The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 2001/06/18CITY OF ANAHEIM ~ PLANNIRIG COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 18, 2001 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California ~~ ~ COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: TOI~Y~ARNC)LD,~'AUL~~ST1I~lPCK~ PHYLLIS BOYDSTUN, R~B~ER=~APO~Sy JA11~[ES~GA~~Ef~~LT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT STER~H~,~~~BI~fSTOL~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ , h ~~ ~~ ~ ~ - ~~ ~ s ~~ ~ ~' ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .:r ,, ~ ~ STAFF PRESENT: ~ ~ ~R ~ ~~~~ Selma Mann, Assistant ~'~i~At~cirney ~ 5 Alfred Yalda, ~~p~~~n~s~`prt~t~on Planner Greg Hastings, Zoning~@a'~ri~~r~n IVf~na~e~` Elly Fernandes, ~e~i~r ~e~retar~r ~. Greg McCafferty, Sen~t~r~Plann r~ ~' - Janice O Connor, S~n~i f~~b~e~cr~t~arjrE~ r „ ~ .. ~ ~, ~ "~a„~„ ~~i ~~ ~~ ~ ~, ..: ~ ~~° ~~~ ~ ,"" ~ . , ~ ~ ..,.,~,~.~, ~ '~:,, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ AGENDA POSTING~ i4`com~ete ~ap~.~f the ~'lannin"ghGommiss~i~c ei~~~~~iv~~ posted~at 11:00 A.M. on Friday, June 15, 20~1 ~~de fhe d)s~ia~~~~se~lc~eat~d ~ the #vy~of f~re~„~~u~cil ~h ~#~~r~s, and also in the outside display kioslf ` € ,~ ~~, ~ ~~~;~ . «.~~«~ ~ ~~~ ` ~ ^ ~ ~ '~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ , . ~ ~ `~~ ~,,~~~ ~°°~~ g ~ ~; PUBLISHED: Anah~~m Bull~tin Newsp~ap~~oFl~T~iur~~lg~y, May~~~1~;~2Q~ ~i ~: ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'x,~ ' ~-~ '~'~ a=` " .f" ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ s d CALL TO ORDER ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ y~ `~~ . ~"~~~ ~ ` ~ `~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ E .. ~ ~ ~ , , ~ ~ ~~~ ~ w ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISS ON II~~J~NF~NG SE S~OT~41:00 A~~M~` ,~~ '~~ ~ fF ~ • STAFF UPDATE T"~~1t~i~lL1Sb~'~xN (O~~4f~1~4JS CITY ~~; ~ ~ ~ DEVELOPMENTS A(~t~„18~,1~~E~ ~~v ~REQ~I~~$~~~8~( ~~' ~~ `' ~ PLANNING COMMISS1C71~) ,~ ~~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~J • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEV~'~ ~ ~`~ ~ ' ~ ~ ;`"~~ ~ .~~~,~- ~~,. RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION RECONVENE TO PUBLIC 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 Bostwick PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ H:IDOCS\CLERICAL\MlNUTESWC061801 lannin commission anaheim.net 06-18-01 Page 1 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNtNG COMMISSION MEETlNG MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLtC 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 through 1-E 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 Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), for approval of Consent Calendar Items 1-B through 1-E as recommended by staff. Consent Calendar Item 1-A was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent) for approval of Consent Calendar Item 1-A. Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), for approval of Consent Calendar Items 1-B through 1-E as recommended by staff. Consent Calendar Item 1-A was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. • Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent) for approval of Consent Calendar Item 1-A. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4084 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001- 04369) - REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TtME: Farano and Kieviet Lawyers, Attn: Jeffrey Farano, 2300 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806, requests a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval (originally approved on January 4, 1999 with an extension to expire January 4, 2001) for a previously- approved outdoor recreational vehicle and boat self-storage facility with an on-site manager's office/living unit. Property is located at 1631 South Euclid Street, Southern California Edison Easement. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bosfinrick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for a one (1) year • retroactive extension of time to expire on January 4, 2002, based on the following: Approved Approved retroactive extension of time for one year (to expire on January 4, 2002) (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Bristol absent) 06-18-01 Page 2 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES i (a) the proposed plan remains in conformance with the current Zoning Code and General Plan land use designation, and that the current Code violations on this property wifl be rectified within 30 days of this approval and (b) the property is adequately maintained and further that there is no additional information or circumstances that would contradict the findings made at the time of the original approval. Commissioner Boydstun recommended pulling 1a to discuss separately. Applicant's statement: SR7997KP.DOC Jeff Ferrano, 2300 East Katella, Suite #235, Anaheim was present representing the applicant and requested an extension of time. He commented regarding the Revitalization Plan as discussed in the staff report. He said this does not constitute a change justifying this being set for a public hearing. This is a proposed Revitalization Plan that has not yet been approved and it is a long-range discussion. This property is not owned by Edison, it is owned by the applicant. His client is dealing with the easements from Edison. This has required an additional extension of time in dealing with Edison, and since they do not own the land, they have been having a difficult time getting their proposal approved. They believe there are alternatives and hopes to get this approved within the next extension of time. This property is 150 feet wide and does not provide for much development. If one was to consider any type of bike path or walkway, it takes up any usability of this property. Since it is private property and not owned by Edison, this creates a zoned open space, a useless piece of property for the owner. He said that this is not a Revitalization Plan item to put to a public hearing to make any changes to. He then asked Planning Commission to grant an extension. There is a substantial amount of landscaping on Euclid so they would • not be landscaping, they do not have the ability to do this on this narrow property. Chairperson Koos clarified the request for retroactive extension of time to January 4, 2002. Chairperson Koos said to staff that he had requested in the morning session that Redevelopment staff be present for this item. Commissioner Bostwick said Commission heard what Redevelopment had to say in the morning session and he felt it was a good plan when started out. He has no problem with the renewal of this. Commissioner Arnold asked what the change in circumstances or conditions are. He understands the goals in the Revitalization Plan and he feels it could be a good idea to reconsider the conditions in the Conditional Use Permit, address the merits and the nature of the property, the size and shape etc., and whether or not it would be feasible to put bike paths on this parcel. But he does not believe the feasibility issue is before Commission today. He voice concern that there are changed circumstances now that would justify denying it and requiring it be set for a public hearing at this point. Chairperson Koos agreed. • 06-18-01 Page 3 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • B. a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04201 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04379) - RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME: Barry Jacob, 2355 Main Street, Irvine, CA 92614, requests a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval (originally approved May 8, 2000 to expire May 8, 2001) for a previously-approved expansion of an existing car wash facility with an oil/lube service facility and shade canopy with waivers of (a) permitted freestanding sign, (b) maximum number of wall signs and (c) required setback adjacent to an arterial highway. Property is located at 8290 East Crystal Drive (Checkered Flag Car wash). ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bosfinrick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for a one (1) year retroactive extension of time to expire on May 8, 2002, based on the following: (i) That the proposed use remains in conformance with the current • zoning code and General Plan land use designation, and that there have been no code amendments that would cause the approval to be inconsistent with the zoning code. (ii) That since the approval on May 8, 2000, the petitioner has been operating in compliance with the existing conditions of approval and the property has been well maintained and appears to be free of any Code violations. • (iii) That this is the first request for an extension of time for this permit, and the extension does not exceed the two permitted extensions of time permitted by Code Section 18.03.090.0301. Approved Approved retroactive extension of time for one year (to expire on May 8, 2002) (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Bristol absent) SR8002KB.DOC 06-18-01 Page 4 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • C. a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3935 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001- 04371) - REVlEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL SIGN PLANS: Bhikhu Patel, 24351 ReDe Gauguin, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677, requests review of final sign plans for a previously-approved restaurant banquet facility with on-premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Property is located at 1125 North Magnolia Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. • • Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve, in part, final signage plans subject to the modifications described in paragraph No. 9 of the staff report dated June 18, 2001, including the modifications to the south wall sign, the removal of the east wall sign and modifications of the pole sign. Approved Approved, in part (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Bristol absent) SR1005CW.DOC 06-18-01 Page 5 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • • • D. a. