approved waiver (a) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces based on the determination of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager that the proposed number of parking spaces will be adequate based upon operation of the use in conformance with the assumptions and/or conclusions relating to the operation and intensity of use as contained in the parking demand study and parking management plan, and in accordance with the conditions contained herein. Denied waiver (b) pertaining to maximum structural height on the basis that it was deleted following public notification. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04265 subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report. VOTE: 6-1 (Commissioner Boydstun voted no) '. DISCUSSION TIME: 23 minutes (1:47-2:10) (. 11-06-00 Page 10 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ', 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04272 Continued to 11-20-2000 OWNER: Ellas Properties, Attn: Don Bering, 5395 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 Canyon Commercial Center, Attn: Mark Poochigian, 5000 Birch Street, #510 East Tower, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: Portion A: 5375 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 1.1 acre located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Brasher Street. Portion B: 5395 East La Palma Avenue and 1370- 1400 North Brasher Street. Property is 5.02 acres located at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Brasher Street. Portion C: 5401, 5403 and 5405 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 12.2 acres located on the north side of La Palma Avenue, 270 feet east of the centeriine of Brasher Street. '. To permit an expansion to an existing automotive dealership facility with waiver of (a) maximum number of monument signs, (b) minimum distance between monument signs, (c) maximum floor area ratio and (d) permitted encroachments into required yards. Continued from the Commission meeting of October 23, 2000. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7771 KB. DOC Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion for continuance to November 20, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Bristol, vote taken and motion carried. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the November 20, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the petitioner additional time to finalize outstanding leasing issues with the adjacent building property owner. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. /. 11-06-00 Page 11 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ', 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04271 Approved Approved, in part Granted, in part OWNER: Hee Sook Yoo, 1845 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 1839-1845 West La Palma Avenue * Property is 0.44 acre located on the north side of La Palma Avenue, 175 feet west of the centerline of Onondaga Avenue. (Happy Day Preschool). To permit an expansion and increase in enroliment for an existing preschool facility with waiver of (a) institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone, (b) permitted encroachments into required yards and (c) minimum number of parking spaces. " Originally advertised as 1839-1847 West Lincoln Avenue. Continued from Commission meeting of October 23, 2000. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-122 II SR2041 DS.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request to expand the preschool in ', terms of their enrollment, but also to expand the property to the east. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit, but is recommending denial of Waiver (a). Staff does not see where there is justification for granting the waiver for the new parking lot based on the findings required to grant the waiver. There was some question as to whether the applicant was present. Meanwhile Mr. McCafferty passed out information related to this item. Chairperson Koos asked staff to discuss the recommendation for denial of Waiver (a) in relation to the entire proposal. Greg McCafferty explained that normally it would be a continuance to redesign in terms of staff's recommendation. Based on the direction that the applicant received at the last public hearing, staff felt that most of the circulation issues were resolved, and are comfortable with the land use. Staff wants to allow the petitioner the opportunity to come before Commission to explain the justification for that Waiver (a). However, it only applies to the part of the project that involves the parking lot that is being constructed on the east property, back towards the alley. They would normally require for an institutional use a 15-foot landscape buffer between the use and a residentially zoned property to the east. However, if they comply with Code and put the landscaping in, it would further reduce the number of parking spaces. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, announced that the applicant was requesting to trail this item since they were waiting for their architect to arrive. Chairperson Koos then announced that this item would be trailed. This item was later heard following Item No. 6. Greg McCafferty reintroduced this item and explained the remaining issue is with regarding to institutional ', use setback which they do not comply; therefore, staff recommended denial of Waiver (a). 11-06-00 Page 12 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Applicant's Statement: ', Jonathan Pai 3600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 905 Los Angeles, represents the property owner. He expiained their revised circulation plan. Sherie Kidwell, 401 South Van Street, stated there has been not been any problems with the school parking and have worked very hard to cooperate. Junni Choi stated she is has a 6 year old child attending the school, and has not noticed any parking problems there. Yoon Soo Kim stated he also has a child attending the school. He felt the idea of the alley is a better idea for traffic circulation. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. (Commissioner Vanderbilt acted as Chairperson while Chairperson Koos stepped away.) Commissioner Boydstun felt that their new plan is much better and they have a 6-foot wall along the east property line. She would rather see a 5-foot setback from the wall and have the extra parking spaces which should then give them the ample spaces. (Chairperson Koos returned as Chairperson.) Commissioner Bristol complimented the applicant and also agreed that the revised circulation plan was much better. His major concern was vehicular ingress and egress onto La Palma Avenue. He has no problem with the variance to the east as it currently is proposed. ', • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • IN SUPPORT: 3 people spoke in support of the request. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement as follows: Approved waivers (a) pertaining to institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone and (b) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces based on the foliowing: (1) That the City Traffic and Transportation Manager determined that the number of parking spaces provided would be adequate to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such use location or surroundings. (2) That due to a sufficient amount of on-site parking and loading and unloading areas being provided for employees and visitors, the waiver will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets, or upon adjacent private property, in the immediate vicinity of the proposed uses. (3) That the waiver will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. Denied waiver (c) pertaining to permitted encroachments into required yards on the ~ basis that it was deleted following public notification. 11-06-00 Page 13 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~, Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04271 VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 12 minutes (2:11-2:13 and 3:15-3:25) '~ 1, 11-06-00 Page 14 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1, 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6b. VARIANCE NO. 2000-04407 6c. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 1999-194 OWNER: Craig Painter, 6905 West Route 242, Ellicotteville, NY 14731 AGENT: Anacai Engineering Company, 1900 East La Palma Avenue #202, Anaheim, CA 92805 Continued to 1-17-2001 LOCATION: 371 Timken Road. Property is 2.01 acres located at the terminus of Timken Road, 200 feet west of the centeriine of Mohler Drive. Variance No. 2000-04407 - Waiver of (a) minimum lot area, (b) minimum lot width and (c) maximum* number of panhandle lots to establish a single-family subdivision. Tentative Parcel Map No. 1999-194 - To establish a 4-lot, RS-HS- 22,000(SC) single-family subdivision. " Originally advertised as "minimum". Continued from Commission meeting of October 23, 2000. ~, VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. ~~ SR7835KP.DOC2 Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating that Waivers (a) and (b) have been deleted through redesign of the parcel map. The only waiver remaining is Waiver (c). Staff is recommending approval of the Variance and Tentative Parcel Map. ApplicanYs Statement: Craig Painter, owner of subject property, stated that he hoped the Commission would move forward on this item based on staff's recommendation. He and Cal Queyrel, project engineer with Anacal Engineering, were available to answer any questions. 1, Mitzy Ozaki, 340 South Timken Road, Anaheim, addressed the following concerns she had in the staff report: • Page 1, item 2(c). States that the minimum number of panhandle lots 20% of total lots permitted and 25% proposed. Actually, two of the four lots will be panhandled according to the staff report on page 2, lots 3 and 4 are proposed for panhandling, which would be equivalent to a 50% non-conformance rate. • Page 3, item 18, pertains to Waiver (c) pertains to maximum number of panhandle lots. Code permits a maximum of 20% of all lots to be designed as panhandles or flag lots. For the 4 lot subdivision 20% equals less than 1 lot, which would be 0.8 lot. The plan shows, according to the staff report, 1 lot (lot 4) as proposed for panhandling, yet on page 2 of the staff report that lots 3 and 4 are actually requesting to be panhandled (50% non-conformance rate). • Page 4, item 23, 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. She felt that this causes a very serious public safety issue. Others giving testimony will be addressing the public safety issue in more detail along with letters submitted. 11-06-00 Page 15 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • Page 5, item 24, (b). That special circumstance pertain to this property having a very small frontage ' on Timken Road and being tentatively smaii in size which are unique and prevent compliance with the Code. She felt these are self-imposed circumstances and will elaborate on this later in her testimony. • Petitioner's Statement of Justification for Code Variance or Code Waiver. The applicant has indicated that the hardship was created beyond his control. However, in 1990 the petitioner submitted a tentative map to establish a 5-lot subdivision from a 2.5-acre parcel. No final map was ever processed, but in the meantime the petitioner had sold a half-acre lot leaving him with the current 2.01 acres. It is the petitioner himself that proposed the boundaries in 1990 and further limited those boundaries by the sale of this one lot. She questioned whether it was allowed to see one lot of a proposed subdivision when the final map has not yet been processed. If it is permitted, it certainly shows that if the boundaries are limiting it was certainly self imposed. In the letter (see case fileJsent to Commission from Ted Ozaki, her husband, reference City Council meeting minutes where Anacal Engineering stated, "They (referring to the Painters) are actually taking access to two lots to Timken and not three." The half-acre lot that had been sold takes access onto and therefore only 1 iot should front and access Timken in accordance to the original tentative map. She quoted further from the minutes, "If an access were required through the property it would impact the value of the lots and would seriously damage the value of the lots that the access would go through." She felt that this clearly shows a financial motivation rather than a true hardship on the land. She concluded that her letter of October 30, 2000, she urged Commission to deny the request for Variance to create the two panhandle lots; and to revise the design to include: a) The removal of the need for panhandling. b) To provide a better circulation with the extension of Timken Road. c) Have all four lots take access from Corto Road to eliminate further congestion on the narrow and windy Timken Road. d) To address the problem of the emergency fire escape route. /. Bill Huddleston, 363 Timken Road, submitted the original petition signed by many of the neighbors on Timken Road and Coyote Lane. Some of their concerns involve safety issues, especially for the residents on Timken Road. Timken is a narrow one-lane road where people have to back up when they meet each. There are currently over 20 homes on this road and when meeting someone there are only 2 or 3 places to back up and end up and as a result there have been near accidents. The people that have moved there enjoy the rural area. He is not in agreement to add more to it. The other day he followed a trash truck up the road and noticed it had difficulty going through and it just made it up the road. He used the example of the trash truck to illustrate how a fire truck would have problem maneuvering there. He is very concerned with fire in the area. A few years ago when the Fire Department inspected the property, they informed him that this would probably be the last place that they would come due to the safety concern of the Fire personnel on this road. He has always felt comfortable knowing that if there were a fire below the hill that they would have access by going up the top of the hill and through the orange groves to another road because of this being an open area. That would not be the case should this proposal be granted. The City map includes four lots in this parcel and the evaluation of four lots on Timken Road when there is actually another vacant lot there that would be panhandled in. If added into all the variances it has to