Loading...
Minutes-PC 2001/06/04~ CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 4, 2001 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California C~ C~ ~- ~ .. ~ f~ Lrt~# - ' A','. . k Ej~ ~~ ~, i,''~ Q ~ . € STAFF PRESENT: ;~4 k E ~~~ ~~ ~~ r ~,,,~~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Selma Mann, Assistant Ci~~,~~tprney ~ ~~-- Alfred Yald~,, Pnr~cip~)~Transpc~t~tation Planner Greg Hastings, Zoning Da~isi~r~ 1V~~~rt~ge'~,,y-~ ~~ Vanessa Delg~o, C~ ~Fi~u~(~~~~ D~~elopment Greg McCafferty, Seniar~Pla~~r~~ ~~ °~ Elly Fernandes, Se~i~ir S~~~retar~r ~ Jonathan Borrego, Se~~~ir Plar~ner~ ~~ ~ Janice O'Connor, Senior~~+ecret~r~ ~ ~ ~r ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~LL ~~ F K ~ ~ ; ~ ; , ~~ w.~ ' ~ ~- ~Q ~r ~~~ ~~;~~~ ;, E - . -, ~ ..~ , . a .~, COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: TO~N~Y ARNQLD,~~?A~JL~Bt~ST~/1CK~STEPHEN BRISTOL, ~(~O~EF~T R(%~~~LESsJAME~V/~N~E' ~ILT, PHYLLIS BOYDSTUN AGENDA POSTING, A complete,~opy.~if the Plannir~g Commission i~ "e~,da~nra~s~ost~d ~t 10:00 A.M. on Friday, June 1, 2001, tnside the~lis°~I~y case koc~ted~ir~#~ie fi~yer~bf ~f~ C~o~ncil C~arnber~'; and also in the . ,~ ~ _ ~ ~ ,~ outside display kiosk~ ~ ~~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~:~ ;; ,~ ~~ "~~~ ~ ~° ~ ~~~_. ~ ; ~~~ ~~~; PUBLISHED: Anah~~m Bultetin NeGvs~ap~on Thu~rsd~~~VCay,~~1t~~~~U'~ ° ~,~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ , ~ ,~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~, ~ ~-~ ~ r`~~ ~ ~ ~,: . ~ CALL TO ORDER ~~~ ` '~~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~y ~~~ ~ x~ ~ ~`~ ~ PLANNING COMMIS~lON IV~~Q~2~IlVG SE$v~10`N~~1.00 A Nl~ '`~ ~, ~;,~E ~'' • STAFF UPDATE T~ COMMf~~TQ "pF VJARIaUS CITY ~ ~~ , DEVELOPMENTS A1~L2°~~zlS~l~~~ (AS~~E~2~E~~"~D ~' ~`~~ ~ ~'A ~~ PLANNING COMMISSI~fit+l~ ~ ~ "° ~ ~~ -°~ • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEI~'~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ h~~~W E~ ~~ ,~... ~ ~;~,. Y ., ~„ ~ RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION RECONVENE TO PUBLtC HEARiNG 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Vanderbilt PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT H:~DOCS\CLERICAUMINUTES~AC060401.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net 06-04-01 Page 1 JUNE 4, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 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: Items 1-A and 1-B 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. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, for approval of Consent Calendar to withdraw Item 1 A and to approve Item 1 B. Consent Calendar Items 1A and 1 B unanimously approved as recommended. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY NO. 2001-00002: County of Orange Withdrawn • Probation Department, Attn: Linda Barry, Real Property Agent, 909 North Main Street, Suite 1, Santa Ana, CA 92701-3511. Request to determine (Vote: 7-0) conformance with the Anaheim Genera! Plan to relocate an existing facility and enter into a 15-year lease for the operation of a Probation Department Field Service Office. Property is at 2660 West Woodland Drive. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept petitioner's request for withdrawal of General Plan Conformity No. 2001-00002. SR7980MNJW.DOC B. Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Approved Meeting of May 21, 2001. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner (Vote: 7-0) Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the May 21, 2001 Planning Commission minutes. ~ 06-04-01 Page 2 JUNE 4, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 32 Approved 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04338 Approved OWNER: Mayo Family Trust, Alvin Mayo Trustee 2450 White Road, Irvine, CA 92614 AGENT: Armet, David, Newlove Architects, Attn: Victor Newlove, 1330 Olympic Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90404 LOCATION: 1074 North Tustin Avenue. Property is approximately 1.42 acres located 350 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. To construct two drive-through, fast food restaurants. Continued from the April 9 and May 21, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-67 SR7984KB.DOC Introduction by Staff: ~ Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner„ introduced this continued public hearing item to construct two drive through fast-food restaurants. Chairperson Koos noted that there were three comment cards in favor of the project. ApplicanYs Statement: Victor Newlove of Armet, David and Newlove Architects, 1330 Olympic Boulevard, Santa Monica representing EI Pollo Loco and Starbucks. He stated that he had read the items recommended and concurs. He asked if Commission had any questions and to respectfully pass and approve this project. He indicated that their traffic engineer was present also. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Donald Barker, 275 Centennial Way, Tustin. He is part of the architectural team. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt questioned Mr. Newlove about the property being adjacent to a man-made lake. He felt there is the potential to take advantage of the patio area. He asked if there was any thought to consider this more of a destination than a drive through use? • 06-04-01 Page 3 JUNE 4, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ! Mr. Newlove responded no. He was instructed by his client to provide the uses shown on the property. He agreed if there were a full-scale dinner house then people might use the lake, and possibly have outdoor dining orientated towards the lake. This did not seem appropriate (to put a fast-food restaurant at the rear of property); and was not considered at all. He felt that for a full-service restaurant this would have been a good to use as a destination restaurant. However, this type of restaurant is not typically a destination restaurant, it is almost an impulse type stop. Commissioner Boydstun asked if this EI Pollo Loco, as noted in traffic study, serves breakfast? Mr. Newlove stated his understanding is no. David Steeves, owner, C.B. Richard Ellis Company, said that EI Pollo Loco does not serve breakfast and has no plans to serve breakfast. Commissioner Boydstun said that if so, this would be a change and require that they come back before Commission. Mr. Steeves agreed, stating that any alteration in the operating hours of either restaurant would require that they come before Planning Commission with a new traffic study and staff recommendation. Commissioner Arnold asked Alfred Yalda to relay plans for the expansion of Tustin Avenue. Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated that the City of Anaheim had obtained funding from Federal and State sources to widen the bridge on Tustin Avenue over the 91 freeway off ramp to La Palma, to add additional northbound lanes. This is scheduled tentatively from early Summer 2002, to be completed by ~ Fall 2002, which woufd alleviate traffic from its current Level E and F to Level Service C, which is better service. Commissioner Bristol stated concern with the traffic and stacking. In the morning session he asked about the land use across the street at the new motel/hotel, and would this impact the traffic study. Mr. Don Barker with Artzog and Grabel stated that no, the motel was not included in traffic study. However, he felt they would experience a peak in early morning peak hours. Commissioner Bristol said that his concern was the A.M. peak hours. The traffic study was clear that P.M. peak hours would stack vehicles back beyond that signal 16% of the time. The widening of Tustin Avenue in a year would offset that. Mr. Barker added that they did anticipate Starbucks and EI Pollo Loco opening in 2002 and during the analyses of the intersections had increased traffic by 1% to allow for growth. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked for specifics on a preferred opening date. Mr. Newlove stated that they had not completed the working drawings. That this store is different from the standard building; they had not started the revised drawings, as they were not sure the outcome of this meeting. He thought the opening would be the beginning of the year 2002, depending on weather. Commissioner Vanderbilt lobbied for a later construction date for the reasons mentioned, two Commissioners thought they would be supportive of the project, and the additional lane would be added to Tustin Avenue. His concern was the timing of construction, he had seen Tustin Avenue with a lane out for ~ 06-04-01 Page 4 JUNE 4, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ construction which impacts the freeway traffic. The off ramp in the east direction stacks up to Kraemer when construction is taking place. He envisioned construction on Tustin Avenue with the restaurant use would create a situation that would make a traffic impact. He stated the architect has other variables to address, not taking the extra lane into account, and he hopes there would be some timing to support it on or after completion. Mr. Newlove said he gave the best case scenario. He knows it is to the clienYs benefit to get the project done. In his experience with these projects, with drawings and revised drawings, submitting it to the Building and Planning Departments, he felt approximately 6-8 weeks would be adequate. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked for a worst case scenario. Mr. Newlove indicated adding on two more months going into Spring, 2002. Commissioner Vanderbilt said he would like the lane in first before the restaurants. (Inaudible discussion between Commissioners Koos, Boydstun, Bristol and Vanderbilt). Chairperson Koos asked if on the traffic study an extra lane was included? Alfred Yalda replied no. The study included the existing conditions plus 1% growth for next year. Chairperson Koos stated his concern was that staff had alleviated this with a condition, and should the Starbucks use change to another restaurant, this would have to be revisited. These are land use decisions, not restaurant proprietorship decisions. With that condition present, he felt this was a viable project. ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold 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 32, as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04338 subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated June 4, 2001. VOTE: 6-1 (Commissioner Vanderbilt voted no) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 18 minutes (1:32-1:50) • 06-04-01 Page 5 JUNE 4, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00394 3c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00051 3d. REQUEST CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF ITEM NOS. 3a and 3c OWNER: City of Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Attn: Elisa Stipkovich, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, #1003, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1025 -1109 East Lincoln Avenue. This rectangularly- shaped 0.66-acre property is located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and East Street. General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00394: An amendment to the Land Use Element of the Anaheim General Plan to redesignate this property from the Medium Density Residential land use designation to the General Commercial land use designation. • Reclassification No. 2001-00051: To reclassify this property from RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone and CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone to the CO (Commercial, Office and Professional) Zone to construct a three-unit office building. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-68 RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-69 • Introduction by Staff: Approved Recommended adoption of Exhibit A to City Council Granted Recommended City Council review SR2072DS.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00394 and Reclassification No. 2001-00051 for property located at 1025 through 1109 East Lincoln Avenue. This was a request to amend the General Plan from the Medium Density Residential land use designation to the General Commercial land use designation, and to rezone the property from RM-1200 and CL Zone to the CO Zone. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Statement: Vanessa Delgado with the Anaheim Redevelopment Department was present to answer any questions. She introduced representatives of Paint Your Heart Out organization, Carolyn Griebe and Debbie Duke who were present to answer questions, also present were Mr. and Mrs. Reinhold and the architect who designed the plans. 06-04-01 Page 6 JUNE 4, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun questioned, in the morning sessivn, about Paint Your Heart Out having an office at this location. Caroline Griebe, Paint Your Heart Out Anaheim, Executive Director, 211 South State College Boulevard, #370, Anaheim, 92806. Commissioner Boydstun noted that in the morning session one Commissioner was concerned if this was strictly an office and if paints would be stored there. Ms. Griebe said that no paints would be stored, they have warehouse space that allows them to store their paints. Commissioner Boydstun said they wanted this on the record. She also asked who picked the building style? Ms. Griebe stated that it was a long process that began about nine months ago. In looking at the neighborhood and surrounding buildings, the Hatfield House would be their adjoining neighbor, they initially thought they would have a craftsman style design on that property. They went to the Colony Historic District, listened and met with approximately 75 members there, and after a discussion, it was recommended that they find an alternate style. The District told Ms. Griebe new craftsman style construction was difficult to do well. The District expressed that they were not happy with the Kaufman & Broad project style. In the craftsman style, architecture was residential not commercial. Ms. Griebe did research at the Anaheim Museum and photos of commercial buildings in Anaheim at the turn of century . were utilized. They were a connected view in the downtown area on former Center Street. This is a unique standalone project and to build something that mirrored this would end up looking unfinished. They then asked the Colony leadership for input. The Hacienda style was chosen after thinking of Bessie Walls. The Colony Historic District wrote a letter of support of that style. They met with the Redevelopment Historic consultant and he indicated this was appropriate for this parcel. Their clients, Donna and Terry Reinbold, who have an upscale photography studio, after presenting this architectural concept to them were in favor o this. After the Discussion: f Chairperson Koos asked staff why letters from Community Development were not included within the staff reports. Greg McCafferty stated This was a General Plan Amendment and rezoning and there is really no project to look at. If staff were provided plans, all correspondence would be provided. Chairperson Koos stated that plans had been presented. On two more projects it indicates Community Development has a recommendation and these are not in the staff report. Previously they were always in the staff report. Greg McCafferty stated that the standard practice for all planners is to request memorandums from Community Development. Planning Department always checks with Community Development to make sure their recommendation is consistent Community Development if it is a Redevelopment item. ~ 06-04-01 Page 7 JUNE 4, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Vanderbilt stated in regards to the next two items, telecommunication towers, it was discussed in the morning session the possibility that the tower might serve as a good telecommunication location. He asked Community Development staff to explore that as they proceed in the process when discussing the architecture of it, that the tower might be anticipated for that use. Vanessa Delgado stated that they would note it and would research what possibilities can be used for the tower. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Recommended City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00394, Exhibit A(to redesignate this property from the Medium Density Residential land use designation to the General Commercial land use designation). Granted Reclassification No. 2001-00051 (to reclassify this property from the RM-1200 and CL Zones to the CO Zone). Recommended City Council consideration of the negative declaration and reclassification in conjunction with City Council's mandatory review of the general plan amendment. ~ VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (1:51-1:58) ~ 06-04-01 Page 8 JUNE 4, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04327 OWNER: The Eparchy of Our Lady of Lebanon, 333 South San Vicente Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048 AGENT: St. John Maron Catholic Church, Attn: Reverend Antonie Bakh, 1546 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1546 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 1.29 acres located on the south side of La Palma Avenue, 140 feet east of the centerline of Anna Drive (Saint John Maron Catholic Church). To construct an addition to an existing church with waiver of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) maximum structural height, (c) minimum front yard setback and (d) minimum rear yard setback. Continued from the Planning Commission meetings of March 12, and April 23, 2001. ~ ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None Continued to June 18, 2001 SR7994VN.DOC ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the June 18, 2001 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 06-04-01 Page 9 JUNE 4, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~ ~ 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04363 July 2, 2001 OWNER: Helen Goldman, Harvey Tepper, Robert and Renee Tepper, Attn: Robert Tepper, 19500 Merridy Street, Northridge, CA 91324 AGENT: The Consulting Group, Inc. Attn: Dayna Aguirre, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 870, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 34401Nest Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 1.2 acres located south of the southeast corner of Knott and Lincoln Avenues. To permit a telecommunications antenna with accessory ground-mounted equipment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR1105TW.DOC Introduction by Staff: Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04363, for property located at 3440 West Lincoln Avenue. This was a request to permit a telecommunications antenna, with accessory ground-mounted equipment. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant' s Statement: Dayna Aguirre, representative of Sprint/PCS, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 870, Irvine, stated that Sprint/PCS is experiencing a gap in coverage. The proposed facility would alleviate concerns of dropped or incomplete calls. They lowered the pole height from 55 to 48 feet, with a smaller diameter 21" to 14" pole, and it would have a decorative shrouded top, which is at 19" where the antennas would be placed. Seven other sites were looked at before this was chosen which did not work either due to zoning, leasing or signal propagation feasibility. The proposed light standard would provide additional security for the property owner. There are some homeless people living within the subject area and they are hoping this would detract them. Upon staffs comments they looked at locating the facility in front of property instead of the alley, there was not enough room for the equipment. They would also have to negotiate a lease with four property owners versus one, and all four property owners would not entertain a lease with Sprint. She reiterated that they attempted to work with staff and hoped that Commission would take this into consideration. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick stated that on Item No. 5 there is light pole and Item No. 6 is a proposed flag pole, he suggested swapping the two. The property behind the shopping center, on the maps is listed as 06-04-01 Page 10 JUNE 4, 2001 PLANNI~iG COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Pacific Bell; it is now a company that Commission recently approved for a self-storage facility. If Sprint worked with this company to put a flag pole out front, and take the light pole from this one and put it on the self-storage yard, it would be more in keeping with the area, and the lighting on top of the office and recycling center would look appropriate in the alley. He asked if Sprint would entertain a motion to continue this for four weeks to work this out? Ms. Aguirre stated they would look at it and that they had approached the Pac Bell Real Estate agent, they could not reach anyone, it was going through escrow at that time and the new owner was not known. They would not negotiate a lease at that time and this was several months back. On Item No. 6 they did initially propose a light standard, and at staff's request they went with a flag pole. Commissioner Vanderbilt said Ms. Aguirre was mentioning the other proposals and they were ruled out. One reason was that staff had suggested having the pole in front of the business and that she had indicated the problem was the equipment that goes along with it takes up too much space. He asked about Sprint/PCS restrictions in keeping equipment adjacent to the tower, was there any possibility the equipment could be elsewhere on the property as it appeared not to take up that much space based on their description. Ms. Aguirre stated no, Sprint likes to keep the equipment within 150 feet of the facility itself, beyond that it creates a long cable run. Their only option was to locate the equipment in the rear. Essentially that would be too far from the front of the property. Then there is the issue with the four property owners who would not sign a lease with Sprint/PCS. Chairperson Koos asked for clarification of these different shops depicted in the staff report, are they actually four properties? He then asked if the area in front of the Chinese food place on the Knott Street ~ frontage has room for the pole itself but not the equipment? Ms. Aguirre replied yes there is room for the pole and they did look at a small landscaped area, which is considered a common area and had to go through the other property owners. She stated that it is considered a common area because it is the landscaped area. Chairperson Koos asked if this is a common area even though it is on SprinYs property? He then asked Greg Hastings if this was correct. Greg Hastings, Planning and Zoning Division Manager, stated that this center has been dealt with previously with