The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 2001/02/26~ • • CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2001 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRPERSON: JOHN KOOS ,... , COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: TONY AR~IU~D,~F?'A~~ ~°~STWI~K, PHYLLIS BOYDSTUN, STEPHEN BRIST(7L;"ROS~RT NAP'aLES.'"JAMES VANDERBILT 02-26-01 Page 1 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None received. This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. CONSENT CALENDAR: Commissioner Bristol offered motion for approval of consent calendar along with continuance of minutes for February 12, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun, vote taken and motion carried. Item 1-A on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • 1-A Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of January 17, 2001. (Motion) (Confinued from February 12, 2001) Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of January 29, 2001. (Motion) (Continued from February 12, 2001) Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of February 12, 2001. (Motion) Approved Approved (Commissioner Vanderbilt abstained) Continued to March 12, 2001. Commissioner Vanderbilt abstained from voting on the minutes of January 29, 2001, as he was not present that day. • 02-26-01 Page 2 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 4 Concurred with staff 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04329 Granted for 10 months OWNER: Krishan, LLC, Attn: Tushar Patel, 650 Town Center (To expire December Drive ,#1720, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 31, 2001) AGENT: Mark Vasquez, CMP, Anaheim Marriott, 700 West (Vote: 7-0) Convention Way, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 700 West Convention Way. Property is approximately 15.06 acres located on the south side of Convention Way, 480 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard (Anaheim Marriott Hotel). To permit a temporary tent for convention operations at an existing hotel from February 28, 2001 through December 31, 2001 with waiver of the minimum number of required parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-23 SR4329SK.DOC Introduction by Staff: • Linda Johnson, Principal Planner, introduced this item by stating this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit a temporary tent for convention operations at Anaheim Marriott Hotel with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Staff is concerned about number of special circumstance waivers and CUP's that have been requested to permit this temporary tent over the past few years. The concern is that the tent is becoming a long-term solution instead of addressing singular events. Staff recommends Anaheim Marriott develop a master plan showing how permanent convention activities are accommodated onsite. Staff recommends approval through the end of this year with condition that master plan be submitted by September 4th and the applicant was present to respond to any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Statement: Mark Vasquez, 8340 East Meadowgate Drive, Anaheim, was available to answer any questions. Commissioner Bostwick asked if he had read the staff report and is agreeable to the terms/conditions therein. Mark Vasquez acknowledged he had and was in agreement. Commissioner Arnold asked Mr. Vasquez if he is aware that Condition No. 9 states that the Master Plan of Development must be submitted by September 4, 2001, understanding that it is a firm date not subject to subsequent change. Mark Vasquez acknowledged he understood. • 02-26-01 Page 3 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES a • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 4, as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines and is therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation. Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04329 (permitted from February 28, 2001 through December 31, 2001) subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report dated February 26, 2001. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 8 minutes (1:35-1:43) ~ • 02-26-01 Page 4 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 321 (PREV.-CERTIFIED) (EIR TRACKING NO. 2000-00325) 3b. VARIANCE NO. 2000-04417 OWNER: Tejas Partners, Attn: Mr. Michael Moore, 1748 West Katella Avenue #206, Orange, CA 92867 AGENT: Robert Jacques, Architect, 11757 San Vicente Boulevard #4, Brentwood, CA 90049 LOCATION: 1501-1551 South Douglass Road. Property is 7.25 acres located on the west side of Douglass Road, 690 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue. Waiver of minimum landscaped setback abutting a freeway, and approval of Final Site Plans to construct one (1) two-story and one (1) four-story office building. Continued from Commission meetings of December 18, 2000, January 3, January 29 and February 12, 2001. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-24 Item No. 4 was heard prior to ltem No. 3 at the applicant's request. • Introduction by Staff: Approved Granted (Vote: 7-0) SR1089TW.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for Variance No. 2000- 04417 for property located at 1501-1551 South Douglass Road. The request is for review of a final site plan to construct one, two-story and one, four-story office building, with waiver of minimum landscape setback abutting the freeway. THE PUBLlC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Statement: Robert Jacques, 11757 San Vicente Boulevard, Brentwood, CA. Their request is for two office buildings, two-story and four-story (the same as Item No. 4). The buildings will be finished in a smooth plaster finish with tinted glass, aluminum colored mullions, it is proposed to screen the HVAC with the glazing that comprises the front of the building, similar to City Hall West for the HVAC screening. State-of-the-art punch windows, no ribbon windows, landscaping going above and beyond the City standards. Monument sign and major tenant identification on the building face. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, stated one condition needs to be changed, Condition No. 1. It states, "the signal shall be installed prior to issuance of the first building permit", deletion requested and word as follows: "if the installation of traffic signal is warranted at the time". The reasoning for the condition is if the cross street is not built at the time, the signal is not going to be warranted. Therefore, he requested to change it to, "the applicant prior to issuance of the first building permit shall pay for 50% of the cost of the traffic signal." The condition is presently written on Item No. 4, Condition No. 1, it should be a condition in Item No. 3. 02-26-01 Page 5 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Arnold asked if Mr. Yalda is referring to Item No. 4, Condition No. 1 and incorporate into the Variance conditions of approval in Item No. 3, Condition No.1. Alfred Yalda verified that was correct. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, advised Commission could place this on both Item Nos. 3 and 4 because it is an accessory to the permanent development of the commercial parking lot, it will get accomplished. Chairperson Koos stated for the record that he had raised concern over the two-dimensional appearance that some o~ces have, comment was made that there were horizontal elements coming off the building to break up the building. It appeared the rendering was taken from the angle of the freeway. He is now pleased and feels it is a good design. Robert Jacques indicated the rendering is taken as if the embankment is not there and they backed up to it, this was done via computer technology. Discussion followinct the Action: Commissioner Vanderbilt remarked in regard to the rendering. His concern is that part of this issue had to do with landscaping and its proximity to the freeway. He is concerned about the rendering including, trees and grass, that he believes will not be part of the project. Robert Jacques responded that the embankment will be landscaped. There is landscaping now that is why they feel they do not need the 25-foot setback along the Caltrans row, the line-of-sight will allow one to see past that and not realize that there is a lack of a 25-foot setback in the right-of-way. ~ Chairperson Koos indicated the point is that Commission tries to encourage accuracy as much as possible. Robert Jacques commented that the reason that angle was taken for the rendering was to show the context of the Pond and how they took scaler elements from the Pond itself. Similar mullions, and similar plaster color to show how it all ties together and felt that was the best angle. Commissioner Vanderbilt was satisfied with that treatment, but felt that the landscaping is part of this. Commission is asked to put a waiver on the buffer between the freeway and the right of way and the parking lot and that is based in part, or should be based in part of that. Robert Jacques believed it can be a seamless buffer with the chain link fence, as they do still have a minimum five-foot setback. In some cases it is actually more and they can actually landscape that. So be that it meshes with the landscaping on the embankment. It minimizes the fence at that point. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated for the record, he has concerns about these types of renderings in general, not specifically to their project. • 02-26-01 Page 6 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • • ~ ~- ~ ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-certified EIR No. 321 (EIR Tracking No. 2000-00325) is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Granted Variance No. 2000-04417, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated February 26, 2001, with the following added condition of approval: That the property owner shall coordinate the installation of a traffic signal on Douglass Road with the property owner of the Arena Corporate Center project on the east side of Douglass Road. The cost of the design and construction of the signal and the associated maintenance fees shall be paid by both property owners. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit the applicant shall pay 50% of the cost of the traffic signal and for its continued maintenance. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (1:51-2:00) • 02-26-01 Page 7 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04324 Granted OWNER: Tejas Partners, Attn: Mr. Michael Moore, 1748 West (Vote: 7-0) Katella Avenue #206, Orange, CA 92867 AGENT: Robert Jacques, 11757 San Vicente Blvd., #4, Brentwood, CA 90049 LOCATION: 1501-1551 South Douglass Road. Property is 7.25 acres located on the west side of Douglass Road 690 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue (1501-1551 South Douglass Road). Request approval of a conditional use permit to permit a commercial event parking lot in conjunction with a proposed office complex. Continued from Commission meeting of February 12, 2001. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-25 SR1088TW.DOC Item No. 4 was heard prior to Item No. 3 at the applicant's request. Introduction by Staff: ~ Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04324 for property located at 1501-1551 South Douglass Road. The request is for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to permit a commercial parking lot in conjunction with the proposed office complex. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. ApplicanYs Statement: Robert Jacques, stated they are proposing a pair of office buildings, four-story and two-story buildings, about 130,000 square feet. They are asking for a waiver of the Caltrans setback along with the Caltrans right-of-way of 25 feet to five feet. They are also asking to continue the existing CUP to allow event parking during off-hours. Commissioner Bostwick stated relative to Condition No. 11, page 5, it states that no special events shall be permitted. He asked if the applicant is in agreement with that. Robert Jacques replied they were in agreement. Commissioner Boydstun wondered if they want to have something for their tenants, some kind of special event. Mike Moore, 1748 West Katella Avenue, Suite 206, Orange, CA, stated he is the owner/general partner of the parking lot. Regarding the special events with the development of the office buildings there would not be any special events, assuming that special events refers to car shows, etc. • Commissioner Boydstun explained this would cover everything and it was not known if there was one company taking a lot of space and, for example, if they wanted to have a barbecue for their employees that would be excluded. 02-26-01 Page 8 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ David Rose, the Regents Group, 420 McKinley, Suite 420, Corona, CA 92879. Explained what the applicant is unaware of and what Commission may want to consider, if it is acceptable to staff, is to allow for special events permits, these would be administrative permits that are allowed by the City. Mr. Rose's understanding is that presently staff has an administrative permit that is approved by the Zoning Administrator or at the staff counter, they would be open to having that type of event allowed pursuant to the normal staff requirements if staff is open to that condition. Greg McCafferty advised staff would not require the applicant to obtain a special event permit if they were going to have an employee day, that is not the intent of the special event permit process. If they were going to have a special event, just like any other safety issue, they would have to get approval. Staff would not require a special event permit for an employee day. Chairperson Koos suggested that it read something to the effect that events, ancillary to the office building be allowed. Greg McCafferty stated the concern is that could be significantly stretched to other things. Administratively staff could take care of that if Commission wishes. It is not a special event, employee day would not be an extension of the business out to the parking lot. It would be a function for their employees and this is not considered a special event. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Rose if they intend to use the parking lot as it is currently being used, with uses such as used car sales. Mr. Rose replied the majority of the events, 90% to 95%, and Mr. Moore can address this specifically, most of the events when they actually used parking it was because the City-owned lot, known as Lot 5, will function as the primary facility. • They are actua{ly putting most of their cars on that lot and then actually having overflow parking and some cars on their site. They are seldom initiate those events. Most of the time it is to provide additional flow parking etc., so they do not park on the Anaheim Pond property. They park in Lot 5, which is at the northwest corner of Douglass and Katella, transfer site and then its overflow onto their site. They are open to Mr. McCafferty's suggestion that it be administrative, this would be the normal way to apply for a special event permit, as is the case today. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04324, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated February 26, 2001, with the following modified condition of approval: That the property owner shall coordinate the installation of a traffic signal on Douglass Road with the property owner of the Arena Corporate Center project on the east side of Douglass Road. The cost of the design and construction of the signal and the associated maintenance fees shall be paid by both property owners. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit the applicant shall pay 50% of the cost of the traffic signal and for its continued maintenance. ~ 02-26-01 Page 9 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (1:44-1:49) C ~ \ J 02-26-01 Page 10 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04309 Granted, in part OWNER: Lamb of God Evangelical Lutheran Church, 621 South (Vote: 7-0) Sunkist Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Pamela Kay Benson, 621 South Sunkist Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 Compass Telecom Services, Attn: Marc Myers, 17870 Skypark Circle, Suite 102, Irvine, CA 92614 LOCATION: 621 South Sunkist Street. Property is 2.53 acres located at the northwest corner of South Street and Sunkist Street (Lamb of God Lutheran Church). To permit a 64-foot high "monopalm" telecommunications antenna and accessory equipment with waiver of required rear yard setback. Continued from Commission meetings of January 17 and February 12, 2001. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RE50LUTION NO. PC2001-26 SR7918KP.DOC Introduction by Staff: Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is continued from the last meeting, Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04309 for property located at 621 South Sunkist Street, The Lamb of God Lutheran Church. They have modified their plans, instead of the mono-palm installation they are now proposing a freestanding architectural element that is sort of a bell tower type feature, with the antennas located at the top of that feature. Staff is still recommending continuance to redesign; they feel that the tower is out of scale with the church buildings. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Statement: Adan Madrid, Compass Telecom Services, 17870 Skypark Circle, Irvine, stated the plans submitted resulted from comments received at the last Planning Commission hearing. Staff has indicated that the plan be redesigned as a palm tree monopole to some type of architectural church tower. The equipment cabinets are now being undergrounded and are relocated toward the front of the building away from residential. Antennas were also reduced from a total of 12 to one, there is one antenna per sector and there are three total. Design intent was to be as minimal as possible, the structure itself does not have a lot of surface area, very open design similar to a project that Sprint has in the City of Newport Beach which has been there for a couple of years and works very well. ~ 02-26-01 Page 11 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Public Testimony: Jan Myers, 2443 E. Alden, Anaheim, stated she has seen the design and wondered if it was too high in comparison with the church. She felt that staff s concern was valid and suggested it be redesigned relative to the height. Otherwise, she felt the proposal is acceptable. David Schick, Pastor of Lutheran Church, stated they have been working with Compass and approached the church about locating an antenna on the facility. The monopalm that was going to be in back was not the first choice. Preferred tower, steeple. Neighborhood and congregation is positive about the design, height would actually enhance the area. Across the street another church has a large tower, there is a bit of symmetry when you look at the two churches together. As far as the size of the regular building is concerned, surveying was done, going down Taft (same as Ball Road), St. NorberYs Catholic Church has buildings more lower-lying than the Lutheran Church and a big detached tower out front. This looked attractive and enhanced the view of the church and helped it to stand out positively. Concerning the aesthetics of the property, they feel good about it. Chairperson Koos stated he was pleased that Sprint has been working with the church and asked in terms of church architecture, whether the church explored with Sprint the option of actually doing a cross. Pastor Schick, replied yes, it was determined that the cross, in order to reach the height needed, it would be a huge, clunky square thing where this design sort of has more elegant, curving angles. The two drawings he saw looked unattractive. One thing they would be interested in having would be a little cross on top of the tower. If height is a concern maybe not but iYs a thought if that's an option. This was noted on the drawings returned to them. Chairperson Koos thought there was room for a silhouette or cross within the existing triangular portion of the top that could maybe carve in there. He asked if it needs to return to Commission if a slight • modification was made on the artistry and wondered if there be some leeway if the church wanted to work that out. Greg McCafferty advised that as long as the overall height remains the same, it could be administratively determined that it substantially conforms to the exhibit. Commissioner Arnold stated in terms of the design, the simulated rendering, proposed View A, looking north from Sunkist at South Street. It appears what comes out from there is flat surFace coming outward, whereas if you look on the site plan and Proposed View B, it looks as it would actually (the flat part coming out) curve away from the viewer. He wondered if that is the result of the difficulties in simulating and making that truly three-dimensional. Need to clarify that in fact this is what will happen and there will not be a wa11 protruding out. Adan Madrid acknowledged he understood. Top