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY NO. 2001-00003: North Orange Determined to be in County Regional Occupational Program, 2360 West La Palma substantial conformance Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801-3595, request to determine conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the proposed sale of property. (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Property is located at 2360 West La Palma Avenue. Bristol absent) ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that based on the current use the North Orange County Regional Occupational Program's proposal to sell property located at 2360 W. La Palma Avenue is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. SR8008JW.DOC E. Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Approved Meeting of June 4, 2001. (Motion) (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol absent) Bosfinrick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of June 4, 2001. 06-18-01 Page 6 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2c. CONDfTIONAL 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, April 23, and June 4, 2001. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-74 Introduction by staff: Approved Approved Granted SR7931 VN.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced Conditionaf Use Permit No. 2001-04327, for property located at 1546 East La Palma Avenue, St. John Maron Catholic Church. This is a request to reconstruct an addition to an existing church with four waivers. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENEp. Applicant's Statement: Tom Farrage, 3625 Hayden Avenue, Culver City, he is from the architectural firm representing St. John Maron Church. He was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Bostwick asked why is there a new roof being put on the church if they are going to be doing construction? Mr. Farrage stated he had no idea, he has not been to the site in many months. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 06-18-01 Page 7 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved Negative Declaration in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 3971 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for this request. Approved Waiver of Code Requirements as follows: Approved waivers (a) pertaining to the minimum number of parking spaces, (b) pertaining to maximum structural height, (c) pertaining to minimum front yard setback, and (d) pertaining to minimum rear yard setback based on the findings and/or special circumstances as stated in the staff report dated June 18, 2001. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04327 subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated June 18, 2001. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (1:38-1:41) ~ • 06-18-01 Page 8 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMlSSION MEETING MINUTES • 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00047 3c. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04432 3d. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2000-211 (SUBTPM 2000-211) OWNER: Donald Skjerven, 1020 North Batavia Street, Suite #Q, Orange, CA 92867 LOCATION: 1628 West Orangewood Avenue. Property is approximately 0.43 acres with a frontage of 100 feet on the south side of Orangewood Avenue, located 100 feet east of the centerline of Della Lane. Reciassification Na. 2001-00047: Request approval of Reclassification to reclassify this property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agriculturaf) Zone to the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone. Variance No. 2001-04432: Waiver of (a) minimum lot depth, (b) minimum lot size, (c) minimum lot width, and (d) orientation of residential structures, to establish a 3-lot RS-7200 zoned single-family residential subdivision. • Tentative Parcel Map No. 2000-211: To establish a 3-lot, single-family residential subdivision. Continued from the Commission meetings of May 7, and May 21, 2001. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-75 VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-76 Introduction by staff: Approved Denied Denied Denied SR8009KP.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item as a continuation from the May 21, 2001 meeting at the request of the applicant. There are severat requests, a reclassification request from the RSA-43,000 Zone to the RS-7200 Zone; and a variance with a number of waivers to construct a three-lot, RS-7200 Zone single-family subdivision. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Statement: • Donald Skjerven, 1020 North Batavia, Orange 92687. He presented facts and addressed issues. He also indicated he had submitted a package on May 10`h and June 5th identifying seven tracts in close proximity, all of which have variances granted to them which he has documents for. The first package, A1, is an area map showing similar tracts in the area. A2 is his site plan showing the set back requirements per the Code. A3 is the elevation showing a low profile roof, compatible to the neighborhood. Tract 106727 shows plotted foot prints with its dimensions and setbacks. 62 is the title research showing the lots sizes. Hammatt has three lots compatible to his, one is 4,720 and one is 5,800 square feet. Title sheet showing 06-18-01 Page 9 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • the same as to width and dimensions and setbacks. B4 Tract 11,482, total title research showing lot sizes. Note that address 2140 and 2180 have 4,500 square feet and 4,400 square feet respectively. 65 is a parcel on La Palma, similar to his concept, this was approved in 1999. C1, 2, 3 and 4 are projects he has completed in the last two years. Package 2, 21 and 22 tifle research identifying size and total number of units in the area to the size. Items numbered 1 through 7 are title researches identifying address, lot size with corresponding tract maps. Number 8 is an area map identifying the locations of the above six tracts with address and legends identifying waivers granted to each. Regarding the staff report, he stated that in Item No. 15, staff speaks to six units per acre. With that equation 7,200 sq. ft is the minimum lot size proposed, with that strict enforcement, none of the previously six mentioned tracts should have been approved. Item No. 16 speaks to depth and the previously mentioned six tracts had shown some with as little as 51 feet in depth. The widening of Orangewood took approximately 25 feet off his property creating a shortfall, thereby restricting the subject developments potential. Item No. 17 speaks of lot size, the previously mentioned six tracts all have undersized lots by title research. Item No. 18 speaks to width, again the six tracts mentioned all have undersized lots. Item No. 19 speaks to special circumstances, he could not identify any special circumstances for the other six tracts. As to smaller size, there are approximately 60 lots under 6,000 sq. ft. in the same vicinity of his project, per the Title Report. Item No. 20, staff speaks of orientation, of the total six tracts ten lots on the previously mentioned tracts have that condition. Item No. 21 speaks of justification in waivers. Twenty years is a short time in the life of a City. Larger lots have more flexibility for engineering. Staff commented about La Palma (B5) as more compatible which he took to mean no large lots in the area. Title search 21 shows 435 lots from 7,200 to 10,000 sq. ft. and 296 lots with 10,000 sq. ft. and over. Item ~ No. 22, regarding impact and compatibility of the property in set maps, do relate to the zone. He felt he had established six tracts in close proximity with the same impact and compatibility as his. Item No. 23 speaks to comments. He felt his proposal is necessary and desirable for development of the site. Item No. 24 speaks of the second package. Orangewood shows 16-feet wide, that is not his proposal, he does not know where this came from. Loren Way title search shows 6,525 to 6,987 sq. ft. per lot. On Hammatt the owners developed the project, and his lot has 11,491 sq. ft. the remainder has 4,720 to 5,550 sq. ft. Item No. 4, is 12%z feet narrower with the same net size of his project. He went onto discuss Tract 11482 Waverly in detail. Variance No. 3208, on his map B3, was approved with seven waivers in 1981. It came back on May 2"d~ 1982, and got two more lots, address is 2115 Waverly. They include frontage, size, width, setbacks, and orientation. A copy of the meeting minutes for that meeting were provided. He stated that documents he reviewed on the other five tracts indicated they are similar to this situation on Waverly. In closing, he had documents with approved tract maps, title searches and minutes. He felt his waivers were in conformance with what has been granted and approved in close proximity of his project. He felt he had met all the requirements at the same level or above as the six previously mentioned tracts, and that the requested variances are necessary for the presentation and enjoyment of the substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. Denial would be in violation of the State Subdivision Act and improper to the subject property. Ms. Chaulare Nokes homeowner and resident, 1634 West Orangewood Avenue, her husband's name is Doug Nokes. They own the home on the southeast corner of Orangewood and Della Lane at the west side of the builder's property. It seems to her the builder is planning a high-density invasion of the neighborhood. He intends to create a mini, low-cost subdivision by squeezing three, 2,000-sq. ft. homes onto a%2-acre site. He is requesting a reclassification of his property and four variances that totally • disregard existing zoning requirements. The orientation that Mr. Skjerven proposes would allow one of his three, two-story homes to be built within a 12%2-foot setback from his property line along Orangewood. 