come out into the cul-de-sac that they are proposing to build two more homes or having another dog leg road. He is concerned with the safety of automobiles on the road, the safety for the Fire Department personnel • and the neighbors. He recommended that the access be given to the other road rather than to Timken. ( 11-06-00 Page 16 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Dan McNames, 320 Timken Road, Anaheim, stated that most of Timken Road belongs to his family trust. '~ He submitted photos to Commission taken of Timken Road in the morning (numbered 1 through 17). He explained that the entrance to Mohler Drive which is approximately 9 feet wide. It is at a cut-bank, high on left and drops off on the right and it is very difficuff to get off or pass on that road. A fire truck or emergency vehicles cannot pass through there. He explained each photograph, which demonstrated from various portions of the road that it is very narrow and drops off on one side. Emergency vehicles could not pass through there. During the 1970s during the annexation the City of Anaheim forced an annexation and installed a waterline in the middle of this road against the geological report by Beach, Lake and Associates. When they cut this road it destabilized the house above it. In speaking with the City Water Department over the years, there is sagging, failing and leaking up this road on an 80-inch line going through his property. At some point in time it is going to fail and will be cut off which will create 20 houses boxed in. He mentioned that in the past a City of Anaheim water truck rolled off this road. On photograph no. 6, there is a 90 degree blind turn and has personally seen three head-on accidents on this corner. He spent two hours with Fire Chief Jeff Bowman one day walking his property with a Fire Marshali. Chief Bowman indicated to him that the previous conditions approved in 1990 were under fraudulent conditions and misrepresentation. He would not approved any further development on Timken Road. The plans submitted, as he saw it, showed a 40-foot wide road double pass access. Chief Bowman later came onto the property at his request, looked at it and said that he had been mislead and never would have approved the 1990 decision. That he would not have endorsed any further development of this road; it would be a bigger fire hazards and greatly endanger those already there. Chief Bowman indicated that he gave his battalion chief the right to deny coming onto Timken Road because it is too dangerous to their crew and their equipment. They now have the right now to come to the property and make a decision at the site to refuse to answer any fire requests in that area. '~ Photo 8 shows a junction of two roads, Coyote and Timken. The Fire Department posted the junction road as being a dangerous area. Ten years ago the City had a practice drill in conjunction with Riverside and San Bernardino County, to test their equipment. They had to find the worst area in Anaheim to test their equipment and chose Timken, with his permission. They had drills for two days on Timken and Coyote Road. In 1967 his family's place burned down at that road and lost everything. In 1967 Clarence William's property, now owned by Craig Painter, was used as an emergency fire access by the neighbors as an alternate way out. In 1982 it was used again (he showed the article from the Orange County Register from the podium). He has an easement through the middle of Timken Road to Corto Road. Since September 1967, by Clarence William's permission, he had an easement from Timken to Corto Road which is not mention in the plan. If the land is cut up, not walls or houses can be built to obstruct his easement from Timken to Corto. John Hellison, 7650 Corto Road for four years. He does not question the right of the owner to develop this property. He has concerns about the small roads and that it have proper fire access because his house burned down when it was occupied by a previous owner. His particular concern is that the road would be improved when the construction is completed. He wants to see that the entire road from Mohler up to the point where the property ends be improved. His other concern is about the 5-foot wall that will be on Corto. He felt that as long as conditions are met, development should go forward on Timken Road. Ronald Taylor, 367 South Timken, stated he works for Irvine Company. His concern is safety not progression. The access is difficult and new homes are a safety concern. He does not see that the report addresses fire in an adequate manner. He is also concerned about the environmental impact of (, the area. He is worried about construction traffic and the safety of his children. He felt this development 11-06-00 Page 17 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHE(M PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES may exceed what that hill can sustain under the existing circumstances and asked that Commission ', consider that. Cal Queyrel, Anacal Engineering, responded for Mr. Painter. This is the same map that was approved in 1990 except for one less lot that was merged with another. Mrs. Painter (ives on a lot that has been in existence for some time so there is only one additional lot accessing off of Timken Road. He suggested the homeowners get together, form an association, if there is none, and widen the road, trim bushes back and maintain the road in a better manner. If they did these things, it would answer the question of the road being too narrow in certain places. There were no negative reports from the fire marshall. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if Mr. Queyrel had a response to the question regarding parcel map and the City Council minutes of 1990 where a cul-du-sac was constructed 3 to 6 months ago with a proposal to add two lots at the end of it and not five. Cal Correll stated that map that was approved then had 5 lots. One lot that was part of that map was merged with another adjacent lot which eliminated the lot. The other 4 are the same as the ones that were approved then. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol asked if Mrs. Painter iived on parcel 3 and how she enters the property Craig Painter replied that there is access from Corto and Timken. Corto is used more than Timken. The net impact is only adding one access on Timken for access off of this new development. Currently two of the lots on this parcel map already have access off of Timken so they are only adding access to parcel 3. '~ Commissioner Bristol asked if anyone comes down the hi!!, around that retaining wal! and accesses the cul-de-sac off of that home. Craig Painter stated right below that retaining wall is a rough drive area, vehicles use it a number of times. It is curb-cut and currently provides access to those two lots. It was completed in 1987. Commissioner Arnold asked how many times a month somebody accesses that existing lot off of Timken. Craig Painter could not answer that, could only guess. Maintenance people go out once or twice a month and visitors go out, but not daily. Commissioner Boydstun asked why they do not bring a road from Timken to Corto Road to have circulation to get ir~ and out. Craig Painter explained that they explored that at one time and in a practical lay out, it does not flow. It does not leave lots that would be conducive for building pads. This issue was addressed in 1990. StafFs advice, from the City Attorney, was that where they sit, in terms of providing fire access, and dealing with fire issues was that if those restrictions were going to be placed on this parcel map development, it is not consistent with what the Commission's rulings have been in other similar situations in the Anaheim Hills area in terms of requiring public access off this cul-de-sac. There is no other precedent within the City where that specific specification has been made a requirement. Commissioner Bristol stated he drove his Ford Ranger up on Timken Road and found himself driving very close to the foliage. If he were living there he would be concerned and it is a fire concern, no matter what happened 10 years ago. '. 