right hand photo simulation on the left side of the structure appears as if there is a straight wall. He thought that is a side view of the other perspective, which is a little more skewed where you can appreciate the other side of the tower. Commissioner Arnold indicated that it appeared the point shown is actually going away from the viewer. Adan Madrid replied that was correct. If the two were to be rotated, slightly, you would have a side, a second or third side. Chairperson Koos asked Mr. Madrid to comment on height issues for the public record. Adan Madrid stated in discussion with Mark Meyers, and with Sprints engineers, they have to maintain that requested antenna rad center in order to have the site meet the objective that they hope to accomplish. To go any lower is unfortunately not an option. • 02-26-01 Page 12 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Vanderbilt stated for the record that he met with applicant's representatives and there was Adan Madrid responded absolutely. Each carrier operates at a different frequency, each carrier has different existing footprint of antennas if you would, their antennas might be within closer proximity, they may be situated differently, and their needs would be different. It is possible. some discussion about the possibility that this structure would allow for co-location. Asked Mr. Madrid to comment on that. Adan Madrid responded he does not fully have an appreciation for the type of structure this might be in terms of its structural integrity to accommodate more antennas, but he is certain it could be designed in such a way that it would conceivably accommodate more antennas. The screen wall that is proposed at the very top is a minimum necessary to conceal Sprints antennas. Should there be another carrier that would like to co-{ocate on this structure, it is not unreasonable to extend that screen wall further down to accommodate some future antennas, he felt that would be possible. Commissioner Vanderbilt indicated that Mr. Madrid mentioned that structure has to be a certain height to accommodate their antennas and wondered whether it would be possible for another company to locate antennas below theirs. Chairperson Koos asked Mr. McCafferty how co-locations are processed and would that require another Conditional Use Permit. Greg McCafferty replied that it would. Chairperson Koos indicated that Commission would have the discretion, at a future date, of how it would look. • Commissioner Bristol indicated that at the morning session there was a comment made of how difficult it would be to move the tower to the south of this building instead of right on the setback area. Staff felt this it is too high in comparison with the church buildings. Madrid replied that not being too familiar with the subject property and in looking at the site plan briefly, it does not appear that there would be any physical constraints on-site that would preclude us from doing that. However, he stated if the Commission would want the tower to be relocated to the south side, they would have to go out there and explore that to make sure there are no issues in doing that. Commissioner Boydstun stated it just looks as there's a larger side yard and it would not be quite so close to the sidewalk. Pastor Schick stated that within the next five to ten years they are very interested in perhaps expanding the sanctuary due to their own growth. They would much prefer having it in a location where their building and facilities can expand. Commissioner Vanderbilt indicated in light of the comments that were made in regards to the symmetry that might be created with the church to the south, none of the renderings show the two together. However, based on a visit to the site a few weeks ago, he tends to agree that the church across the street has a very tall structure and a structure of what might be equal height, they can get verification on that, would create sort of symmetry center, bring some focus to that area. He wondered if staffs position would still be opposed based on the adjacent properties and a similar tower. Greg McCafferty does not believe that the symmetry being referred to is actually part of the main sanctuary structure. It is different from this, the fact that it is part of the sanctuary structure as opposed to this one that is freestanding. Consequently, he did not think staff s recommendation would change. As they had indicated to the petition before, if that site were explored and incorporate into the architectural • symmetry of that building, then that would be a better idea. Staff s recommendation still stands, to continue to redesign because it is out of character. 02-26-01 Page 13 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ ~ OPPOSITION: One person with concerns. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Denied waiver pertaining to required rear yard setback on the basis that it was deleted following public notification. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04309 (to permit a telecommunications antenna (previously proposed as a 64-foot high "monopalm" and currently proposed as a 60-foot high freestanding bell tower) and accessory equipment), in part, with the addition of a new condition of approval as follows: That the property owner shall work with Zoning Division staff to incorporate additional architectural enhancements (such as a cross) into the bell tower that do not increase the height of the overall structure. ~ i VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 18 minutes (2:04-2:22) 02-26-01 Page 14 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04317 OWNER: Hani EI Haj, 4020 La Costa, La Habra, CA 90631 AGENT: Abdel Alomar, 1144 North Gilbert Street, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 2265 West Lincotn Avenue. Property is 1 acre located at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Monterey Street. To permit a convenience market with no sales of alcoholic beverages within an existing building. Continued from Commission meeting of January 29, 2001. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-27 Introduction by Staff: Concurred with staff Granted (Vote: 7-0) SR7924KB.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04317 is for property located at 2265 West Lincoln Avenue. This item was continued from the Commissions meeting of January 29th, in order for the applicant to meet with the adjacent neighbors. He has done that • and the revised site plan reflects the changes based on those meetings. The staff is recommending approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Statement: Abdel Alomar gave an update by stating that since last hearing he contacted neighbors and met last week with seven representatives of the neighbors. They did accommodate all the neighbors concerns except one. The neighbors requested that the driveway approach on Monterey Street be closed. That was not possible for two reasons: (1) it is very hard for circulation of traffic inside the property, (2) he discussed with Mr. Alfred Yalda indicated that the City would not approve the removal of that driveway approach. One main reason was the circulation of the trash truck inside the property. Other item discussed was putting a signal on Monterey Street which he agreed with the neighbors and also raised this issue with Mr. Yalda. Mr. Yalda indicated that this is a long process that has nothing to do with this project. The owner of the property agreed with the neighbors they might work on that in the future together. Chairperson Koos indicated the staff report reflects changes since the last hearing. Mr. Alomar indicated he did read the staff report. Public Testimony: Jerrie Warner understands there are minimal changes in the original proposal and there are a few concerns. They had a very constructive meeting with the owner. Mr. Alomar indicated he may not go 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., previously the neighbors requested 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and abbreviated on Sunday (such as 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) She understands the hours of • delivery have not been changed and were originally stated as 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The neighbors are asking 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mr. Alomar indicated it would probably be 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 02-26-01 Page 15 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Regarding landscape; an Italian cypress hedge affect was requested (along the east wall in rear) and this was regarding the screen of mature trees that are no longer there, Mr. Alomar has doubled the trees, one for each parking space and along that wall there would only be four trees. The neighbors are asking for an Italian cypress hedge, more of a screen rather than just four trees. They raised the issue of shopping carts being stored within the store versus a corral outside, and are still asking for that. Mr. Alomar did say he would consider it and would go ahead and put the carts in at night. The neighbors are asking that they be in the store from the beginning to the end of the day. Regarding trash storage location, they understand the trash has been moved back to the east wall, concern is that there may not be enough space allotted to the trash containment, Mr. Alomar indicated he would have trash pick-ups six times a week. Traffic is a non-issue. Due to the school re-opening they have automobiles, buses, people parked on both sides of the street and they are requesting closing the driveway on Monterey so the neighbors stand a chance of getting in and out of the neighborhood, since they only have one way in and one way out. The trash truck comes at about 5:30 a.m. so there would not be a problem to maneuver around or between cars at that time. There is a truck with graffiti that they would like moved. They are please that the owner is willing to work with them. Commissioner Arnold asked relative to the deliver hours, if having some of the deliveries come in the evening would alleviate the congestion. Jerrie Warner replied she would believe most deliveries are by 7:00 a.m., but she felt the applicant would not want deliveries later in the day because of the parking lot concerns. Her concern was pertaining to the noise versus traffic. Their concern relative to traffic pertained to them being able to get in and out, not the delivery trucks. • Commissioner Arnold indicated occasionally grocery stores have deliveries in the evening hours. Also, he asked Jerrie Warner to clarify her concerns relative to the trees. Jerrie Warner stated they use to have trees that provided a screen but when the property was purchased those trees were cut down. She presented a picture to show the view from Monterey Street. Therefore, she would request to have trees that would provide as a screen. Commissioner Arnold asked staff how the proposed trees would provide a screen. Greg McCafferty indicated they are proposing on the north property line Carrotwood trees, which were specified due to comments made at the last public hearing. But there was no specification made pertaining to the trees adjacent to the motef. He believes the Italian cypress trees grow slowly. They can specify which trees are fast growing to achieve maturity within 2-3 years and from there the applicant/staff can decide as long as it accomplishes the objective. Commissioner Boydstun stated the Italian cypress would make a good hedge and they grow tall. Commissioner Arnold asked the applicant if he's agreeable to having a certain type of tree that would provide the necessary screening. Alomar Abdel was in agreement and stated they will work with the City on the subject issue. Relative to the loading/unloading there shouldn't be any problem limiting the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., since most of their deliveries are in the morning hours. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked for clarification on the use of the property as it seems to be operating more as a market than a convenience store and was concerned about the amount of delivery trucks arriving on site. L ~ 02-26-01 Page 16 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MlNUTES • Alomar Abdel indicated iYs a convenience store with many different products, therefore, would assume there are many suppliers and delivery trucks. It is considered a convenience store by Code because it is less than 15, 000 square feet. Most of those type of stores have their delivery trucks arrive in the morning. They are not the big 18-wheel trucks, but are small trucks. Further discussion was made comparing a convenience store and a market relative to traffic and the number of customers. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked for the applicant to clarify on the video display area (page 2, No. 8 of the staff report). Alomar Abdel replied they would have videos to rent. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Koos asked the applicant if he has any comments relative to the shopping carts being secured. Alomar Abdel stated during the day the shopping carts will be outside in the shopping cart area. At night the owner will store all the shopping carts in the store. Chairperson Koos suggested Condition No. 25 may need to be modified if the owner is willing to keep the shopping carts in the store at night. Therefore, the following verbiage should be modified as "the carts shall be secured within the market e~-sai~-se~a1 at the end of each business day". Commissioner Bristol explained as long as the corral is presentable and the shopping carts are locked up at night, then he does not mind having the shopping carts in a corral. He spoke relative to the elevations • and would like to be sure it blends in with the store. Durinq the Action: Commissioner Arnold asked Mr. McCafferty to read the changes to Condition No. 11. Greg McCafferty referred to Condition No. 11 on page 7, he pointed out that the applicant indicated instead of the twenty-four inch (24") box sized trees they were going to plant forty-eight inch (48") box sized trees. Therefore, the wording should be replaced to read, "forty-eight inch (48") box sized trees". Also, a sentence needs to be added (before the last sentence) that indicates, that the species of said trees shall be determined by staff and shall achieve an effective visual screen within three years of planting. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines and is therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04317 (to permit a convenience market with no sales of alcoholic beverages), in part. Modified Condition Nos. 1, 11 and 25 to read as follows: ~ 02-26-01 Page 17 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PI.ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1. That the hours of operation shall be limited to 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. seven days a week, as stipulated to by the petitioner. That delivery hours shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. seven days a week, and that the doors at the rear of the building shall be kept closed except during deliveries. 11. That final landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. Said plans shall show that minimum twenty four inch (24") box sized trees shall be planted in the landscape planters immediately adjacent to Lincoln Avenue and Monterey Street at a minimum ratio of one (1) tree for every twenty (20) lineal feet of street frontage, in accordance with City standards, a minimum of sixteen (16) forty-eight inch (48") box sized Carrotwood trees shall be planted adjacent to the north property line and four (4) forty-eight inch (48") box sized trees planted adjacent to the northeast property line. That vines shall be planted adjacent to the block walls and the trash enclosure to prevent graffiti opportunities. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Zoning Division approval. The tree species by the property owner and approved by the Zoning Division shall achieve an effective visual screen within three (3) years of planting. 25. That the business owner shall assign an employee to retrieve shopping carts on and off the premises at regular intervals to prevent the accumulation of carts on or about the premises. The carts shall be stored out of public view within the market. The carts shall be secured within the market at the end of each business day. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. • DISCUSSION TIME: 20 minutes (2:23-2:43) ~ J 02-26-01 Page 18 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) ~ Approved 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMlT NO. 4175 Approved reinstatement (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001-04307) for 5 years (To expire on February OWNER: Helmut and Ruth Fetter, 2221 East Vermont Avenue, 26, 2006.) Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Richard Damron, 127 West Borromeo Avenue, Placentia, CA 92870 LOCATION: 825 North Euclid Street, Unit D. Property is 0.94 acres located on the west side of Euclid Street, 130 feet north of the centerline of Glenoaks Avenue (Kim's Acupressure). To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (originally approved on January 31, 2000 to expire on January . 31, 2001) to retain an existing acupressure (massage) facility within an existing commercial retail center. Continued from the Commission meeting of January 17, 2001. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-28 SR7878VN.DOC • Introduction by Staff: Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4175 to retain the existing acupressure facility within t he retail center at 825 N. Euclid Street, Unit D(Kim's Acupressure). THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Richard Damron, 127 West Borromeo Avenue, Placentia. He stated he is present to answer any questions relative to the subject request. Chairperson Koos asked if he read the staff report. Mr. Damron replied yes. Helmut Fetter, owner of the property, 2221 East Vermont Avenue, Anaheim. He stated the screening has been started, 821 is almost completed but the rain has slowed them down. Therefore, weather permitting they should be completed within the next two weeks. He stated he sold the property a month ago, but it's very important that it's taken care of. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Greg McCafferty informed the Commission and applicant that on page 3 of the staff report the photo shows an outdoor shipping container. He advised the applicant that the shipping container is not allowed by Code and would need to be removed from the property as soon as possible. He explained this issue is separate from the Conditional Use Permit. • Chairperson Koos advised the applicant if he has any questions to be sure to address it to the Planning Department staff. 02-26-01 Page 19 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSlON MINUTES • • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4175 (CUP Tracking No. 2001-04307) for 5 years (to expire on February 26, 2006) to retain an existing acupressure (massage) facility within an existing commercial retail center. Amended Resolution No.PC2000-11 in its entirety and replaced with a new resolution with the following conditions of approval: That the subject acupressure (massage) facility shall expire five (5) years from the date of this resolution, on February 26, 2006. 2. That, as stipulated by the petitioner, the hours of operation shall be limited to 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with no more than four (4) employees working at any one time. 3. That this business (including the conduct of all its employees) shall be operated in full compliance with Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 4.29 pertaining to Massage Establishments. • 4. That all records of treatment shall be maintained on the premises for a minimum of one (1) year and shall be made available for inspection by any authorized City official during regular business hours. 5. That this business shall be subject to unscheduled inspections by authorized City of Anaheim personnel in order to observe and enforce compliance with all applicable Code requirements. 6. That should a security system be installed, and a security alarm system and alarm permit application shall be obtained from the Community Services Division of the Anaheim Police Department. 7. That subject property shall be maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, and as conditioned herein. 8. 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: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. ~ DlSCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (2:44-2:47) 02-26-01 Page 20 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 32 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04325 OWNER: Samuel and Cindy Lee, 204 East Warner Avenue #105, Santa Ana, CA 92707 AGENT: Edward Ho, 206 East Las Tunas #12, San Gabriel, CA 91776 LOCATION: 3414 West Ball Road. Property is approximately 1.5 acres located on the south side of Ball Road, 550 feet east of the centerline of Knott Street. Requests to establish land use conformity with existing Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing commercial retail center and to permit a convenience market. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-29 Introduction by Staff: Concurred with staff Granted for 5 years (To expire on February 26, 2006) SR7919VN.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request to establish land use conformity with the existing Zoning Code pertaining to the existing retail center and also to permit a convenience market relative to Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04325 for property located at 3414 W. ~ Ball Road. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Samuel Lee, property owner, 204 East. Warner Avenue, #105, Santa Ana, CA 92707. He stated he purchased the subject property six years ago, when the economy was very bad. He indicated one-third of the space was occupied and two-third was empty. The reason he purchased the property initially was because he's a medical doctor and wanted to open a medical clinic. The Anaheim General Hospital is adjacent to it, which is a convenience for him in case of an emergency as he would be able to transfer the patient from the clinic to the hospital. He indicated he has had a difficult time in renting the space. He asked why he needed a Conditional Use Permit for such a small convenience store. The tenant leasing the unit is operating a small produce shop. The tenant is having a hard time with the shop and is losing money. Therefore, he is present to support the request. He spoke on the following conditions which pertains to the Convenience Market: Condition No. 1, he feels having the Conditional Use Permit expire in three (3) years is too short and asked for it to be extended. Condition No. 2, he stated the operating hours of 8 a.m. - 6 p.m. is not enough hours and asked for it to be 8 a.m. - 8 p.m. Condition No. 5, he stated the condition states no shopping carts and he does not understand how customers will carry all of their bags without shopping carts. • He indicated those are his concerns relative to the conditions and stated the Commission needs to be more generous to the applicant. 02-26-01 Page 21 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ! The following concerns pertain to the conditions of the Commercial Retail Center: Condition No. 9, he stated he agrees they have a problem relative to the said condition (trash issue) but iYs not a singular problem as he feels it's a problem that occurs with most shopping centers in Anaheim. He tries to do his best to maintain the cleanest on the premise and has tried to move the trash bin from one location to another, at different times, per the garbage company's request (Anaheim Disposal). They have had to deal with major appliances and furniture being dumped, consistently, on their property. He explained he finally found a location where he can alleviate the trash problem by having it in back of the building, it has lessened the problem. Therefore, he is concerned because staff is recommending that they move the trash bin out from behind the building. He indicated he does not know how to solve this problem and would request that staff modify Condition Nos. 9, 10 & 11 of the staff report. He suggested leaving the trash bin in back of the building allowing them to better maintain the cleanest of the property and alleviate any reoccurrence of the previous dumping problems. He also spoke relative to Condition No. 13, and stated he understands there has been ongoing problems with the public telephones outside of the property. The telephone has been at the location for over 25 years. There are many customers/visitors of the neighboring business who utilize the phone and he feels they may be intimidated to go inside of a business to use the phone. He suggested to have access for outgoing calls and eliminate incoming calls. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol stated he concurs with Mr. Lee on Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 5. He suggested that Condition No. 1 be modified to read, "to expire in 5 years'; Condition No. 2 be modified to read "that the • hours of operation be from 8:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m:'; and relative to Condition No. 5 he agrees with the use of shopping carts. He was not in agreement with Mr. Lee on Condition Nos. 9, 10 & 11 (trash issue) as iYs a situation the owner/applicant will have to handle. He stated relative to Condition No. 13 (public telephones) he concurs with the proposed condition to have the phones inside. Chairperson Koos asked if they should indicate that all shopping carts be stored indoors after business hours. Commissioner Bristol was in agreement and indicated to remove the verbiage "shopping carts" from Condition No. 5 and add a new condition stating, "That all shopping carts should be stored indoors after business hours". He asked the owner/applicant to come back to staff to show how the shopping carts would be circulated/stored. Commissioner Bostwick was in agreement with the modifications to the conditions and stated if a proper trash enclosure was built at the end of the building with proper lighting that it should prevent people from dumping trash. Commissioner Boydstun stated if they had a trash enclosure with a screen over it and locked it that should eliminate dumping. Mr. Lee indicated that they are dumping next to the trash bin. Commissioner Bostwick indicated to Mr. Lee that this is why the lighting is needed. Mr. Lee indicated the lights, as shown in the picture, are not near the trash enclosure but in the • parking/driving area. There are two big lights and the trash bin was directly under the light and still people are dumping trash there. 02-26-01 Page 22 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bostwick indicated that this problem may never be solved and that the screen should be put over the trash enclosure and locked. Commissioner Arnold indicated that he agrees with Commissioner Bristol with the point about the telephones. He understands the potential need but it seems to him that the overall, long-term, negative impact of having outside public telephones is greater than the inconvenience that is posed by moving them indoors. In addition, with respect to Condition No. 1 about the time limitation, Commissioner Arnold indicated he disagreed with the analysis on Condition No. 19 on page 5. He feels as a matter of the Commission's decision making that they should not be limiting CUP's that they normally would not otherwise limit on the basis of speculative plans where the only possible impact is just a negative impact on that particular land owner. He feels this does not make sense. During the Action: Mr. Lee requested a clarification by asking whether the trash bin could be maintained behind the structure or would it have to be placed somewhere else. Commissioner Bristol indicated that the site plan submitted shows that is what he was doing and asked Mr. Lee if there were two trash enclosures behind the store. Edward Ho, the agent for the tenant, 3414 West Ball Road, Suite L, Anaheim, stated the trash bin is the location of the trash bins, not the location of the trash enclosure. The trash bin is not fixed. The indication is where the trash bin would be located. Commissioner Bristol indicated he could not locate the trash enclosure on the site plan and asked if it was behind the building. Mr. Ho indicated it is behind the building. • Chairperson Koos asked if the submitted site plan is contrary to what staff is recommending. Chairman Arnold indicated he does not see anything in Item No. 9 that creates a problem. Commissioner Bostwick explained that all they are asking is that it conform to the City requirements and if they can get access to it, it's really not asking them to move it per say. Chairperson Koos asked Mr. McCafferty to comment whether the condition is contrary to their submitted site plan. Greg McCafferty indicated he believes the way that the condition is worded allows the flexibility to locate that trash enclosure where it makes sense from a trash pick-up standpoint. Even though Mr. Lee has them in specific locations at either end of the center and in the back, he feels there is enough flexibility in that condition to move it around if necessary. Chairperson Koos indicated that this item needs to be brought up, that Commission is changing site plan for this condition and that they are putting them in a particular place. Discussion was then held about if they should be in a particular location. Greg McCafferty indicated that the trash bin should be in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, streets and sanitation division. Mr. Lee posed another question, he wondered if location of the trash bin would also take up some of the parking spaces, which he indicated he is almost maxed out. Commissioner Bristol felt there was plenty of parking there and could not understand how parking spaces could be maxed out. • Mr. Lee indicated it would if the trash bin would be outside where he has indicated on his plans right now. 02-26-01 Page 23 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bristol indicated that if Mr. Lee put the trash bins where his plans indicate, there is not enough room in the back of the buildings for the trash enclosure and for the trash truck to turn around. He indicated Mr. Lee would have to move the trash enclosure outside, which means he may have to lose a space but he has a lot of parking. Mr. Lee indicated there definitely would not be enough spaces and that he has 99 spaces the staff recommended 97. Commissioner Bristol indicated he was at the site over the previous weekend, during the day, and he saw absolutely not one car in the back area. Chairperson Koos asked how many spaces were there. Greg McCafferty stated that Mr. Lee was referring to the Code requiring 97 spaces and he has 99, so he has a two-space surplus to work with. Commissioner Bristol asked that if by forcing Mr. Lee to do this, would it cause a Variance? Greg McCafferty stated that it potentially could cause a Variance. Commissioner Bostwick stated that if the site plan was reviewed and at the rear of the building, iYs printed iron gate, that space befinreen parking stall number one and the building is more than enough room to put one or two trash bins there and there is plenty of access for the trash truck and turn around, if that is what the City desires. It is not going to affect the parking. Commissioner Arnold asked if the point of this was to have the applicant work this out with City staff. He • felt that the City staff and the applicant could come to an agreement that would work, that would not require a parking Variance and yet satisfy the trash truck circulation needs. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 34, Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines and is therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001=04325 (to establish land use conformity with existing Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing commercial retail center and to permit a convenience market within the same center) as conditioned: Granted, Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04325 (to establish land use conformity with existing Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing commercial retail center and to permit a convenience market). Modified Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 5 to read as follows: u 02-26-01 Page 24 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Convenience Market: 1. That this conditional use permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of this resolution, on February 26, 2006. 2. That, as stipulated to by the petitioner, the hours of operation for the convenience market (including deliveries that shall only occur using west facing doorways) shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. daily. 5. That no video, electronic or other amusement devices or games shall be permitted in conjunction with this convenience market. Add the following: 9. That the shopping carts shall be stored inside the convenience market in a location and method of storage approved by the Zoning Division. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 24 minutes (2:48-3:12) • ~ 02-26-01 Page 25 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00386 CITY-INITIATED: Anaheim Housing Authority, Attn: Bertha Chavoya, Housing Manager, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 City-initiated amendment to the Housing Element of the General Plan to consider an update of Citywide housing needs, goals, policies, and programs. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-30 Continued to March 26, 2001. SR2058JB.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated that staff recommends continuance of the Housing Element Update in order for Planning and Community Development staff to address the comments that were received by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. OPPOSITION: None ~ ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion for continuance of subject request to March 26, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to provide staff the opportunity to address the comments received from the State and incorporate them into the draft Housing Element, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick, vote taken and motion carried. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION T{ME: This item was not discussed. \ J 02-26-01 Page 26 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 10a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) 10b. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14429 (TRACKING NO. SUB 2001-00004) OWNER: Ed and Linda Stern; Gary F. and Donna Lee Lyons; Fred and Lorio Glastetter, Christa Glastetter; A.C. Plastering, Inc.; Gemini Plastering Co. Inc.; 617 South Brichleaf Drive, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Henning Way, LLC, Attn: Thom Falcon, 1124 Main Street, Suite D, Irvine, CA 92614 LOCATION: 300 block of Henning Way. Property is approximately 8.4 acres located on the west side of Henning Way, 350 feet southwest of the centerline of Quintana Drive. Request amendment or deletion of conditions of approval pertaining to required private street improvements for a previously-approved 6-lot single-family residential subdivision. Approved Approved SR1091 TW.DOC Introduction by Staff: • Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request to amend or delete Conditions of Approval pertaining to required private street improvements for a previously approved six- lot, single family residential sub-division, for property located in the 300 block of Henning Way. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Thom Falcon, LaQuinta Development, the applicant. This is as a result of the meeting they had with the neighbors, relative to concerns and the conditions that were not taken into consideration that were actually off-site. He indicated that the neighbors had been very helpful and cooperative and that LaQuinta hopes to do the same. He indicated he is basically here to answer questions. Chairperson Koos asked if there were questions of the applicant at this time. Commissioner Boydstun asked about the entrance to the project. It appears there is a retaining wall near there and she wondered if it would work better if it was like an upside down "Y" so that they could see both directions. She indicated that the road will be fairly narrow and cars do come down fast. There is more traffic up there now than there was a few years ago because of the additional development. La Quinta would add to it, she believes that as a safety issue if drivers cou{d see a little better it would be better. Mr. Falcon indicated this situation has been explored that a discussion was held with Public Works Department and that the type of driveway Commissioner Boydstun is proposing is not, to his understanding, a typical type situation. Most intersections are to be perpendicular and that they will have a stop sign at that location. The retaining wall will actually be on the north side of the street, it should have nothing to do with the visibility looking up the hillside. He's not quite sure what would be accomplished by doing that. Commissioner Boydstun asked Mr. Alfred Yalda if he had been out to the site to look at it. • Alfred Yalda replied he had not but if they decide they could put the condition that LaQuinta shows the line of sight on his plans that he is submitting so they could check that for him. 02-26-01 Page 27 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Falcon indicated it was his understanding he was there to address specific conditions they were asking to change, not to come up with new conditions. Commissioner Boydstun indicated this is a safety issue and it should be addressed by City staff. Chairperson Koos asked the City Attorney if she would like to comment. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, indicated that the applicant was lead to believe that what he was coming here for was to look at the modifications to the Conditions of Approval with regard to the agreement that had been made with the property owners. She also indicated that she had a discussion with regard to an additional item that she wants to be sure to get on the public record. There is an outstanding issue with regard to the development being able to obtain an offset against the park fee, against property that is required to be maintained for private open space, that is suitable for active, recreational use. This is a provision in the Sub-Division Map Act on Section 66477. That is still outstanding but it is not an issue that the Planning Commission would get involved with, this is something to be worked out between the applicant and the Community Services Department and then the fee offset would be approved or go before the City Council. As far as what applicant has been lead to believe, the purpose of this meeting was really almost to memorialize the agreement that had been made with the property owners and the discussions with staff with regard to some of the issues that some of the Commission had. Chairperson Koos indicated that the project has not really changed enough to trigger further discretion on matters not before the Commission today. He asked if this was a fair statement. Selma Mann stated that there are two answers to this. When you re-open something, you re-open everything. The other part of that is what has been advertised here is pertaining to the required private street improvement. The modifications have been made or are fairfy minor. She believes that if they • were actually going to have something that was different from what was originally approved, a reason would need to be articulated for having changed the recent consideration of the project with regard to any safety issues and any line of site issues, these would be things that would be considered by the applicant and the Public Works Department at such time as the street improvements are being put into place, rather than something that is determined by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Boydstun indicated she is asking for traffic staff to go out and look at the site to see if it needs a line of sight, if it's safe. Alfred Yalda indicated they would be more than happy to take care of this, this is something they are going to work with the applicant on to make sure there is adequate line of sight or whatever remedy they have that they could work out with the applicant to make it safe for all directions. Public Testimony: Gerald Bushore, #4 Atwood, Anaheim, thanked Mr. Falcon for meeting with neighbors and working with them and thanked staff. Mr. Bushore indicated he had come in and talked with staff way before it went to the public hearing process before the Planning Commission in November or December, 2000. When he spoke, he said that the neighbors were not opposed to the development. He asked that they be treated the same as Tract No. 11600, which he expressed this in his meetings with staff beforehand. There are 30 families that are involved in this; they keep coming back. The things that they have asked for have been incorporated but the real reason he is here is there was a misunderstanding on the developers part, Mr. Bushore's part and on some of the staff's part as to the time limits involving the amendment period. It was indicated 10 days on the Tentative Tract Map and 22 on the Specimen Tree Removal Permit. The Tentative Tract Map portion would have been appealed but the 10 days lapsed. He called the Councilperson and never received a call back to set it for public hearing, he thought he had the time. He • appealed on the Specimen Tree Removal Permit portion, which is a totally separate issue. The reason he appealed the tree removal was that it did not address the trees that were to be removed. Council was requiring a 25-foot-wide road. Nobody asked how many trees would be removed when the road was 02-26-01 Page 28 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • widened. There is an approximately 100-year old pepper tree and so