06-18-01 Page 10 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • The three homes, virtually side-by-side, would form a wall of houses within 18%z feet of her east property line. Backyards have the potential of becoming extremely noisy, with barking dogs, loud music, parties and other disturbing influences that create stress for neighbors. They would have three backyards along their east property line. She voiced concern that a sub-standard 25.5-foot-wide road that dead ends wouid be used to access the three-house subdivision. There is no available space to turn a vehicle around to exit, other than using an unoccupied private driveway of a home, if one is available. Backing out of the street may often be the only way out. In an emergency situation, fire trucks, ambulances, paramedics, and police could be blocked from reaching a home. The proposed subdivision has no available parking spaces. Service vehicles, gardeners, delivery trucks, or visitors would be diverted to curbside parking along Orangewood and Della Lane. This would create a congested and unfair burden on Orangewood homeowners and impact Orangewood traffic negatively. There is a possibility that at any time, one or more of the three houses could be filled with multiple families or multiple adults, creating an impact on the neighborhood and the surrounding homes that is even more devastating. If the proposed subdivision were to be developed the quality of life in their home would be negatively changed forever. The property value would substantially decrease. She respectfully submitted that theirs and neighboring homes would become the victims of an inappropriate and incompatible land use within the neighborhood. Barbara Selleck, 2080 Della Lane, Anaheim. She lives on the north east corner of Della Lane and Orangewood. She started out with a brief background so Planning Commission would know she is not anti-building or anti-progress. She is a licensed real estate agent, since 1978. From 1982 through today she has worked for the Visitors Bureau and Convention Center. Mr. Skjerven has been cooperative in granting access to the plans, but she would like to see something compatible there for the neighborhood. There have been two recent sales, a home listed and sold for $339,000 next to her, this house is a little • less than '/4 acre. Mr. Skjerven's property is not %Z acre, 4.6 actually. The house next to her that sold was in Anaheim on a corner of Anaheim and Garden Grove. The house that sold for $438,000 was a five bedrooms, four bath house in Garden Grove on Della Lane, which is also a large lot. The homes that are proposed are not side-by-side, they are one after the other, one behind the other. She stated she has heard of flag lots being common in all cities and there are a number of these in Anaheim. Putting another house, behind another house, behind another house does not seem compatible with this area. Some items that Mr. Skjerven talked about for the variances that were granted for other tracts, he is correct that they are tracts. She was not talking about a parcel, she is talking about one lot having three homes. The other tracts he spoke of have street access to all the homes, they actually created streets for those that he sited off Orangewood and off Ninth Street. She knows of no focation in Anaheim that has three homes on less than %2 acre. Possibly condominiums or apartments, but not three homes on a single family dwelling location in Anaheim. She would like to propose an idea that Mr. Skjerven build two homes. The ones he proposes are 1.5 stories and she understands he is planning, perhaps if he has too, to only build two homes make them two-story homes. Applicant's Rebuttal: Mr. Skjerven stated the four waivers that were talked about are one-half of what happened on Waverly, they had nine. Mrs. Nodes stated she would not want a backyard facing her property. Her backyard faces someone's side property to the east. About there being no turn around, there is a turn around on the plot map on Lot 3. You have to use their driveway but there is a place to turn around. Regarding a parcel of land being a tract, this comes into the picture that after you have four lots you have a tract, under four lots you have a parcel. He stated he does have a parcel, not a tract. Barbara Selleck was referred to see his exhibit 5B, the City approved in 1999, a concept the same as his at 1312 La Palma Avenue. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • 06-18-01 Page 11 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • Commissioner Bosfinrick asked Greg McCafferty to go over the difference between this project and the one on La Palma. Greg McCafferty stated that in terms of the type of project he believed they are both parcel maps, they both included three homes. The one on La Palma may have had more acreage to work with than this parcel, he cannot speak to the width, he is not aware of the width. However, this is on the other side of town north of this proposal. The framework where that lot is located is different from this proposal. When staff was reviewing it this was not in the context of La Palma, it was viewed in the context of Orangewood and the lots that surround this property on Orangewood in order to make the two findings that are required of State law. Commissioner Bostwick asked about Waiver D. Those homes are not backing onto an arterial highway, this is a side to review. He asked if there is a difference in the setback on that particular project than this one? Greg McCafferty spoke regarding Waiver D and said they are probably similar just because the configuration of both the lots is such that it would be practically impossible to have the home rear onto La Palma Avenue. In that respect, staff agrees that there are hardships on the property. However, the fact that Mr. Skjerven is requesting the other waivers influenced staff s recommendation on Waiver D for denial because you cannot have one and not the other (you cannot build the project as proposed without granting all the waivers). Commissioner Arnold stated he appreciates applicanYs evidence and staff s analysis, it is helpful to Commission. However, as far as a decision on this people need to recognize that land use patterns change, zoning standards change, and subdivision standards change over time. To justify a particular ~ proposal on the basis of what was approved 20 years ago is not sufficient. This would render us not able to adapt and change our subdivision or zoning standards, as they would be locked into what was done and approved in the past. Each project is treated year after year, decade after decade. Although Commissioner Arnold understood the reasoning he felt the appropriateness of this particular subdivision should be viewed in light of the surrounding neighborhood and in light of the subdivision standards and land use standards of today. He felt that dividing this into three different homes/parcels is too much given the neighborhood and analysis in staff report. Commissioner Napoles stated he knows Mr. Skjerven builds good homes and that he had mixed emotions about three homes. He felt Mr. Skjerven gave a good report about what he had done and he felt that Planning Commission should comply with his request. Chairperson Koos stated he agreed with Commissioner Arnold. If we applied the standards of 20 years ago during that time period in the City of Anaheim, West Anaheim actually, based on what he has seen in staff reports regarding commercial quarters in particular. Should people point to mistakes regarding motels and other things, Anaheim would be building another 200 room motel on Beach Boulevard. It is not he same type of land use but it is the same type of logic. He felt that possibly this property could be redesigned and have two units but three is too much for the neighborhood. Commissioner Boydstun concurred. Commissioner Bostwick stated that the difference befinreen this and Waverly is that Waverly had a street going through it so that Hammatt has a regular in and out street and there are property differences and the layout that the properties are. If you drive out and look at the them, a two house subdivision would work better than three homes. • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, pointed out it notes in the staff report that there are two waivers and two findings that are applicable to each waiver. The first one requires, per staff s report, that there are 06-18-01 Page 12 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • special circumstances applicable to property, such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity. Vicinity is not a defined term it is a case-by-case determination depending upon the project that is before the Commission. The Commission must constitute what vicinity is. A great deal of information was provided regarding whether strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classifications, again in the vicinity. It is up to the Commission to determine what this is in this circumstance. It is to that second finding that the comparison data with regard to the other properties would probably be the most relevant. Commission would still need to make that first finding about the special circumstances. She stated she is not disagreeing, simply restating findings. Mr. Skjerven then asked for a continuance. He felt it unlikely that this is not equivalent to the other tracts. Chairperson Koos stated that the decision today is not final. Commissioner Boydstun asked Mr. Skjerven if he was asking for a continuance to consider two lots. Mr. Skjerven would consider the two lots, but he wants put up adequate defense for the three lots. Commissioner Boydstun asked Mr. Skjerven if he would come back with three lots again. Mr. Skjerven said he would study the two lots and come back with that concept. Commissioner Napoles wants to go with continuing this item. Chairperson Koos stated that there is a proposal here today and they had gone through the public hearing ~ process. He then asked Commissioner Arnold how he felt since he made the motion. Commissioner Arnold felt applicant was looking for more time for an either/or proposition to come back with additional support for the three-lot proposal. Mr. Skjerven stated would study that for a week. He felt he had shown plenty of documentation that says The Subdivision Act has to coincide with what has happened. Infield projects are difficult, he does them and he knows how difficult they are. They also have to be a concept that the City would accept. If they would not accept the three-lot subdivision then Commission is denying him some privileges that are enjoyed on Waverly, Hammatt, Conta, Lorane and Wilmot. Commissioner Arnold stated he offered resolution and would stand on that resolution. OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition to the request. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Denied Reclassification No. 2001-00047 on the basis that the subject proposal for three lots exceeds the maximum density permitted by the Low Density Residential designation and does not comply with the minimum lot area and width standards required by Code. Denied Variance No. 2001-04432 based on the following: (i) That there are no special circumstances applicable to this property. This property ~ is rectangularly-shaped, flat in topography, and is similar to other surrounding properties facing Orangewood Avenue. 06-18-01 Page 13 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSlON MEETING MINUTES ~ (ii) That the petitioner could eliminate most of the waivers by reducing the number of lots from three to two. (iii) That the lots would be out of character with the other lots on this block. Denied Tentative Parcel Map No. 2000-211 based on the following: (i) That the map is not consistent with the Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element Map. This request exceeds the maximum density range of six dwelling units per acre permitted by the Low-Density Residential General Plan land use designation. (ii) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of the development as evidenced by the excessive number of unjustified waivers that would be required in order to establish these lots. VOTE: 5-1 (Commissioner Napoles voted no and Commissioner Bristol was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the tentative parcel map and the 22-day appeal rights for the reclassification and variance. DISCUSSION TIME: 37 minutes (1:42-2:19) C J C~ 06-18-01 Page 14 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • 4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 931 (READVERTISED) (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04354) OWNER: Arnel and Marie Melody Reyes, 2270 Ashboume Drive, San Marino, CA 91108 LOCATION: 1652 West Broadway. Property is approximately 0.42 acres with a frontage of 90 feet on the south side of Broadway located 815 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Street (Amaryllis Court). To modify operational conditions for an existing rest home for the elderly to permit board and care for disabled adults ages 18 to 59, and to increase the number of clients to 66 persons with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the Commission meeting of May 21, 2001. • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-77 Concurred with staff Approved Approved modification for 2 years (to expire on June 18, 2003) SR8004KP.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner introduced Conditional Use Permit No. 931, a request to modify operational conditions for an existing rest home for the elderly to now permit board and care for mentally disabled adults, ages 18 to 59 and to increase number of clients to 66 with waiver of minimum parking spaces. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. ApplicanYs attorney was present, Carlos Aguirre but did not speak at this point. Applicant's statement: Arnel Reyes, owner of the property on Broadway, lives at 2270 Ashbourne Drive in San Marino. He clarified for the record and for Commission that they are here today because of some confusion with the permits. They have owned the property since 1995 when they purchased it from the original owner who had the facility as a 66-bed facility. They left the area and lease the space to the current lessee, who was asked by the Department of Social Services, based on the community's need, to go ahead and convert it from the elderly to the young adult which they had complied with and met the requirements for that. He assumes that some of the findings may have been a fluke as they were informed by Code Enforcement that their Conditional Use Permit in the past was set for a 40-bed facility for the elderly and that is why they are present today. He stated that the only reason he is present is because he found out there was opposition to this Conditional Use Permit and he wants to advise that he is making himself accountable, so that if anyone in the audience is in opposition, he has done his best to maintain the facility. He upgraded the facility, he has never been informed of any complaints until the opposition today. Even at a financial loss they have maintained this facility. He has a letter from the neighboring nursery school saying that some clients may have talked to the children, they are a friendly group of people that work there. His children and friends have seen these people. The residents feel this is a home. They are implementing protocols to overcome the complaints. i 06-18-01 Page 15 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • Anthony Freeman, 8512 East Heatherview Lane, Orange. About 20 years ago his daughter graduated from Katella High School, two years later she was diagnosed as schizophrenic. There was a total change, she was charming, intelligent, the top of her class. She became someone who did not know where she was half the time. They tried to deal with it at home, administer medications, it did not work. First off, teenagers become rebellious at a certain point, she is a teenager at 20 who is mentally handicapped. The slightest suggestion of personal hygiene or taking medications she could not tolerate. She responds positively to anyone in authority, i.e. doctors, police officers and the supervisors at Amaryllis Court. The biggest problem is that without her medication, she hears voices, see things that are not there, she has mannerisms such as patting a table for no reason and her attention span is gone. With medication she is practically normal however, she is unable to hold a job or concentrate for any period of time to study and she needs constant supervision regarding her medications. When living on her own, she would not take her medications. She was evicted twice due to filth and poor living conditions. She was then placed in mental hospital her medications were balanced, and her new medication is working, the biggest benefit was placing her in Amaryllis Court. They give her medicine twice a day, they provide her with nutritional meals, they ensure she takes care of her personal hygiene and it is a safe, clean facility. If she leaves the facility, she signs in and out. They are allowed to smoke but only outside the apartments. She is functional and they know when the residents have appointments and they take care of that. Gordon Lay has been a resident at Amaryllis Court for five years now. He likes it there, they are nice. The structure of the board and care keeps him complying with his medications. Most people he knows there are like family, there is no fear of violence. The staff is polite and helpful, they take care of them and clean the rooms. He feels it is very good. He cannot concentrate all the time but they keep him feeling good about himself. His friend works across the street at a school, and they have had no problems with the schools around there. • Esther Wallace, the Chairman of WAND spoke and stated she is unsure if she is for or against this, she needs more information. There is a need for homes for disabled, she also knows there are not enough homes for children like Mr. Freeman has and for Mr. Lay. She asked if this is for disabled such as mentioned previously or for drug rehabilitation people. Would this be for drug rehabilitation people connected with Proposition 36, or is this for disabled people? Alcoholics who have been through a treatment program are labeled disabled. She passes Amaryllis Court daily, it is a beautiful place and she would like to see it succeed. She has a picture of a car driving around advertising affordable residential treatment for men and women. They have found they have some of these homes for people who are in drug-free homes that are giving neighborhoods problems. Chairperson Koos indicated that the Planning Commission has a workshop planned in the near future. Carlos Aguirre, applicant's attorney stated this is not a drug rehabilitation facility. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked about staffing at the location. Staffing was important as Commission was discussing available parking and after looking through the reports and hearing some testimony regarding the degree of care required for these individuals and the number of staff, he asked for some assurances that a staff of eight people at the most is su~cient for 66 individuals. He noted that one gentleman spoke of the degree of care that is necessary. He asked if this is a State requirement regarding staff? Carlos Aguirre stated that staffing meets State and County standards with respect to the number of clients that are in the facility at this time. Is the question parking or staffing itself or the parking for the staff? ~ 06-18-01 Page 16 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES , Commissioner Vanderbilt said the parking is separate, but it led to the question. He felt the parking is more than enough but staff is minimal. There is an issue with regard to the opposition and the concerns about interaction between the child care center and clients and supervision and no supervision. Mr. Aguirre said it was surprising as they never heard that before from the child care facility. They only received that information on the previous Friday. They have now implemented new policies and standards so this does not occur in the future. There is a lot of attention on contacts between the facility residents and the outside. As Mr. Freeman indicated, there are people smoking outside in a defined area. How they would approach that is to define certain areas so the contacts are on a much more controlled basis. It has not been a problem before. Commissioner Vanderbilt responded that perhaps it was not a problem he was aware of. Mr. Aguirre said that they are aware now and have addressed the problem. Chairperson Koos stated that in the morning session, he suggested that Condition No. 4 be modified slightly to read as follows, "that the number of staff AND resident