11-06-00 Page 18 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Craig Painter stated his point is that when that stipulation was made 10 years ago, the advice from City ', Council was that there were other situations in the City of Anaheim where they required fire access off of a cul-du-sac. Commissioner Bristol stated that there is an issue whether fire trucks can get to the cul-de-sac. Craig Painter explained that fire trucks have sat on parcel 4. When they put in the cul-de-sac they made it a little larger, has larger radius and fire trucks were there when it was put in. There were three or four fire trucks parked on parcel 4 at one time. Commissioner Bristol stated he can guarantee they did not go up Timken with another car going down. Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer, stated there are three issues. First the existing condition of both Corto Road and Timken Road. Second, is the fire access adequate. Third, what are impacts of new deve(opment and what conditions should be placed on them. She suggested Mr. Rudaitis, from Fire Department, address the fire safety issue first. Todd Rudaitis, Fire Department, stated that according to specifications of the drawing, it meets all of the requirements now. Commissioner Arnold asked if Mr. Rudaitis if he actually drove it. Todd Rudaitis replied no. Commissioner Bristol emphasized there is no way they [Fire Department] can get up there. Melanie Adams stated both streets are in areas that were annexed into Anaheim in the late 1970s and a special standard was established for those areas, called a"private lane standard" and a"private street ', standard" for Perralta Hills and Mohler Drive areas. Ideally, Standard Detail No. 116 would apply to those private streets serving four lots or fewer and it is 20- foot wide access easement. For streets serving five or more parcels they would comp~y with Standard Detaif No. 118D which is a 40-foot wide easement. Reality is that homes were already built in these areas and width of the easement is not as wide as what they would like to achieve with the standard. In the case of Timken Road, ideally they would to have a 40-foot easement. They only have it at the first stretch of the road then it goes to 20 feet where the cul-de-sac is. In that case, they can still achieve 16 feet of pavement, which would allow two cars to pass each other and even more if they go to a roll curb scenario. Since it is a private lane, the private owners are able to get together and come up with a plan to widen the pavement to conform with standards. There is nothing restricting them from doing that. In regard to the impact of this development, what they were looking at in the proposed conditions was what is a reasonable relationship to how much they are building to what the standards are. Their first thought was that they should improve the frontage that they are on. Some of the homeowners brought up good points about potential damage to the private road, so they can add that it is restored to the condition that it was before construction started to the condition of approval. Valid points about construction access and hauling routes were made and they could also be added as a condition of approval. Commissioner Bristol stated he is not against this project, and pointed out it is a planning issue and from his observation and driving his little truck up there, there is no way a truck can go up that street, as it is right now, without putting additional people at risk. He felt some other access for these lots should be utilized. Craig Painter stated allocation for Timken is there in terms of the easement. Certain homeowners, . through their own liking, have allowed the area to overgrow and have not been assertive and aware in ~ 11-06-00 Page 19 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES terms of what needs to be done in order to keep the width of the road available. There has never been '~ an effort to group together and cost share maintenance of the road. Commissioner Arnold asked the Assistant City Attorney to comment on what they are legally required and permitted to consider with respect to the fire access issues in this particular approval and the difference of the evaluation of the plans versus actual physical inspection of the area. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated consistent with advice given by Mr. Jack White, the City Attorney, when the project was previously considered, in evaluating a particular project, they are looking at nexus constraints with regard to conditions that can be imposed. There is the type and proportionality nexus that the City is limited by. Conditions that are imposed have to address the type of impact that the particular request is having upon the community. The proportionality is that they are required to address only their fair share of what that impact is. In addition, when reviewing a request for tentative map, there are specific reasons that are given in the map act that are understood to be the exclusive reasons for denial. To the extent that there are existing constraints that create some sort of a health hazard that can be articulated, it could be a reason for denial as well as other reasons in the staff report. It may be that there has been sufficient information that has been presented at this hearing that would justify looking at it further to have staff review iYs recommendation to see if it would sti(I make the recommendation for approval. Mr. White made a point at the last hearing, if the owner of the entire subdivision were to build just one house without subdividing at all, they could build a fence around the perimeter around the entire property and cut off all access and there wouldn't be much that anyone could do about it because they wouldn't be anything. His point was how can you express a fire impact that is by reason of having 5 lots rather than one. There may be impacts as a result of having 5 lots rather than 1. There was discussion with regard to a prescriptive easement and it would not be something that would be decided by the Commission, it would ', be a private issue that would be determined by the courts. Commissioner Arnold asked whether the fact that 5 lots increases the number of people whose health and safety can be taken into account legally. Selma Mann replied that they stated you have to consider the number of parcels