Conditional Use Permits and was treated as one center. There is an agreement between owners for the common parking, landscape etc. Ms. Aguirre is correct. Chairperson Koos stated that they could place a flag in front and leave the equipment in back, then do a cable run which is probably about 100 feet and landscape the base of the pole. Commissioner Bostwick stated that in regard to the other property, if they do a flat pole in the common area of shopping center that too would work. Chairperson Koos stated that if there is going to be a flag, it should be in a logical place as opposed to the rear of the store near the trash area. Ms. Aguirre indicated all options had been explored and the four property owners would not entertain their offer. ~ 06-04-01 Page 11 JUNE 4, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Chairperson Koos stated that to be cooperative with their fellow landlords would they need to be on the lease, even if it is in a common area? Ms. Aguirre was unsure of the legal issues involved. The property owner had responded in writing stating that the other property owners were not amenable to this. Commissioner Arnold asked Chairperson Koos to clarify if he was objecting to a flagpole in front of self- storage unit. Chairperson Koos replied he was not. He felt that asking the self-storage people to withdraw or Planning Commission denying a pole on this property leaves them without service for this area. Commissioner Arnold stated it sounds like what they are faced with is if Sprint/PCS can reach the owners of the self-storage facility, it might be easier than trying to get all four property owners to agree. Commissioner Bostwick stated that Sprint/PCS could not physically put a flagpole there as the four property owners would not agree. He suggested continuing this item for four weeks to give Ms. Aguirre time to work this out and talk to the people who now have the Pac Bell building (self-storage facility). Chairperson Koos asked Ms. Aguirre to continue to explore other options. Greg McCafferty stated if the petitioner goes to the public counter, the file for the storage facility should have a contact telephone number. ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the July 2, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to explore the possibility of installing a stealth flagpole in lieu of the proposed light pole. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 11 minutes (1:59-2:10) ~ 06-04-01 Page 12 JUNE 4, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04364 Granted, in part, for 5 years (to expire on OWNER: John C. Dalton, Trustee of the John Cranmer Dalton IV June 4, 2006) and Louise Dean Dalton Restated Trust 1999, 929 East South Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: The Consulting Group, Attn: Dayna Aguirre, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 870, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 929 East South Street. Property is approximately 3.6 acres, with a frontage of 200 feet on the north side of South Street, a maximum depth of 790 feet and is located 390 feet west of the centerline of East Street. To permit a telecommunication monopole antenna and accessory ground- mounted equipment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-70 SR7992KP.DOC Introduction by Staff: ~ Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04364 for property located at 929 East South Street. This was a request for a telecommunications monopole antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Statement: Dayna Aguirre, representative of Sprint/PCS, 18500 Von Karman Avenue Suite 870, Irvine. She had read the staff report and they have attempted to work with staff on this item. They did change the initial design from a light standard to a flag pole. Initially they requested 58 feet; it has been lowered to 50 feet. They have complied with staff s request to provide a series of upgrades to this property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick indicated he had made the suggestion before that rather than a flag pole they put a light pole in this location. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked would the light fixture presents any technical difficulty or disadvantage over the flag pole use or any significant cost difference? Ms. Aguirre replied no. Chairperson Koos agreed with Commissioner Bostwick and his concern to make it look like a light pole, not a large top to it, which there is on a flag pole that they approved on Center Street. Perhaps they could ~ have a uniform width for the pole? 06-04-01 Page 13 JUNE 4, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Ms. Aguirre stated yes they could do that. It requires a bit larger diameter of pole, she believed this could be achieved with a 19-inch slim line pole instead of the larger shrouded top. Commissioner Bristol asked Chairperson Koos if he wanted Ms. Aguirre to have the latitude or to come back for review or let staff review it? After the Discussion: Chairperson Koos asked Ms. Aguirre if the GPS antenna had to be on a pole, as it required a direct line- of-sight from the atmosphere, or if it could be on the shelter or cabinets? Ms. Aguirre replied she is not positive, the typical preference is to have it on top of the facility itself. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04364 for 5 years (to expire on June 4, 2006) with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Deleted Condition Nos. 3, 7 and 11. Modified Condition Nos. 1 and 2 to read as follows: ~ 1. That the proposed telecommunications facility, consisting of one (1) "light pole" with three (3) panel antennas enclosed within the pole shall be permitted for a period of five (5) years, to expire on June 4, 2006. 2. That a maximum of three (3) panel-type antennas may be located within the "light pole" and one GPS antenna on top of the BTS equipment cabinet. The overall structure of the light pole shall not exceed a maximum height of fifty-one (51) feet. The monopole antennas shall be completely enclosed within the proposed light pole and not visible to public view. No additional or replacement antennas shall be permitted without the approval of the Planning Commission. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (2:11-2:20) ~ 06-04-01 Page 14 JUNE 4, 2001 PLANNING COMMtSSION MINUTES ~ 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04362 OWNER: Faig Alraher, 121 North Jerrilee Lane, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 121 North Jerrilee Lane. Property is approximately 0.17 acres, located at the northwest corner of Jerrilee Lane and Gerda Drive. To permit a second story granny unit above a detached garage in conjunction with an existing single-family residence with waiver of required rear yard setback. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-73 Introduction by Staff: Concurred with staff Denied Granted This item was trailed to the end of the meeting. SR7982VN.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04362 for property located at 121 North Jerrilee Lane. This was a request to permit a second story granny unit above a detached garage and is in conjunction with an existing single-family residence. The one waiver that was requested ~ has been deleted. This item was "trailed" to the end of the meeting following Item No. 11 as the applicant was not present. THE PUBLIC HEARlNG WAS OPENED. ~ Commissioner Bostwick asked the applicant to explain what he wishes to do. Chairperson Koos asked the applicant if he had read the staff report. Applicant responded yes. ApplicanY s Statement: Faig Raheb, 121 Jerrilee Lane, Anaheim, said he wants to build a granny unit for his parents and that they want to live in it. His youngest brother would be taking the front house and the parents would take the other unit. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Koos stated that in the morning session there was concern about a unit above the garage. Commission felt this may not be a good use to have elderly people walking up and down stairs. Chairperson Koos asked if any alternative designs were considered? Mr. Raheb replied no. 06-04-01 Page 15 JUNE 4, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . Chairperson Koos asked about the possibility of moving the garage to the back, toward the street, and building a one-story unit for the parents? He asked if this would work? Mr. Raheb stated no. They want to put this on top of the garage to keep the yard open. Commissioner Boydstun asked if he could move the garage off Jerrilee Street? Mr. Raheb stated that would take too much space from the lot, they want to keep the lot open. Commissioner Bristol asked if they could take the stairs outside and put them inside of the building. Mr. Raheb said he would talk to engineer about that. He asked if they meant to put the stairs from the inside of the house? Chairperson Koos said it would be putting a door and stairs inside, rather than having stairs on the outside. Mr. Raheb said they can do that, it is not a problem. Greg McCafferty clarified for Mr. Raheb that inside means the interior part of the lot, i.e. if a stairway is located inside the garage this may create clearance problems for the parking spaces if the stairs are moved from the west property line to the inside of the unit, which would be the east elevation. Commissioner Bristol asked if they are shown on the east elevation? ~ Greg McCafferty stated that the elevations were mislabeled. Applicant's intent was that they be on the west elevation. Commissioner Bristol said that the south elevation shows west, the plans were labeled wrong. Greg McCafferty asked if the intent was to have the stairs on the back side of the lot? Mr. Raheb agreed. Commissioner Arnold stated there is no problem with a second story. He understands the concerns, if the parents want to live on the second floor that is the parenYs choice. Commissioner Bostwick asked the applicant if he had read and understood the staff report, that it cannot be a rental, it has to be for someone 62 or older and there can be no rental fee. Commissioner Bristol asked if the applicant is to rearrange the stairwell to be on the east side between the residents and the new granny unit and garage? He then asked for guidance from staff of haw they want to put that in. Greg McCafferty indicated this is stated in Condition No. 4. ~ 06-04-01 Page 16 JUNE 4, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun 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 3, as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Denied waiver pertaining to required rear yard setback since it was deleted. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04362 subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated June 4, 2001. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 8 minutes (3:22-3:30) ~ `~ 06-04-01 Page 17 JUNE 4, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 32 Concurred with staff 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04361 Granted, in part OWNER: Louis Wiener, 3 Thunderbird, Newport Beach, CA 92660 AGENT: Philip Martin, 25422 Trabuco Road, #105B2, Lake Forest, CA 92630 LOCATION: 8205 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is approximately 3.34 acres, with a frontage of 120 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, a maximum depth of 600 feet, and is located 1050 feet west of the centerline of Weir Canyon Road. To construct a three-unit commercial retail center with roof-mounted equipment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-71 SR7983VN.DOC Introduction by Staff: ~ Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04361 for property located at 8205 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. This was a request to construct a three-unit commercial retail center with roof-mounted equipment. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. ~ Applicant's Statement: Philip Martin, Architect, 25422 Trabuco Road, #105-B2, Lake Forest, CA 92630. He spoke relative to Condition No. 22 and stated that to reduce the building height would make it insignificant, for the small area of this building. It is the last vacant property in the shopping center. The potential tenants need visibility. One comment in the morning session from planning staff was that they are trying to seek some visibility from freeway, which is impossible. The Code prohibits any signage or lighting facing the freeway, and that is not the intent. It is to give definition to the small building. There are adjacent buildings, at least three in the immediate vicinity with similar little towers and the tile roof, they are trying to be compatible with this. They went with a prefile application, and there was a comment to improve upon the adjacent Pep Boys building. Regarding reducing the building to 25 feet height when the Code allows a maximum of 35 feet, he felt this was unfair. The parapet height is 24 feet right now. To have rooftop equipment hidden behind a four-foot parapet would not work. 06-04-01 Page 18 JUNE 4, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES e Scott Hook, Managing Member of the Developer of this pro}ect. The three key elements in making this building a success are signage, access to the building and presence of the building so people know they are there. They can only have one sign for each tenant on the building. They wanted to make their building compatible with the Pep Boys building and have the tile roof at the same height. There are no homes looking at the property and you would not see the building from the freeway so a 35-foot height would not be an eye sore. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Koos clarified staffs comments regarding the elevation and asked why the southern tower had more detail than the northern tower. Mr. Martin stated that is the only one you would see as you approach the center and one probably would not see the other towers. Chairperson Koos stated the towers would be seen from Carl's Jr. and EI Pollo Loco and he would be more comfortable if it had a more symmetrical look. Staff also stated two of the towers are just fronts. Mr. Martin stated that is to hide rooftop equipment and to have identity for other tenants. They are not the main tenants so they did not make them full towers. Commissioner Arnold indicated his concern was also the symmetry among the towers. Mr. Martin stated it is purely subjective and he disagreed with Commission. Tenant's space may not be symmetrical, since most shopping centers are not symmetrical. He did not object to it, he disagreed with ~ the comments that were made. Commissioner Arnold then pointed out symmetry in the photos. Mr. Martin stated he was not there to argue about symmetry and if that is a problem they can make it that symmetrical. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked Mr. Martin about eluding to symmetry in stating that there would be a major tenant and two subordinate tenants. Does this mean the major tenant would have larger signage than the subordinate? Mr. Martin stated sign criteria is according to ordinance. Mr. Hook stated it is the point location on the building as you drive in, it does not mean that it would be the net worth credit tenant. He sees the point about the symmetry, but due to costs, they can achieve the look they need with out the full towers and tenants would be fine with that. If Commission wants the full towers, they would comply. Commissioner Arnold stated Commission's perspective is what satisfies the tenants and the impact on the surrounding community from a land use perspective. They are trying to achieve an overall design that works well with the community and the other two towers have an appearance of being substandard. Chairperson Koos suggested doing one tower on each end and to remove the middle one. Mr. Martin stated there is very little visibility for the rear two tenants so symmetry would not be seen. ~ 06-04-01 Page 19 JUNE 4, 2001 PL.ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Chairperson Koos stated that argument would say Commission does not care what the gas station looks like either. Commission cares about what it looks like from any vantage point. Commissioner Boydstun said this does not look like it fits together. Commissioner Bostwick suggested leaving the height restriction out of Condition No. 22, have the plans indicate a full tile roof on two towers, or completely finished towers on either end of the building with 32 - 35 foot height. Greg McCafferty stated the maximum height to top parapet is 31 feet. Commissioner Bristol agreed with Commissioner Boydstun and feels it is high and could be cut down a bit. Maybe there could be two towers on each end. Mr. Hook stated it is only 6,000 feet and that is a good suggestion, two end towers would be attractive. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun 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 32, as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04361 subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated June 4, 2001 with the following modifications: Modified Condition No. 22 to read as follows: 22. That final elevation plans shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. There shall be two {2) fully designed and completed towers, incorporating full tile roofs. One (1) to be located on the north end of the building and one (1) on the south end of the building and a redesign of the canopies to be more complementary to the design of the building. Any decision by the Zoning Division may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a"Reports and Recommendation" item. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 23 minutes (2:21-2:44) ~ 06-04-01 Page 20 JUNE 4, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 9a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04366 OWNER: Living Stream, A California Non-Profit Corporation, 2431 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: John Pester, 2431 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 2411 - 2461 West La Palma Avenue and 1212 North Hubbell Way. Property is approximately 40.4 acres located at the northwest corner of La Paima Avenue and Gilbert Street, and at the northern terminuses of Hubbell Way and Electric Way. To permit a teleconferencing center and private conference/training center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ~ ~ OPPOSITION: None Continued to July 16, 2001 SR1104TW.DOC ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the July 16, 2001 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to provide staff with a sewer capacity study and further information on the parking and traffic demands of the proposed project. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 06-04-01 Page 21 JUNE 4, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 10a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Concurred with staff 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1801 Approved modification for 2 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04360) years (to expire on June 4, 2003) OWNER: Ignacio and Arlene Arroyo, 1423 South First Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006 LOCATION: 632 North East Street. Property is approximately 0.27 acres located at the northeast corner of Eastwood Drive and East Street. To modify or delete a condition of approval pertaining to an "elderly" care facility in order to permit the care of adults within an existing board and care facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-72 SR7991KB.DOC Introduction by Staff: Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced Conditional Use Permit No. 1801 for 632 North East Street, to modify or delete a condition of approval that pertains to an elderly care facility in order to permit care of adults within the existing board and care facility. • THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. ApplicanYs Statement: Ricardo Tampado, who represented the owners. He asked what would happen if there was not a negative impact to the surrounding neighborhood, would the Conditional Use Permit automatically be extended? Chairperson Koos stated that if staff recommends a Conditional Use Permit for two years then he would have to come back in two years to state his case. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, clarified that there is an existing Conditional Use Permit on the property and that would remain. The time limitation being proposed is only with regard to the change in the Conditional Use Permit. If for some reason the change in the Conditional Use Permit caused negative impacts on the neighborhood and if it were not reinstated, he would still have the underlying Conditional Use Permit for the elderly care facility. That would not disappear. Mike O'Grady, 32782 Brooksee Drive, Rancho Santa Margarita. He has worked for Orange County Health Care Agency, in the Residential Care and Housing O~ce since 1986. Item No. 12 on page 2 of the staff report shows staff s concern that a shift in operations from 14 elderly residents would be less intensive than 14 younger adults. The intention of a board and care facility is to become part of the neighborhood and they ensure that the facility is run in a positive way. He spoke regarding the Conditions on page 4 of the staff report and stated that regarding Condition No. 1 all services including meal services shall be provided to the residents, is a requirement of licensing and they would make sure that that would happen; ~ 06-04-01 Page 22 JUNE 4, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • item No. 3 that it be limited to 14 residents, this is a licensing regulation that is enforced; Item No. 4 regarding the parking, mentally ill living in residential care facilities are 99.9% on ~xed incomes and do not own vehicles; Item No. 5 that there is 24-hour supervision, this would be taken care of by the owner. Commissioner Arnold feels they need to define what a care facility is in a way that it is not just providing meals and housing for any adult under any circumstance. He asked what kind of adults were there. Mr. O'Grady stated this is for mental disabilities, there is a screening process for individuals being placed there. State licensing requires that potential board and care residents be thoroughly screened before placement to ensure that each client is functioning at a level appropriate for a community setting. This pre- pfacement appraisal includes written verification from a mental health professional and doctor documenting that a client is physically and psychiatrically ready for placement. Clients with behavior problems or with acute psychiatric symptoms would be referred to other residential facilities with increased services. Commissioner Arnold clarified that the subject facility could not become a half-way house or alcohol treatment center. Mr. O'Grady stated this is not a recovery home, it is for the mentaNy ill. The purpose is to integrate those with mental disabilities back into the community and make them part of the community, not to warehouse them, they have to work, go to school and go into the community. ~ Commissioner Bristol asked if there are currently 14 clients who do not go outside. Mr. O'Grady stated there are probably less than that, but he is uncertain. This group would be from ages 18 to 59 and would be coming out of hospitals and most would be in their 30's. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney asked if the City would be correct in saying that this is a facility for adults (ages 18 to 59) mentally disabled ambulatory persons screened to successfully integrate into a residential setting. Mr. O'Grady stated yes. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. . 06-04-01 Page 23 JUNE 4, 2001 PLANNiNG COMMISSION MINUTES FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. ~ OPPOSITION: None A representative from the County spoke on the subject item for informational purposes. ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick 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 1, as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidefines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Approved modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 1801 (Tracking No. CUP 2001-04360) for 2 years (to expire on June 4, 2003), to allow for the board and care of up to 14 adult residents within an existing board and care facility. The following modifications were made to the conditions of approval: Modified Condition No. 7 to read as follows: "7. That the subject board and care facility is allowed for up to 14 adult (ages 18 - 59) mentally disabled ambulatory residents screened to successfully integrate into a residential setting. This portion of the conditional use permit shall expire in two (2) years from the date of this resolution, on June 4, 2003." VOTE: 7-0 • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 16 minutes (2:45-3:01) ~ 06-04-01 Page 24 JUNE 4, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2000-00028 11c. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2000-00379 11d. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2000-00032 11e. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2000-00381 11f. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF ITEM NOS. 11a,11b AND 11d CITY INITIATED: LOCATION A: This irregularly-shaped 2.49-acre property has a frontage of 300 feet on the south side of Crescent Avenue and is located 300 feet east of the centerline of Dale Avenue (523 through 537 North Colgate Street; 2752 through 2768 West Stockton Avenue and 2752, 2754 West Crescent Avenue). Reclassification No. 2000-00028: A City-initiated reclassification from the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple Family) to the RS-5000 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone or a less intense zone. LOCATION B: Parcel 1: This irregularly-shaped 10.5-acre property is located at the northwest corner of Brookhurst Street • and La Palma Avenue (1101 through 1111 North Brookhurst Street). Parcel 2: This irregularly-shaped 7.2-acre property is located at the northeast corner of Brookhurst Street and La Palma Avenue (1110 through 1142 North Brookhurst Street and 2141 through 2175 West La Palma Avenue). General Plan Amendment No. 2000-00379: A City- initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate certain properties as follows: Parcel 1: from the General Industrial Land Use designation to the General Commercial Land Use designation; Parcel 2: from the Commercial Professional Land Use designation to the General Commercial Land Use designation. Reclassification No. 2000-00032: A City-initiated Reclassification of certain properties as follows: Parcel 1: From the ML (Limited Industrial) and CG (Commercial, General) Zones to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. LOCATION C: Parcel 1: Property is approximately 4.59 acres located at the southeast corner of Crescent and Magnolia Avenues (2497 West Crescent Avenue and 430 • through 590 North Magnolia Avenue). Continued to July 2, 2001 06-04-01 Page 25 JUNE 4, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Parcef 2: Property is approximately 17.54 acres located at the southwest corner of Crescent Avenue and Gilbert Street (2400 through 2470 West Crescent Avenue and 511 through 541 North Gilbert Street). General Plan Amendment No. 2000-00381: A City- initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate certain properties as follows: Parcel 1: from the General Commercial land use designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation; Parcel 2: from the Medium Density Residential land use designation to the Low Density Residential land use designation. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2000-00028 RESOLUTION NO. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2000-00379 RESOLUTION NO. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2000-00032 RESOLUTION NO. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2000-00381 • RESOLUTION NO. _ Introduction by Staff: SR7996VN.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated that Item No. 11 is a series of Reclassifications and General Plan Amendments for three locations within the City. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Marilyn Lugaro, 19072 Matthew, Huntington Beach, CA. She received a letter from the City of Anaheim dated June 4, 2001, regarding redesignation. This was alarming to her and to perspective tenants, as they did not understand this. She asked if by amending the General Plan, the City of Anaheim would not be changing the actual current zoning as it now stands. She is Location C, (referring to Location Map C in staff report) Parcel 1 the 4.59 acres located on Crescent and Magnolia. Staff wants to change them from Commercial Land designation to Low Medium residential designation. She stated she is the owner of the first lot, the corner, the service station. Ms. Lugaro asked that as it stands now the Planning Commission would not be changing the actual current zoning that exists which is CL is that correct? Commissioner Boydstun stated this is correct. Ms. Lugaro asked if they can develop the property for CL, neighborhood commercial purposes? • 06-04-01 Page 26 JUNE 4, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Koos stated provided the uses they provide are within the permitted uses in that zone, yes. Ms. Lugaro asked about remodeling the existing structure, if it burns down and they rebuild, could they do CL? Greg McCafferty said that the aspect pertaining to legal non-conforming land uses does not change with this action today. Any non-conforming land use sections of the Code would still apply as they do today. Chairperson Koos stated that if something burns down, it is no longer a permitted use. It could not go back up as the same use. It does not sound as if they have one of these uses that all the uses they have are permitted uses in the CL zone. He asked Greg McCafferty for clarification. Greg McCafferty stated that as any Code changes there may be things that are different today that were not in the Code when this site was developed, for example parking lot, landscaping, setback landscaping, etc. If it were to burn down it would then apply to the property but the action today does not change that fact it has always been in the Code. Ms. Lugaro asked if they choose to develop the vacant land as it is, they can develop it CL commercial? Chairperson Koos said she is