vehicles shall at no time exceed the number of on-site parking spaces." Would this be a problematic change, to add the word staff in there? Mr. Aguirre asked if he meant correlating the staff with the availability of parking? That should not be a problem. Commissioner Boydstun asked Mr. Aguirre how many clients are they licensed for? Mr. Aguirre replied it is a 66-bed facility and has been for 20 years. Through some anomaly it turned out in ~ fact with Fire and with everyone that there was not a Conditional Use Permit as to the 66, how that happened and became, nobody really knows. They were there to legitimize that defect. Commissioner Boydstun stated that was the same number as when it was a convalescent hospital. She toured the facility when she was on an Omnibudsman Committee and it is a well laid out facility. She also stated she did not think they had more in there than when it was a convalescent. ~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None 2 people spoke in favor and 1 person spoke asking for clarification of the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, (Existing Facilities) as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Approved Waiver of Code Requirement pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces; based on the findings identified in paragraph nos. 17 and 21 of the staff report dated June 18, 2001 and the recommendation of the City's Traffic and Transportation Manager indicating that the subject property has adequate parking to meet the peak demand for • the adult board and care facility for 66 persons. 06-18-01 Page 17 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ~ Approved modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 931 (Tracking No. CUP 2001- 04354), for 2 years (to expire on June 18, 2003), to modify the operational conditions for an existing rest home for the elderly to permit a board and care for mentally disabled adults ages 18 to 59, and to increase the number to 66 persons. Amended Resolution No. PC67-92 in its entirety and replaced with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: 1. That the maximum number of adult residents (ages 18-59) shall be limited to sixty-six (66) mentally disabled (38 ambulatory and 28 non-ambulatory) persons screened to successfully integrate into a residential setting. This portion of the conditional use permit shall expire finro (2) years from the date of this resolution on June 18, 2003. 2. That the petitioner shall furnish a copy of the license, with any attached conditions, issued by the State of California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division, authorizing the operation of the adult care facility to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department. Said conditions shall also become conditions of this resolution. 3. That the existing structure shall comply with the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Housing, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim. 4. That the number of staff and resident vehicles shall at no time exceed the number • of on-site parking spaces, which are open and accessible. 5. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 6. That all existing mature landscaping shall be maintained and immediately replaced in the event that it becomes diseased or dies. 7. That the granting of the parking waiver is contingent upon operation of the use in conformance with the assumptions and/or conclusions relating to the operation and intensity of use as contained in the parking demand study that formed the basis for approval of said waiver. Exceeding, violating, intensifying or otherwise deviating from any of said assumptions and/or conclusions, as contained in the parking demand study, shall be deemed a violation of the expressed conditions imposed upon said waiver which shall subject this conditional use permit to termination or modification pursuant to the provisions of Sections 18.03.091 and 18.03.092 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 8. That prior to operation of this business, a valid business license shall be obtained from the City of Anaheim Business License Division of the Finance Department. 9. That all services, including meals, provided at this facility shall be for the residents of this address (1652 West Broadway) only. ~ 06-18-01 Page 18 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ~ 10. That there shall be a 24-hour a day on-site manager who will be responsible for responding to neighborhood concerns regarding this facility. The name and phone number of the manager shall be submitted and kept on file by the Code Enforcement Division. 11. That the operation of this facility shall be limited to non-medical board and care, dispensing prescribed medications and assisting with activities of daily living. 12. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04354 with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, and as conditioned herein. 13. That within thirty (30) days of the date of this resolution, Condition Nos. 2, 8, 10 and 12, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 14. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. . VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Atforney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 21 minutes (2:20-2:41) • 06-18-01 Page 19 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04349 Continued to July 16, 2001 OWNER: Pacific Media Property, Attn: Warren Owens, P.O. Box 2248, Orange, CA 92859 AGENT: Dumitru D. Popa, Jr., 11902 Brookhaven Street, Garden Grove, CA 92840 LOCATION: 1319 and 1325 South Euclid Street. Property is approximately 0.66 acres located at the northwest corner of Euclid Street and Chalet Avenue. To permit a twenty-four (24) hour child care center for up to 90 children. Continued from the Commission meetings of May 7, and May 21, 2001. CONDITIONAL USE PERMfT RESOLUTION NO. SR1008GK.DOC Introduction by staff: Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner introduced the continued public hearing item, Conditional Use Permit • No. 2001-04349, for property at 1319 and 1325 South Euctid Street, to permit a 24-hour child care center for up to 90 children. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's statement: Arthur Choitz, the architect, stated he accepts the conditions and would like to clarify a few points. Under the Conditions Item No. 4, this requires the applicant reconstruct the existing driveways in the street. That requirement is street work when all they are doing is modifying interior of a building and fence around the playground. They would like Commission to reconsider this as these are existing driveways. Item No. 6 deals with trash trucks, they would comply with that and with all conditions as stated. On Item No. 15 he offered clarification. The existing block wall along the west property line is to be increased to a height of six feet. While working with staff it was agreed that they would construct a six-foot fence at the edge of the playground rather than try to rebuild or add finro feet to an existing wall, which may not possible structurally. Their plans reflect a new six-foot-high wall at the edge of playground some 70 feet away from the existing one noted in Item No. 15. Item No. 21, landscaping with a separate irrigation is no problem. ltem No. 22, the exterior lighting fixtures should be downlighted to a maximum 12 feet in height. They had proposed a 15-foot height, they will study the photometrics for a 12-foot-high fixture. He felt they may need to install another fixture at the site. Item No. 23 was confusing as it specifies that fhree-foot-high address numbers be displayed on the roof of the building. However, numbers are not to be visible from street or adjacent properties. How can this be done? Ms. Ruth Rowell had nothing to add to what was said only had a few concerns to be clarified. • 06-18-01 Page 20 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISStON MEETING MINUTES ~ Mr. Choitz noted a comment in the staff report about the noise factor. To mitigate the noise the children's playground has been moved over to the street side leaving a parking area of some 70 feet from the property line in the alley. In addition, they are planting along that alley and parking area and they are putting up a six-foot-high fence at the playground for mitigation measures. In the report it indicates that the solid block wall at the playground would be along the west side and along Chalet. It would not continue along Chalet, that would be wrought iron and masonry. Dr. Julie O'Malley of Dr. Randall Smith's office, she is a dentist at 1311 South Euclid Street in Anaheim. Her property adjoins the proposed childcare site. Her property is very close and children make noise. They intend to have a passive playground area right behind her operatory area. DDS stands for poctor of Dental Surgery. There would be slamming of car doors, children making the noises that children do, and this would be very disturbing for her business. She has been a dentist there for 18 years, the office has been there for 40 years as a dental office. Many people in the community depend on them. The increased noise and parking lot confusion would most likely after some time, drive business away from her. There are many dentists in Southern California and one of her strongest suites is to provide personal, private care. She felt the child care center right next door would be the equivalent of a small school. Her concern is her property in relation to the child care center's location. She asked that if children somehow get away from the child care center and end up on her property, what is her legal obligation? She feels she would have to move which would be a financial burden having to take out loans and going into debt. She asked Commission to please remember the businesses that have been there that would be negatively affected by construction of this school. Gary Huniu, 1326 South Falcon Street, Anaheim. He is directly behind the proposed property behind the alley. He commented on the staff report, he was present at the last meeting, and as he remembers the petitioner requested the continuance as she did not have parking and square footage information of the • property next door. It was