forth. Nobody took into account that when Tract No. 11600 was done. Nobody wanted 25-foot roads and maybe the private road that goes up there should be discussed. The developer has an easement to his property. The developer does not own the road; the neighbors own the road. There is an agreement between all the homeowners to take care of it. Mr. Bushore stated that he asked Council to make sure it is put in the CC&Rs, to be taken care of. It was not done. Commissioner Boydstun was nice enough to speak up about the signs that were to go up. This was done on Tract No. 11600. The signs that are in the staff approval on Item No. 21 talk about Boytana Drive and Henning Way. That is also where Trail Drive takes off, but the site itself needs to be adequately identified. There might need to be something on Item No. 20 about a sign identifying the entrance to the tract. The private road provides access to Children's Home, which has about 60 children. There needs to be a stop sign where they come out of the Children's Home. The stop sign is ten feet back from the road and the way the road comes at an angle, by the time they stop, if they stop, they are already rolling out into Quintana. Sooner or later there is going to be an accident. The berm that is talked about to be put on a neighbor's property. The same thing was done on the hill for Tract No. 11600 just slightly to the east. Those neighbors have already had finro vehicles drive into their yard. Someone has to go up there and do a line of sight. The hill is so steep the fire trucks couldn't get up there. The heavier trash trucks could not get up the hill. There is a blind spot there. There are trees and road curves and if the signage is not done properly there will be an accident there. Mr. Falcon has agreed that a 20-foot-wide road is adequate and the pepper tree does not need to be moved. Mr. Falcon indicated that on March 6th they will be before the City Council regarding the trees, but Mr. Bushore wanted to get this resolved before coming to Council to bring the tree issue up. He agreed to take care of any construction damage to the road, which there was on Tract No. 11600. If the roads are • damaged, they will pay for them to the benefit of the developers who are developing the property. People living there do not want the 20 feet to be widened past the entrance though because it will invite more people to go up there. There is no turnaround up there. Big trucks would be in trouble. There was no talk about if there is going to be a gate in front of this development or not. It must be taken into account that if people are going to that development and there is a gate and they can't get in, there is no place to turn around, they will have to go to the top of the hill and there is no place to turn around up there. If they put a gate up there should be a turnaround right there at the entrance. Nobody has addressed those issues. For the record: There was difficulty with the newly installed equipment in the Council Chambers, which caused a problem with tape 3 nof advancing automatically. As a result there were a slight gap of conversation lost at the end of Mr. Bushore's tesfimony and the beginning of Mr. Withers festimony. Virginia Withers, 16142 Harbor Blvd., Anaheim, stated her home was built in 1959 and these are 15-inch drains that drain either side of her property plus the property above. The water flows down into the canyon. Now it would go into the canyon near the project. Mr. Thom Falcon said he would tie in her drains to his sewer system. She would like Commission to address that to be sure that this is taken care of because the residents would have a problem when there are heavy rains. When these drains are full, the water goes down the hill. Most of the homes at the top of the hill are on septic systems and do not have public drainage. Charles Homer, 300 S. Henning Way, Anaheim, stated that he did not hear anyone bring up the issue which is that he wants to see the entire completion of Henning Way on the eastside. He indicate he did not see any mention in the staff report about that and felt Commission should address that. u 02-26-01 Page 29 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Newt Withers, 16142 Harbor Blvd., Anaheim, stated that about seven or eight years ago a power line exploded. He made a strong statement about the facts that the fire trucks could not make it up that hill. That hill is a 21% grade where it diverts. The safety issue is so important and that is why they have an access road up Trail Drive in the new development area with an escape gate coming through to their facility on their side of the property. With a fire or major problem the issue of the road and the turn-in point would have to be addressed. They had a problem once before where the Fire Department could only get a smaller truck up the road, but the bigger fire truck could not make it up the road. If the trees would have ignited and a fire started it would have been devastated. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Thom Falcon stated that he really did not have a rebuttal other than to address the streetlight requirements because the Code does not require street lights and developers do not typically install streetlights unless Public Works Department required them to do that. Public Works Department has addressed the storm drain issue and it was decided to tie into Mrs. Wither's storm drain in with this development. They can not help the septic system, but the applicant is going to bring the sewer up to their property line and if the homeowners would like to all get together and carry the sewer system up then the applicant would be happy to allow them to utilize their contractor at the same time. It may save some money for all the neighbors that way. Commissioner Bostwick as for clarification of placement of the sewer. He stated that the Ms. Withers mentioned that the applicant is going to let her storm drains lead into the sewer. Thom Falcon indicated that was incorrect and clarified that the storm drains would be directed into the storm drain and the sewer would go into the sewer drain. Commissioner Bostwick stated Ms. Withers asked for provisions to be made in the drainage so that the • water she is now draining down the canyon is going to continue to drain on down through the project and out. Thom Falcon replied that was correct. Peter Gambino, Associate Engineer with the Public Works Department, stated that the developer is obligated to maintain the drainage courses and patterns that exist so he needs to accommodate the drainage that comes onto his property and then facilitate it to further down stream where it needs to drain to in a safe manner. What he does with it in between his property are design issues which they review in Engineering to make certain that what leaves the property does not exceed what was there before. There are many different things the applicant can do to implement them in his project to accommodate that. He emphasized that the applicant is responsible for accepting drainage up stream as well as delivering drainage down stream from his property in a safe manner. Chairperson Koos asked Mr. Bushore for clarification regarding the comment he made about the Commission not listening to him before. He wanted to make sure that he was clear as to whether Mr. Bushore had a specific issue with this staff report and the recommendations that are being made. Mr. Bushore responded that he is pleased with the recommendations. Also stated that he is glad Mr. Homer brought up the easement because the road at this property does go off the easement. Part of another problem besides the tree is making him put a 25-foot road here when there is no easement there is another problem. Basically, he is very satisfied with the way Mr. Falcon has worked with the neighbors. He has been very honorable about it and Mr. Bushore did not envy the position that Mr. Falcon was put in. He would have hoped this had been taken care of in November 2000. His only issue is with that road that is not really his concern. He needs access to his sight. Traffic Division just keeps saying, "that is how it is in the book". Perhaps how it is in the book is not what is going to work up there. Look at what happened to "Canyon Acres" where a stop sign was installed, it is not working there. t THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 02-26-01 Page 30 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Vanderbilt stated for the record that he visited this location in December 2000. He grew up in Anaheim Hills and is very familiar with that area. Durinp the Action: Commissioner Boydstun suggested adding a condition to Tentative Tract Map No. 14429 that City staff visit the site and examine the access into the property to make sure it is safe. Selma Mann interjected for clarification in regards to staff conducting a site inspection to verify the road's safety. Peter Gambino, Associate Engineer, Public Works Department, suggested that staff could structure the language subject to the satisfaction of the City of Anaheim. That way it would give the oversight that Commission is looking for and further guarantee that safe design standards are employed. OPPOSITION: Three persons with concerns. ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 14429 (Tracking No. SUB 2001-00004), by motion, as follows: • Approved the request to amend conditions of approval pertaining to the required private street improvements for Tentative Tract Map No. 14429 (Tracking No. SUB 2001-00004) based on the requested modifications being consistent with the findings made by the Commission in conjunction with the previous approval; and that the proposed subdivision as modified would be consistent with the General Plan. Incorporated the conditions of approval contained in the previous motion of December 4, 2000, in conjunction with Tentative Tract Map No. 14429 (Tracking No. SUB 2001-00004) into a new motion with the, following conditions of approval: That the legal owner of subject property shall provide an irrevocable offer of dedication for a five-foot wide equestrian and hiking trail easement adjacent to the west and northwest property lines and a ten-foot wide equestrian and hiking trail easement on the south boundary of the property as approved by the Community Services Department. The five-foot wide easement along the northwest and west property lines shall be offered immediately adjacent to the existing dedications on the adjacent subdivisions (Tract Nos. 9217 and 14353). Final tract map plans shall indicate the trail easement alignments on the plan to the satisfaction of the Community Services Department. 