and what it is that is before you in being able to make any sort of a nexus determination. Also in seeing if those reasons for denial of a map have been articulated and it may be that there are conditions that are necessary in order to address what would be a reason to deny the map completely. Absent mitigation of a particular situation Commission has a reason for denying it completely. It appears that there is reluctant existing homeowners with regard to the situation that is present. It may need to be looked at by Code Enforcement with regard to whether it is rising to a level of a nuisance that needs to be addressed. (. Commissioner Boydstun suggested this item be continued and ask the Fire Department to physically inspect property to see if it is safe. Commissioner Arnold agreed and suggested Fire Department meet with local residents and the applicant. Commissioner Bostwick agreed. There was testimony given about the history of how may times it has burned out there. When he drove the area, he could barely get his Ford Explorer up Timken Road and does not know if a fire truck could go up there. That is a disaster waiting to happen. Mr. Taylor mentioned about his children playing on the street and the hazards of vehicles driving through while his children are playing in the street. Actually the real danger is that a fire could consume the homes. It needs to be cleaned around the road. He advised the Fire Department to go out there to ensure it is cleaned up. Code Enforcement also needs to go out to get the trash out of there. Craig Painter asked whether this item could be continued to January 17, 2001, which staff agreed. 11-06-00 Page 20 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairman Koos offered a motion for a continuance to January 17, 2001, seconded by Commissioner '~ Arnold, vote taken and motion carried. Melanie Adams advised she had copies of the Private Street Standard and offered neighbors her business card if they want to follow-up on working with the improvements. ~LLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSInN ACTIC OPPOS1TlON: 4 people spoke with concerns/4 letters were received expressing concerns. ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 17, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order for the Fire Department to inspect the property and determine if it is safe and for fire department staff to meet with the local residents and the applicant to discuss the nature of the fire and emergency vehicle access and to come up with ways to try and mitigate accessibility problems, if there are any. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 1 minute (2:13-3:14) ~/ /. 11-06-00 Page 21 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES /~ 7a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) Continued to 7b. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14429 12-4-2000 7c. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2000-00005 OWNER: Ed and Linda Stern; Gary and Donna Lee Lyons; et al., Attn: Lori Glastetter, 617 South Birchleaf Drive, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: La Quinta Development, Attn: Thom Falcon, 1124 Main Street, Suite D, Irvine, CA 92614 LOCATION: 300 block of Henninq Wav. Property is 8.4 acres located on the east side of Henning Way, 350 feet south of the centerline of Quintana Drive. Tentative Tract Map No.14429 - To establish a 6-lot, RS-HS- 22,000(SC) single-family residential subdivision. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2000-00005 - 7o permit the removal of 28 specimen trees. Continued from the Commission meeting of October 23, 2000. SR1075TW.DOC Chairperson Koos asked if there was anyone in the audience wanting to speak on this item. There was one person in the audience who indicated she would be submitting her testimony in writing. ~i Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion for continuance to December 4, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick, vote taken and motion carried. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the December 4, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow additional time for the petitioner to provide staff with additional information regarding the presence of coastal sage scrub (California Gnatcatcher habitat) on this property, as required by Natural Community Conservation Program and for the petitioner to work with the County and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to complete the required biological studies. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 11-06-00 Page 22 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES /! 8a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) Continued to 8b. VARIANCE NO. 4364* (PREV.-APPROVED) 11-20-2000 8c. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15837 (SUB TRACKING NO. 2000-00001) OWNER: Heath Terrace, A California Limited Partnership, c/o Woodbridge Development, Attn: Jon Head, 27285 Las Ramblas, Suite 230, Mission Viejo, CA 92691-6325 AGENT: Hunsaker and Associates, 3 Hughes, Irvine, CA 92618 LOCATION: 195 South Heath Terrace. Property is 7.0 acres located on the south side of Heath Terrace, 331 feet south of the centerline of Rio Grande Drive. Variance No. 4364* - Waiver of minimum private accessory requirements for a previously-approved 8-lot (6 numbered and 2-lettered) six-unit, single-family residential subdivision. Tentative Tract Map No. 15837 (Sub Tracking No. 2000-00001) - Request to amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to the required minimum number of guest parking spaces for a previously-approved 8-lot (6 numbered and 2-lettered) six-unit, single-family residential subdivision. * This variance was not advertised. ~~ SR1074TW.DOC 1~ Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for amendment or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to the minimum number of guest parking spaces for the previously- approved subdivision. Staff recommended approval of their request. ApplicanYs Statement: John Head, Woodbridge Development, 27285 Las Ramblas, Mission Viejo, stated that he reviewed the staff report and are in agreement with the recommendation. They went through an extensive redesign when the Tentative Tract Map was approved which allowed additional parking from the original Tentative Tract Map. With this redesign there are only two spaces less than what was originally planned. He acknowledged there was one letter received from a neighbor that is still concerned with people parking in front of their home. Everyone agreed that if there is a major overflow then they will have to park on Rio Grande. It is in the CC&R's and disclosed to the residents as they purchased the homes. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Greg McCafferty clarified paragraph 15, although staff does support the request they are having to recommend a continuance in order to advertise the variance portion of this because only the Tentative Tract Map portion was advertised. They notified the applicant of that; it is completely staff s mistake, but the condition was placed both on the map and on the variance in order for them to modify a variance resolution. Unfortunately it needs to be advertised and therefore it needs to be continued. Commissioner Boydstun asked Mr. Head how wide their road was and he replied that the road is approximately 16 feet wide. 1, Commissioner Bristol offered a motion for a continuance for November 20, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun, vote taken and motion carried. 