correct. Greg McCafferty stated that the entire shaded portion for Parcel 1 is currently zoned CL and that would not change. Ms. Lugaro coufd devefop that in accordance with the site development standards and conditionally permitted land uses within that zone. • Chairpe~son Koos noted that he had questions for staff. How are we are changing the General Plan from General Commercial to Low Density Residential, but we are not changing the zoning? Greg McCafferty stated that staff recommends they change ParceV 1 to Low Medium density residential. Staff is not recommending zoning changes. Chairperson Koos asked for clarification in that they are changing the Generaf Plan, but staff is recommending that the zoning stays the same? He then asked why change the General Plan but not the zoning? Greg McCafferty said that the General Plan is supposed to be a policy document over the long term. Staff thinks that for this location, given the surrounding land use, the low medium density for residential makes sense in the long term. It is a site that is not at the intersection of a major arterial, it is Magnofia and Crescent. Staff feels this would do two things, promote additional housing to fulfill the needs of the City of Anaheim's Housing Element, and eventually encourage redevelopment of the property. Chairperson Koos stated that community development planning efforts have tried to bring the zoning and the General Plan together. He felt this created a situation where they are being separated. Greg McCafferty responded that staff did not want to create the very situation that the owner is asking questions about. That is to create a situation where the City made the parcel legal, non-conforming, for zoning purposes. Staff thought that taking the initial step and redesignating the General Plan looking forward, if she saw opportunities in the future, that it would make sense for her to do some sort of townhome project or small lot single-family project then she would have the flexibility to do that and rezone the property. • Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, agreed with Greg McCafferty as Mr. McCafferty explained staff s rationale quite well. Staff looks at these things on a case by case basis and sometimes they do adjust the zoning to meet the General Plan. Other times staff does not. 06-04-01 Page 27 JUNE 4, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Stanley Beatty, 2419 Crescent Avenue, across the street from Parcel 2 of this project has a family business in Parcel 1. He stated that his understanding from Vanessa Norwood is that neither owners of both properties have requested any zone changes, in fact they are against it. It is questionable to him why staff would change something today when the future is unknown. It is unknown if any Commission member would be present to make a decision at another time. It is disturbing to residents as to why Commission would change something and say it means nothing. He felt that someone was "sneaking in the back door" to build property or change things without allowing the residents to have a say. He would like this petition denied or put it off for six months or a year so he can talk to people and so the residents can look into it. Chairperson Koos asked if he was referring to Parcel 1 or both? Mr. Beatty replied both as they both affect him. He lives across the street from one and he has a business in the other. It may be a positive or negative effect, he does not know. He could not see where the decision to zone this one way today would make any difference if he were the owner and wanted to do something in 20 years. He would have to get a permit and whoever is on the Commission would not know about the meeting of June 4, 2001. This seems to be an exercise in futility or a way of getting around notifying residents. Lawson McKenzie, 525 North Gilbert is representing the owner of the 17.5 acre parcel, who was reportedly not notified of this meeting until the Thursday before the meeting. He prepared an opposition response that was delivered to the Planning Department by facsimile. He was present to be sure that this is entered into the record. ~ Commissioner Boydstun indicated Commission had received a copy of the opposition response. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol commented that Commission has an opportunity to do something here, and asked Jonathan Borrego if he had spoken to the residents about these changes. Jonathan Borrego said no, that these changes were a part of the North West Anaheim Action Plan, which was approved in December, 1999. There was a series of public workshops then and public outreach and all the changes were discussed during the workshops. In addition to that, the Action Plan was scheduled before the Planning Commission and City Council for public hearing. Staff did work with the community when recommendations were developed. Commissioner Bristol said that Mr. Borrego and staff had done such a good job that there are some people who do not understand what they are trying to do. He feels this should be continued so the City can make an effort to speak to some of the groups. Commissioner Arnold agreed explaining that everyone should be made aware that if someone comes forward with a development proposal to rezone property on Parcel 1 or 2 on Location C, then it is set for public hearing. The public would have a chance to come and speak on this. This is a General Plan Amendment and as Mr. Beatty pointed out, that this does not have much effect. The whole aspect of the General Plan is required by State Law, and some people feel if it is a long term vision or policy goal that so many things could change that there is not much effect, that it is an effort in futility. However, it is a State requirement, it does keep cities focused on long term planning and development policies. The City of Anaheim has to keep our General Plan up to date, and look toward the future. Whether anyone agrees with the State policy or not, it governs the City of Anaheim. He agreed with Commissioner Bristoi that it • might be useful for the City to have conversations with the local residents. 06-04-01 Page 28 JUNE 4, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Greg McCafferty stated that staff recommends grouping all the items together to present to City Council so there are not separate public hearings. Chairperson Koos asked Jonathan Borrego how much time he would need. ~ Jonathan Borrego stated two weeks, and that he would sit down and explain the rationale behind the proposal to the residents. Commissioner Boydstun spoke regarding Parcel 2, stating that she believes the consensus was it should be low medium not just low. Jonathan Borrego agreed and stated if this is the case, maybe four weeks is more appropriate, then staff can have another General Plan alternative for that site prepared for consideration. Greg McCafferty stated that if the concerned residents want to meet with staff, they should give Vanessa Norwood their names and addresses. OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition and 1 person spoke with concerns. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the July 2, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order for staff to meet with concerned residents. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 19 minutes (3:02-3:21) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:40 P.M. TO MONDAY, , JUNE 18, 2001 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. I i Respectfully submitted: ~ ~ rnce O'Con ; / 1 w °~' ~enior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on G" 1~^a! 06-04-01 Page 29