2. That there shall be a minimum five-foot wide planter area in front of the retaining wall along Henning Way. Said planter shall be fully irrigated and planted with two-foot high shrubs that will grow together within two (2) years and rapid growing clinging vines located at the base of the retaining wall on three-foot centers. Additionally, a two-foot wide planter with rapid • growing clinging wines shall be located at the base of the retaining wall along the proposed private street. Said information shall be shown on the Final Tract Map. 02-26-01 Page 31 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3. That the petitioner shall be responsible for compliance with all mitigation measures included in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 115 as established by the City of Anaheim and as required by Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code within the assigned time frames and any direct cost associated with their implementation 4. That the private access easement shall be reserved on the final tract map for the benefit of the City of Anaheim for public utilities, ingress and egress of maintenance and emergency vehicles, and for other public purposes throughout the entirety of the private street. 5. That the legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim an easement twenty (20) feet in width for water service mains and/or an easement for large meters and other public water facilities. That the developer shall be responsible for recording an agreement that future property owner's shall pay a"fair share" of private street maintenance costs for those existing private streets which lead to the development. Further, that a maintenance covenant shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section of the Public Works Department and approved by the City Attorney's Office. The approved covenant shall be recorded concurrently with the final map. The covenant shall include provisions for maintenance of the common private facilities within the tract, including the following: a. Slopes (which shall be landscaped and maintained in a uniform • manner); b. The private street and street lights; c. The private drainage facilities; d. The private sewer; and e. The retaining walls, including the landscaping used for screening said walls and the irrigation facilities. 7. That the existing sanitary sewer in Trail Drive shall be extended to subject property as a public sewer. The sanitary sewer within the tract shall be a private sewer. The sewer improvement plans shall be submitted prior to final map approval. 8. That the developer shall improve the private street along Henning Way from Trail Drive to the southern edge of the intersection of the proposed private street. This portion of the private street shall be constructed to a minimum width of twenty (20) feet. The proposed private street within this tract shall meet City of Anaheim street standard nos. 118-D and 116-D. Standard no. 118-D is applicable to the frontages of proposed Lot Nos. 1 through 5, and standard no. 116-D is applicable from the cul-de-sac adjacent to Lot No. 5 to the south end of the tract. Further, the developer shall provide a Stop Sign at the intersection of the proposed private street exiting onto Henning Way and a landscaped earthen berm or metal guard rail shall be located at the base of the slope along Henning Way. 9. That a drainage report and storm drain improvement plans shall be submitted to the Public Works/Engineering Department prior to grading plan approval or final map approval, whichever occurs first. ~ 02-26-01 Page 32 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ u 10. That the building pad heights shall not deviate more than two feet from the figures shown on the grading plans submitted and marked as Exhibit No. 1. 11. That prior to the approval of a grading plan, the grading plan shall identify the boundaries of the 1.6 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat area that_will be removed/disturbed as a result of grading, construction-related activities and fuel modification requirements. The grading plan shall also identify the boundaries of the 4.14 acres of CSS habitat area that shall be permanently protected. Said boundaries shall be consistent with Figure 2 of a letter prepared by Steven Nelson of PCR and dated November 3, 2000. 12. That prior to the commencement of grading operations or other activities involving significant soil disturbance, the property owner/developer shall: A. Install temporary protective fencing or other field markers clearly visible to construction personnel, which identifies all coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat areas to be permanently protected before, during and after construction as identified on the approved grading plan; and B. Install field markers to show the CSS habitat areas which are permitted to be removed/disturbed as identified on the approved grading plan; and C. Conduct and document pre-construction meetings involving the monitoring biologist, construction supervisors and equipment operators to ensure adherence to this measure; and, D. Submit a letter prepared by a biologist documenting compliance with this mitigation measure. 13. That ongoing during grading operations or other activities involving any removal or disturbance of any coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat area: A. A monitoring biologist, acceptable to USFWS/CDFG, shall be required to be on site. It will be the responsibility of the monitoring biologist to assure that the 4.14 acres of protected CSS habitat areas identified on the approved grading plan shall not be impacted by grading and construction-related activities; and B. No construction access, parking or storage of equipment or materials shall be permitted within the 4.14 acres of protected CSS habitat areas identified on the approved grading plan; and C. Waste dirt or rubble shall not be deposited on the 4.14 acres of protected CSS habitat areas identified on the approved grading plan; and, D. Protected CSS habitat area identified on the approved grading plan and located within the likely dust drift radius of construction areas shall be periodically sprayed with water to reduce accumulated dust on the leaves as recommended by the monitoring biologist. ~ 14. That within five (5) days following the completion of grading and prior to a "Final Grading Certification" being issued for the project site by the Public Works Department, the property owner/developer shall submit a letter (prepared by the monitoring biologist) to the Planning Department indicating the date and amount of coastal sage scrub habitat area that was removed/disturbed at the project site. 02-26-01 Page 33 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 15. That the legal property owner shall furnish a Subdivision Agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney, to the City of Anaheim agreeing to complete the public improvements required as conditions of this map at the expense of the legal property owner. Said agreement shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and shall then be recorded with the final tract map. 16. That if grading does not commence within one year of the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 14429, prior to the approval of grading plans or other activities involving significant soil disturbance, the property owner/developer shall submit an updated biological study to the Planning Department confirming whether the onsite coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat area continues to be uninhabited by California Gnatcatchers. If the onsite CSS habitat area is occupied by California Gnatcatchers, mitigation for the removal/disturbance of any occupied CSS habitat area shall be provided in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Fish and Game, and the County of Orange NCCP requirements. 17. That prior to final map approval, all lots shall be addressed from the new private street. The street name for the new private street shall be submitted to and approved by the Building Division of the Planning Department. 18. That prior to a grading plan approval, a supplementary soil and engineering geology report based on the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section for review and approval. 19. That the legal property owner shall provide the City of Anaheim with an ~ easement for primary lines and transforming location to be determined as electrical design is completed. 20. That "Lot No 6" shall be relabeled "Lot A" on the Final Tract Map and shall be maintained as open space. Said Lot A shall be maintained through the CC&R's, the Homeowner's Association Rules and Regulations, and the Maintenance Agreement and Covenants established for Lot Nos. 1 through 5. 21. That during any construction activities regarding this project, the developer of the lots shall place temporary tra~c control signs at the road junctions of Quintana Drive and the driveway to the Canyon Acres Children's Home, and Quintana Drive and Henning Way to keep construction traffic from using the wrong streets. Additionally, a temporary construction sign shall be posted stating 'There is no turn-around beyond this poinY. The developer shall be responsible for any damage to private streets caused by, or during construction of the project. 22. That plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval for the proposed intersection of the new private street with Henning Way. Said intersection shall be designed to provide adequate visibility for motorists exiting the private street. 23. That prior to the approval of any grading plan for the project site, Condition Nos. 9, 11, 12, 13, and 18, shall be placed on the front cover sheet of the grading plan. ~ 24. That prior to final map approval, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 15, 17, 19, 20 and 22, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 02-26-01 Page 34 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 25. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Arnold absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for Tentative Tract Map No. 14429. DISCUSSION TIME: 29 minutes (3:15-3:44) ADJOURNED AT 3:45 P.M. TO MONDAY, MARCH 12, 2001 AT 10:00 A.M. FOR A PRESENTATION BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REGARDING THE STATUS OF WEST ANAHEIM REVITALIZATION EFFORTS. ~ ~ Respectfully submitted, .~~?~ ~.~~ Elly Fernandes Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~'~-"~ ~ 02-26-01 Page 35