11-06-00 Page 23 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 ClTY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMlSSION MlNUTES ~, • • ~ • ~ ~ ~ • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the November 20, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order to advertise Variance No. 4364. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (3:25-3:29) (S • 11-06-00 Page 24 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ', 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2973 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000-04270) Continued to 11-20-2000 OWNER: Thrifty Oil Company, 13539 Foster Road, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90650 AGENT: The Regents Group, Attn: David Rose, 420 McKinley Street, Suite 111, Corona, CA 92879 LOCATION: 304 South Maqnolia Avenue. Property is 0.52 acres located at the southeast corner of Broadway and Magnolia Avenue (Arco Gasoline Service Station and Food Store). To amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to the license for the retail sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption for a previously-approved service station with a convenience market. Continued from the Commission meeting of October 23, 2000. 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7847KP. DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated for the record, there was a letter received that day regarding this item and that copies were distributed to Commission. Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion for continuance to November 20, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Napoles, vote taken and motion carried. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None/1 letter in opposition was received. ACTION: Continued subject request to the November 20, 2000 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. (. 11-06-00 Page 25 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1~ 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 1Qb. CONDlTlONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04217 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000-04274) 10c. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2000-00003 10d. DETERMINATION OF SUBTANTIAL CONFORMANCE OWNER: Michael and Lucy Kurkjian, 2331 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Western States Engineering, 1150 North Richfield Road, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 3085 East La Palma Avertue. Property is 0.52 acre located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard. Denied amendment (pertaining to beer and wine) Denied Approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04217 - To permit the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption in conjunction with a previously- approved gasoline service station with accessory convenience market. Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2000-00003 - To determine public convenience or necessity to allow the retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption in conjunction with a previously-approved convenience market. ~r CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-123 DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-124 SR7844KP.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for approval for a conditional use permit to allow for the retail sales of beer and wine in conjunction with the previously- approved service station with accessory convenience market. Based on the over concentration within the census tract staff recommended denial of the CUP for beer and wine as well as the denial of the public convenience or necessity. ApplicanYs Statement: Michael Kurkjian, owner of the property, stated he has been in business with Shell Oil for approximately 21 years. He is excited about having that location rebuilt/remodeled. As part of the new building he would like to request permission of selling beer and wine because without that he cannot survive and compete with the surrounding competition. According to the staff report, there is only one other competitor across the street, but that competitor has different clientele. His main concern is the citizen's safety and satisfaction. There are 56 conditions of approval, which he is willing to accept. Without beer and wine it will be very difficult for him to survive. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. (. Commissioner Arnold asked the Police Department to comment on this request and to described what happens when you continually add to overconcentration of ABC licenses in terms of crime, neighborhood safety and deterioration, and if there is evidence that support that analysis. 19 -06-00 Page 26 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Sgt. West, Anaheim Police Department, replied that the corner the applicant will be building the gas '~ station on is on the northwest corner of Kraemer and La Palma Avenue. There is a Texaco station on the south side, which currently has a license. The Arco station on the east side of subject property has applied for an ABC license. Within Census Tract No. 117.14, there are currently three licenses in the tract and one pending. The tract also allows for one on-sale licenses and there are presently eight license and one pending. There are already an overconcentration of licenses. On the off-sale there is actually only one allowed per ABC. Commissioner Arnold asked Sgt. West to elaborate what the impact of overconcentration in terms of studies. Sgt West replied that Commissioner Arnold was correct that overconcentration contributes to increasing crime rates and the idea that the more licenses added to a census tract the more likely it is that the neighborhood will deteriorate. It also enables access to alcohol multi-fold when you add the number of licenses. This particular location especially being a gas station/convenience store with sales of alcohol will encourage patrons to purchase alcoholic beverages and then get back in their car and go out in the highway and possibly consuming the beverages. There are simply many factors involved with the sales of alcohol especially at a gas station. There is access already available to alcohol at that intersection with one license, and another license currentfy pending. This would mean that there are three corners at that intersection that would have sales of alcoholic beverages. It would have a direct impact on the community and being as close as it is to the freeway it could have far-reaching effects. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, also responded to Commissioner Arnold by indicating that the determination of public convenience or necessity in the first place were imposed in recognition of the fact that the increase in the very number of licenses seems to bare a clear relationship to increases in the '~ amount of crime. There have been many studies including Los Angeles in conjunction with that type of relationship which lead to some of the Zoning laws in Los Angeles being changed in response to that recognized relationship in order to reduce the number of licenses. Commissioner Bristol asked the applicant if he was at that location when this last came before Commission. Michael Kurkjian replied he was at that location as a Shell station before which wi{I now be a Chevron station. The crime rate in the area is 43% below average, according to the police report. Selma Mann clarified that those are separate factors that are considered. One is the overconcentration and a separate factor is whether there is above average crime rate. Those are separately considered, either one of those would trigger the requirement for a determination of public convenience or necessity. That is in recognition of the fact that because an area is below average in crime does not necessarily want to take actions that will increase whatever that level may be. Chairperson Koos stated he liked paragraph 16 of the staff report which mentions the guidelines that the City of Vallejo Planning Commission uses to determine public convenience or necessity. He directed the zoning staff to work with the Police Department staff to develop our own draft policy guidefines in order to be consistent on these matters for the Commission to use in determining public convenience or necessity and present them to the Commission for review and approval. Greg McCafferty explained that was the purpose of including the City of Vallejo's guidelines since staff was aware that it be discussed in the near future. He asked if Commission would like staff to bring back draft policy guidelines to them right away or would they prefer a workshop on it. Chairperson Koos responded that he would prefer they bring it back right away. He explained that his " frustration has been whether Commission is being consistent. ff there are guidelines in place then they can perhaps achieve consistency. 11-06-00 Page 27 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Denied the amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 4217 (CUP Tracking No. 2000-04274) (to permit the retail sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption in conjunction with a previously-approved gasoline service station with accessory convenience market) based on the following: (i) That there is an existing over-concentration of off-premises ABC licenses in this area. That increasing the existing over-concentration would be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. (ii) That there is one existing and one pending ABC license for similar facilities (a gasoline service station/ convenience market) at the same intersection as the subject property (La Palma Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard) which can adequately serve this area. Denied the request for Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2000- 00003 for a Type 20 ABC license for retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption based on the following: . (i) That there is a significant over-concentration of off-premises ABC licenses in ( this area. (ii) That the Community Development Department recommended denial of this request because of incompatibility with the goals of the Redevelopment Plan, and further that this parcel is located at a critical intersection and in close proximity to the SR91-freeway. (iii) That the petitioner did not demonstrate that this request would serve to benefit the public in terms of convenience or necessity. That there is one existing and one pending ABC license for similar facilities (a gasoline service station/ convenience market) at the same intersection as the subject property (La Palma Avenue and Kramer Boulevard) which can adequately serve this area. MOTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and M0710N CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the revised site plan (Revision 1 to Exhibit No. 1) and floor plan (Revision 1 to Exhibit No. 2) as being in substantial conformance with previously- approved plans. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (3:30-3:40) Chairman Koos directed zoning staff to work with police department staff to develop draft policy (, guidelines for the Commission to use in determining public convenience or necessity and present them to the Planning Commission for review and approval. 11-06-00 Page 28 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '. OWNER: Lakeview Investment Company LTD, Attn: Grace Imamura, 1667 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92865 AGENT: Marco Mariselli, 416 North Lakeview Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 404-452 North Lakeview Avenue. Property is 3.1 acres located north and east of the northeast carner of Lakeview Avenue and Mc Kinnon Drive. 11a. CEQA EXEMPTION 15061(b)131 11 b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04242 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000-04279) Request to modify or delete the condition of approval was withdrawn To request modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to the termination of an entitlement for a restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption in conjunction with a previously- approved request to establish conformity with existing Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing nonconforming commercial retail center and liquor store, and to permit a massage facility in the same center. (. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion for a withdrawal, seconded by Commissioner Bristol, vote taken and motion carried. SR2042DS. DOC OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby withdraw the request to amend or delete the condition of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04242 pertaining to the termination of an entitlement for a restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption (CUP Tracking No. 2000- 04279) in conjunction with a previously-approved request to establish conformity with existing Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing nonconforming commercial retail center and liquor store, and to permit a massage facility in the same center. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (1:35-1:37) (. 11-06-00 Page 29 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (i 12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 12c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04277 Denied Granted, in part, for 1 year OWNER: Gock Woey Jung, 433 South Vicki Lane, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Jimmy Tong Nguyen, P.O. Box 15741, Newport Beach, CA 92654 LOCATION: 420-504 South Brookhurst Street. Property is 1.3 acres located at the east side of Brookhurst Street, 492 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue (Seafood Palace Restaurant). To permit a banquet hall with service of but not sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption with waiver of required lot consolidation. (To expire 11-6-2001) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-125 II SR7842VN.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request to permit and retain a banquet hall with service of, but not sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption. The one waiver that was requested has been deleted with a condition of approval requiring a lot line adjustment. ~. Staff recommended based on the evaluation section of the staff report denial. ApplicanYs Statement: Jimmy Tong Nguyen, stated that they are very disappointed with the recommendation of denial by staff. He acknowledged a letter from the owner of the property adjacent to their project, Dr. Alan Schwartz. He emphasized they are willing to work with the City and the neighbors to try to correct any problems and do the best they can. He explained this is not a new CUP permit that they submitted. Two years ago he submitted a petition under Conditional Use Permit No. 4143. After two years working with the City, they finally decided to withdraw their request. Tamara Martin, 421 South Archer Street, stated that she supports the applicant's proposal because they are the first tenant in that building that has tried to work with the neighbors, diligent in keeping noise down, and inviting the neighbors to take part in various concerns. Every time they have a problem the applicant tries to resolve the situation. The applicant has spent thousands of dollars fixing it up and it is now beautiful inside. She is concerned with the hours. Currently they are required to close at 10:00 p.m., but are still there until about 11:30 p.m. She felt if they were allowed to be open until 11:00 p.m. on weekends then they would be there until 12:30 a.m. The owner of the property has been negligent with the property and does not appear to care who is in there. He simply wants to get the money from the property, but she felt he should be held responsible for what he has done. He misrepresented this problem completely indicating that there were no problems ', with alcohol, but in fact, there have been many problems. 11-06-00 Page 30 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES She stated that Mr. Jung, who owns the property, wants to purchase the portion behind the chiropractors, (~ which she is opposed to completely because then Mr. Jung would have "carte blanche" for that entire area to do whatever he wanted. If the applicant leases it then she is comfortable with that because he has shown that he is responsible, and he cares. Regarding the "valet" service, there are now less car alarms that go off and problems with cars. This is a banquet hall with a family atmosphere. Mr. Nguyen has been working with them whenever they have a concern. This is the best they have had so far and they have been responsible. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun asked Mr. Nguyen if he had a problem with their hours of operation being open until 10:00 p.m. during the week and not staying open later on weekends. Mr. Nguyen stated on Saturday they do not start dinner until 8:00 a.m., which would give them only two hours, which is not enough time. In the past they did not control the kitchen workers as they should have but eliminated the problem by closing the doors when Mrs. Martin called. Currently they are open until 11:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. Closing at 10:00 p.m. on Sundays is fine. There was further discussion about the hours of operation and suggests of what the hours of operation should be. Commissioner Bristol stated it eases his mind because this Conditional Use Permit will be for only one year. According to Mr. Nguyen's testimony, they have been working without a Conditional Use Permit since February 2000. He indicated that this right runs with the property and Commission has devoted much time on this area for the past 10 years. He recently walked the property because there is a nightclub across the street and walked to the back (, area of Archer Street at 12:00-midnight to listen to the music across the street. He could not image if there is more music at 11:00 p.m. from that site and wonders why residents are not present. It seems that no one has a concern with the use and the music until 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. at night. He thought the applicant should have completed the process for the conditional use permit months ago. Mr. Nguyen explained that noise is not the only issue. They have different type of music than the Ritz. Ten years ago he was present before Commission and Council to present the Ritz, but gave up his job because of the uncooperative nature and unwillingness to work with him and with the City from the Ritz owner so he gave up that consulting position. Three years ago he appeared for a request for a CUP at another location, 3150 West Lincoln Avenue, which is an identical proposal to what they are currently proposing at subject site. Since then there have been no problems with that location. This is a family environment, and typically Vietnamese music. Commission Boydstun thought they are only being approved for one year, the neighbors seem happy and it is certainly much better than the Pink Cadillac. •~ ~ ~•~ ~~~n - ~ei tiy_E.~ ~ mn rn_~ :a ~•~ a ~ : i a ~ ~_\ - I - I I - [KK~] ~~~ u~u ti~7 c~~ - ~e~•i ~ ~•~ - SUPPORT: 1 person spoke in favor of the proposal. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Denied Waiver of Code Requirement on the basis that the requested waiver was deleted following public notification. '. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04277 for a period of one year (to expire on November 6, 2001) with the following change to the conditions of approval: 11-06-00 Page 31 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~i Modified Condition No. 6 to read as follows: 6. That the hours of operation shall be limited to 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. Sunday to Friday, and from 10 a.m. to 11 p.m. on Saturday. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 18 minutes (3:41-3:59) (. I. 11-06-00 Page 32 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (~ 13a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 13b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04278 Concurred with staff Granted OWNER: Pacific Newport Properties, Inc., 17842 Mitchell North #100, Irvine, CA 92614 AGENT: Industrial Property Management, Attn: Sam Greek, P.O. Box 15005, Santa Ana, CA 92735 LOCATION: 2380 East Oranqethorpe Avenue. Property is 4.1 acres located at the southwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Placentia Avenue. To retain the installation and repair of stereos, alarms and window tinting currently operating without a permit in an existing industrial complex. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-126 SR7768KB. DOC 7here was no discussion related to this item, as there was no one present for this item. lt is an existing business and there have been no problems at the site. (~ OPPOSITION: None 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. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04278 subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (4:00-4:01) '~ 11-06-00 Page 33 NOVEMBER 6, 2000 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:05 P.M. TO MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2000 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. '~ '~ Respectfully submitted: 0 ~x~ Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary _ -~G~~l~/C~ Simonne Fannin Senior Office Specialist Received and approved by the Planning Commission on 1 ~-~o- ~~ 11-06-00 Page 34