after the continuance that one Commissioner asked questions about the playground, lighting and the back fence. On the staff report it talks about the surrounding land uses. The property on south side where it says office is currently being used by the Serenity Hall, which is an Alcoholics Anonymous club. This has been in since February without a Conditional Use Permit and he knows the City is trying to resolve that issue. They operate anywhere from 7:OOp.m. to 9:OOp.m. or 10:OOp.m.. They only have 10 or 12 parking spaces, and there are about 30 to 35 cars. They park down Chalet and Falcon Streets and they were using the parking lot at the facility in question until signs were put up and some of the cars were towed. A house next to Serenity Hall on Chalet is an auto repair shop, they sell used cars and there are Code violations. Directly behind the property next to him, on the corner, is a State-run disabled adult use home. People from that property that use the home meander around the proposed site and the alley. These are things to consider in a neighborhood. There is another property on Falcon, which was recently bought, the people are trying to put in a home for convicted felons to use after they get out of jail. This is being fought too. Many in the neighborhood are upset. He is opposed to the 24-hour nature of the business. Everything else shuts down at 9:OOp.m. or 10:OOp.m. or does not open until 7:OOa.m.. During the evening hours when residents are trying to sleep they have quiet. Some homes back up to the alley. His home is a single residence, next to him there is a two-story back area, they are higher than him and they would be affected by the lighting that would be put in. The lights are 15 feet and he knows Commission is asking for 12 feet yet this would still be higher than his fence and trees, his rooms back up to the alley where his children's bedrooms are, he is concerned they would be affected at night. A couple of other items regarding the proposed maps. He would like to see trees that back up to the alley that would shade the building from the alley, on the map at the 3 to 4 tree, the wide gap says "no tree". He would like a full set of trees to shield cars from the alley as they are proposing access to Chalet instead of access to Euclid. The street would come out from their proposed location and then from the place from across the street. This is a lot of traffic going onto Chalet. He would like to see the area befinreen the two driveways painted red because if there is a car there, it blocks the view of people coming • out of the alfey and people coming out of that office building. He sent a letter April 20, 2001, from the Anawood Neighborhood Council to Planning Commission. These are homeowners boarded by Euclid, 06-18-01 Page 21 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ~ Cerritos, Nutwood and Ball. For eight to ten months they have had regular meetings and at one meeting it was unanimously passed that this conditional use permit would be opposed. Esther Wallace spoke regarding statistics on this, and she goes with opposition. She would not want this many children in her backyard or across the alley playing. In day care centers a certain number of square feet per child is required, about 50 square feet, this is a State requirement. She asked if this had this been checked into. Ninety children are a lot of children to have in a site that is not quite double the size of her house. Twenty-four-hours a day, having seven children of her own, the child would be crying and neighbors would hear this. Slamming doors, 2:OOa.m. pick ups after a party or something is not a good thing this close to residential. Anawood has enough problems. Douglas Renner, 1226 Westmont Drive, Anaheim. He is a property owner to the north of this property. He wants to address amount of traffic this project would generate and the way the lots are configured. It is possible they would come in one driveway and exit the one across the property to the rear, that is 180 trips a day with 90 children. Ruth Rowell, applicant stated that yes, children are noisy, but children are our future and need a safe place. The red stripe on exit is a good idea, she does not want a car accident involving children. Trees on back wall is a great idea. The required square feet per child is 35 feet indoors, 75 feet outdoors. They have complied with those State requirements. Children would be Kindergarten through 6`h grade and more than likely not crying. They are not infants and toddlers, they would not be crying on the way to cars. They do not anticipate day care for people out partying at night, the day care/child care is for working mothers. When people get off work at 6:OOp.m. Anaheim is not closed down, there is Disneyland, restaurants, tons of vocational schools with nighttime programs. She anticipates helping parents trying to further their education. The doctor's office wants to exit onto Chalet. They moved their playground area • to leave the road open for exit. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Koos asked Ms. Rowell where is the nearest like facility? Ms. Rowell stated they are the first 24-hour faciliry in Orange County. Chairperson Koos asked Ms. Rowell how far do they expect to draw clients from? Ms. Rowell replied a two mile radius. Chairperson Koos asked Ms. Rowell if she planned more projects like this? Ms. Rowell responded if this is successful. Chairperson Koos asked Ms. Rowell how she came to select that particular location? Did she do a study regarding CalWorks program parents? Ms. Rowell stated that in that area, yes. However there was no official study. Chairperson Koos again asked how did she come up with this location? If this is a new program there should have been some sort of analysis to determine this is an ideal location. Ms. Rowell stated she feels it is a good location, on a main, busy street and there is a need. • 06-18-01 Page 22 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ~ Commissioner Bostwick asked about the playground area on the north side of property next to the dentist he wanted to know what type it is. Ms. Rowell replied that it is a structured area and on a good day during story time, if a teacher wants to go outside and read a story under the tree, it is for that sort of thing. There would be no running around, no tag, maybe a table to do art or something. Commissioner Bostwick asked Ms. Rowell to confirm this is not a play area with toys and balls. Ms. Rowell replied there would be no toys, balls, jump rope, no tag games. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked regarding the 24-hour operation, that this is the first of its kind in Orange County? Ms. Rowell said that would be day care, the rest are family day care, the ones they would run are more 24-hour. This is the first 24-hour day care center. Commissioner Vanderbilt noted that there is six staff, to handle 90 individuals. That is 15 children per staff member? Ms. Rowell stated that licensing requirement is 1 to 14 and there would be a director on site. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that if they are tying something that has not been used and are applying standard day care model to the 24-hour program, the numbers are already being pushed. He asked if she had considered a smaller scale operation perhaps an 18-hour operation? He felt they were going to the • limits of what Conditional Use Permit says but the actual operation may be smaller. Mrs. Rowell stated that children would not be there over night, just getting picked up later. She is willing to pull back hours if need be. Chairman Koos asked if she was alright with the limitation of children playing outside and she said it was no problem. He asked how the night time operation would be staffed. Mrs. Rowell stated that the State regulates the number of children, there is one director and then a teacher for every 14 children. Chairman Koos asked if this was going on anywhere else, because this is a new concept. Mrs. Rowell stated she is not aware of any daycare centers that operate 24 hours. They know there is a market for this from talking to other day care providers. Commissioner Vanderbilt wanted clarification on staff regulations. Mrs. Rowell stated the licensing people would come out once the building is completed and they would advise the maximum number of children allowed. It probably is befinreen 70 and 90 children. Commissioner Boydstun stated they would not all be there at the same time. She feels there would be a big need for this service. Commissioner Bostwick said we are now in a society where people like !aw o~ces are open 24 hours a • day because they are dealing with clients around the world. This is a growing requirement especially with the Disney area, there would be a lot of parents working past the 6:OOp.m. time. 06-18-01 Page 23 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • Commissioner Arnold asked staff to go through modifications on conditions the applicant asked for. Greg McCafferty stated that Condition No. 4 with regard to driveways, this is an engineering standard so they need to comply with that standard. With regard to on-site truck turn-around, it is also an engineering standard and if she takes it to Streets and Sanitation it should be alright. With regard to Condition No. 15, the six-foot wall along the west property line is a condition of the Code and not really negotiable, it is six feet or a variance. With regard to Condition No. 21, it is an ordinance and required. Condition No. 22 is to make sure it does not impact the neighborhood. Condition No. 3 is feasible because if you have a sloping roof you cannot put on the rooftop the address for the police helicopter, so they have to work with the police department on that. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if it would be likely that people would go to a facility to pick up their child at 2:30 in the morning then bring them to school the next day. Mrs. Rowell said it is not ideal at all and she would not want that for her children, however there are a lot of single moms who have to do it. Commissioner Vanderbilt said it seems like she is looking for a busy street for high visibility purposes. Mrs. Rowell said she is looking for busy street due to questions that come up in a residential neighborhood. Chairman Koos said there are degrees of busy and she picked one of the busiest ones in the City. He does not have a comfort level with the nature of the operation while it is admirable to go out on a limb, he does not understand how she chose this area. This neighborhood in particular has a cumulative impact ~ that he is concerned about. It is becoming a proving ground for half-way houses and recovery facilities and child care centers all within 1,000 feet. Those kinds of impacts need to be part of his decision making process and they have to profect the integrity of their single-family neighborhoods. He cannot support this because he does not feel he has a good handle on the impacts to the neighbors. During the action, Commissioner Arnold offered the following reasons for his resolution to approve the CUP: 1) the surrounding community contains not only residential uses but also professional office, retail and educational uses; and 2) the applicant has mitigated all the negative impacts on the surrounding community sufficiently. The resolution included a modification to Condition No. 2 to require that the applicant fill in trees and maintain all trees along the back wall and to add an expiration date of three years, to expire on June 18, 2004. OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke with opposition and 1 person spoke with concern related to traffic issues. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Commissioner Arnold offered a resolution for APPROVAL of Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04349 and the resolution FAILED TO CARRY with a tie vote (Commissioners Vanderbilt, Koos and Napoles voting no and Commissioner Bristol was absent). Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), to continue the subject request to the July 16, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order for all Commissioners to be present. • DISCUSSION TIME: 44 minutes (2:42-3:26) 06-18-01 Page 24 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ~~ 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 14 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04376 OWNER: David R. Jackson, 7975 Weirick Road, Corona, CA 92883 AGENT: Daniel W. Jackson, 1575 West Mable Street, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 2220 - 2240 West Sequoia Avenue. Property is approximately 5.6 acres with a frontage of 895 feet on the south and west sides of Sequoia Avenue located 180 feet east of the centerline of Siesta Street (Fairmont Private School). To permit two temporary modular classrooms for a previously-approved private school. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Withdrawn SR8007KB.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Napoles offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept petifioner's request for withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04376. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. C ~ 06-18-01 Page 25 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PE_R_MIT_NO. 3349 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04381) OWNER: Western Medical Center, Attn: Patrick Rafferty, 1025 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 965 -1075 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately 6.2 acres with a frontage of 595 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard, located 485 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road (Western Medical Center). To modify previously-approved exhibits for an existing hospital with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. • u OPPOSITION: None Continued to July 2, 2001 SR8015DS.DOC ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), to continue the subject request to the July 2, 2001 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to allow sufficient time to address outstanding parking issues. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 06-18-01 Page 26 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • 8a. CE CATE RI - QA GO CAL EXEMPTION CLASS 11 Approved 8b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04373 Granted for 2 years (to expire on June 18, OWNER: Maris E. Vanags, 1510 North State College Boulevard, 2003). Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Patricia Pereyra, 555 North State College Boulevard, Suite #100, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 555 North State College Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.89 acres located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and State College Boulevard. To permit a mobile magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) unit and generator to be located in the parking lot of a medical office building with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-78 SR8011VN.DOC Introduction by staff: • Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner introduced Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-043 73 for property at 555 North State College Boulevard, to permit a mobile magnetic resonance (MRI) imag ing unit and generator in a parking lot with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's statement: Patricia Prada, 555 North State College, Anaheim 92804. She asked for clarification on Item No. 6 on page 6. She stated that the unit would only be there until 7:OOp.m. It would cost over $8,000 to install electrical at this location, so they want to use a generator, it is run at half load at 34 to 36 decibels. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager explained that Condition No. 6 is a standard condition to ensure that by placement of this MRI, it is not causing problems with the drive aisles or parking space sizes and asks that a plan be submitted. Ms. Prada said that she met with Mr. Yalda on May 15' and they went over the plans and he was not aware that it was just a weekend, after-hours operation. She made him aware of that on May 2"d via a memo. Greg Hastings stated staff would get a memo from Traffic Engineering clearing the condition but recommends it be left in. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if the generator has to be on 24 hours a day. • 06-18-01 Page 27 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • Ms Prada stated it is turned on at 7:OOa.m. then turned off at lunch then after the last patient. Commissioner Bostwick clarified that the hours would be 7:OOa.m. to 7:OOp.m. on Saturday and unit would be removed by 8:OOp.m.. Ms. Prada stated the last scheduled appointment is at 6:OOp.m. and they close at 7:OOp.m. then unit is picked up. Dr. Cerami has owned the property on west side of parcel since 1979 and is concerned about this proposal. They had the MRI unit on weekends without a permit, so he called Code Enforcement to put an end to it. The generator can be heard from across the street and his property is only three feet away where there are several businesses working on Saturdays. He also wants guidance on who to call when the trailer is still there on Sunday. He is concerned about the 18-wheeler attracting homeless and transients who live under these units. He stated an MRI cost is $2,000 to $3,000 so they should be able to afford the $8,000 to install a permanent electrical set up instead of a generator. He strongly opposes the 18-wheeler three feet from his property. Ms. Prada stated she honestly did not know she was not supposed to have the trailer there on weekends and as soon as they found out, she pulled the project. Chairman Koos asked if there was any other place on the lot to put the trailer like on the south property line. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • Ms. Prada stated the trailer is situated so that receptionist can see the unit from the inside of their facility so that they can send patients out to it and for security reasons. Commissioner Bostwick asked if they could put the generator on the south side of the property then move the trailer back towards the trash to block more of the sound. Ms. Prada stated the trailer was there unpermitted for four to five months and they never had any complaints, and the apartments are at least 300 feet away. She would try to work with any recommendations. Commissioner Bostwick stated he is hoping to move it away from the office building. Chairman Koos asked staff about the process taken if the trailer was not removed on time. Greg McCafferty stated Code Enforcement would go out and site them and if they continued to violate the conditions of their Conditional Use Permit it would be brought back to Commission for revocation. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition to the request. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, (accessory structures) as defined in the • California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. 06-18-01 Page 28 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • Approved Waiver of Code Requirement pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces based on the information contained in paragraph no. (13) of the staff report dated June 18, 2001, and upon the recommendation of the City's Traffic and Transportation Manager that the existing parking supply of 85 spaces is adequate to serve the combined uses on this property. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04373 (subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated June 18, 2001), and with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Modified Condition No. 3 to read as follows: 3. That the hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Saturdays. Further, the equipment shall not arrive after 8 p.m. on Friday and the unit shall be removed by 8 p.m. on the day of operation. Deleted Condition No. 4. Added the following condition of approval: 11. That the generator would be placed further south on the west property line next to the trash enclosure and the MRI Trailer would be backed up against the trash enclosure in front of the generator on the west property line. • VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 20 minutes (3:27-3:47) • 06-18-01 Page 29 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • 9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Approved 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4027 Denied (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04368) OWNER: J.D. Gantes Airport Properties, P.O. Box 80340, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92668 AGENT: C& R Development, Attn: Rodney Bickle, 4298 Yukon Avenue, Simi Valley, CA 93063 LOCATION: 8295 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is approximately 2.33 acres located at the northwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road (Burger King). To permit roof-mounted mechanical equipment on top of an existing fast food restaurant. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-79 SR2073DS.DOC Introduction by staff: • Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner introduced this item as a request for Conditional Use Permit No. 4027, to modify previously approved exhibits to permit and retain roof-mounted equipment on top of an existing fast food restaurant, Burger King at 8395 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Brian Price, 27665 Estepoiro, Mission Viejo, 92691 represents AH Foods Corporation, the franchisee that operates the Burger King. The playground was built on top of the building in order to keep parking spaces. Because the original height of building was dropped the HVAC units are visible to street. They want to add a screen wall made out of stucco to hide the units. Staff feels the addition looks out of scale to the surrounding uses, but they feel that a public convenience and necessity is being served by the playground and they have not had any complaints. They would make it match the building. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Koos asked if equipment could be moved under the stairwell. Brian Price stated no because of the firewall. Chairman Koos stated this should show up on the plans, but the approved project is without a roof-top and they would need to ask for approval because it is in the scenic corridor. • 06-18-01 Page 30 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated that is correct and at the time the applicant had the option of including that in the Conditional Use Permit, although staff would have been very concerned about adding heights. At the time there was no provision in the Conditional Use Permit when they added on to the building for that and in its place, staff put a recommended condition which requires a Conditional Use Permit prior to putting in any roof-mounted equipment. It was in the resolution which was given to the property owner at the time. The equipment is very visible from Weir Canyon and Santa Ana Canyon Road and it is the only place in the City where there are two scenic highways crossing. Chairman Koos asked how a project can go through the Building Department and plan check and get approved yet not conform to what was approved by City Council. Greg Hastings stated he can speak in regards to zoning, and when the zoning plan checker checked this, there was no information relative to any roof-mounted equipment on the sheets that were checked, however he would have to check with Building Division to see if there was anything else on any other sheets. Chairman Koos asked if the entire construction set was routed and stamped by various departments. Greg Hastings stated yes but the information was not visible to the Zoning Plan Checker. Chairman Koos said it is contrary to what the applicant said. It still does not conform with the original approval, then what happens then? Greg McCafferty stated that in terms of staff s perspective the resolution that the City Council approved specifically said if there was going to be any roof-mounted equipment on the building, they needed to come • back before the Commission to get it approved before it was put on. The fact that it is already on is in direct contradiction to that resolution. Commissioner Bostwick feels they can put it under the stairwell and solve their problem. OPPOSITION: None Photographs were submitted. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), 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) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 4027 (Tracking No. CUP 2001-04368) based on the following: (1) That it has not been demonstrated that the proposed screening of equipment would be provided by acceptable, permanent building materials, the same as or similar to those which are used in the construction of the underlying building, or that the equipment would be screened from view by acceptable architectural features of the building itself. \ J 06-18-01 Page 31 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNfNG COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ~ (2) That it has not been demonstrated that the method and/or screening material used would not be readily recognizable as a screening device integrated into the design of the building. (3) That the construction of a proposed "box" type of roof screening enclosure, would further increase the height of a building that is already out-of-scale with surrounding buildings. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 13 minutes (3:48-4:01) • • 06-18-01 Page 32 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) Approved 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3860 Approved reinstatement (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04375) for 5 years (to expire on June 18, 2006) OWNER: Scenic Corridor Industrial Park, ACA General Partnership, 2900-A Bristol Street, Suite #201, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 AGENT: WFI, Attn: Shannon McDonald, 15901 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite #306, Lawndale, CA 90260 LOCATION: 5620 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 8.78 acres with a frontage of 520 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue located 585 feet west of the centerline of Imperial Highway. To permit reinstatement of this permit and to delete a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on August 19, 1996 to expire August 19, 2001), to retain a previously-approved telecommunication monopole antenna and accessory ground-mour~ted equipment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-80 SR7986KP.DOC • Chairperson Koos abstained "on the outside chance his company is a~liated, he h as no financial interest in this". Introduction by staff: Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this request for Conditional Use Permit No. 3860 for property located at 5620 East La Palma Avenue, to reinstate the permit for a telecommunication pole and delete the condition of approval pertaining to the time limitation placed on that facility when approved by Commission. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Shanna McDonald, 15901 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite #306, Lawndale, 90260. Commissioner Vanderbilt noted staff s recommendation for continuance and stated there was discussion in the morning session which she heard. He asked Ms. McDonald if is there any additional information she wanted to add? Ms. McDonald said she submitted a packet and now she has an anatysis to add to her packet. Currently there are nine antennas, they can reduce it to six, and they have reduced it from nine feet to three and then to four feet. Sprint is willing to paint the antennas brown to match the telephone pole. She submitted letter into evidence from the engineer. Commissioner Vanderbilt indicated that nobody else would be speaking on this matter. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • 06-18-01 Page 33 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ~ Commissioner Arnold noted that staff had recommended enclosure. Ms. McDonald indicated she saw this and did enclosure mean cylinder type or radon? She explained that this site is critical to SprinYs infrastructure, Imperial and the 91 freeway, and that reducing it to a cylinder cell would have a significant impact on reducing the coverage area. Greg McCafferty said that staff was not thinking radon example, perhaps antennas flush mounted on a pole and enclosed with a cylinder. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if he meant the flagpole? Ms. McDonald stated that cylinder facilities do not accommodate the high level of callers. They would have to put up another facility to accommodate that high service area. Commissioner Arnold asked Greg McCafferty about staff's proposed goal in stealthing the poles. He felt increasing the height of the Galaxy Theatre tower is out of scale for the Scenic Corridor given the visibility of the theatre tower. These antennas where currently located are only visible from the back of the Galaxy Theatre tower, along the river. Greg McCafferty agreed. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if this changes staff s recommendation about a continuance and if they should bring in new plans? Greg McCafferty stated similar to the last meeting with a flag pole to a light standard, if they wish to • approve this, Planning Commission can request that Sprint modify the plans according to the letter that was just now submitted and make that a condition of approval that revised plans reflect this information. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSI710N: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement for Conditional Use Permit No. 3860 (Tracking No. CUP 2001- 04375) for 5 years (to expire on June 18, 2006) to retain the proposed previously- approved telecommunications facility, consisting of one (1) wood monopole with three (3) antennas. The following modifications were made to the conditions of approval: Modified Condition No. 2 to read as follows: 2. That a maximum of six (6) panel-type antennas may be located on the monopole and that the overall structure shall not exceed a maximum height of 55 feet. The antennas shall be painted brown to match the pole, and the antenna arms shall be a maximum of 4 feet. No additional or replacement antennas shall be permitted with out the prior approval of the Planning Commission. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. VOTE: 5-0 (Chairman Koos declared a conflict of interest and Commissioner Bristol was absent) • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 8 minutes (4:02-4:10) 06-18-01 Page 34 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES u • 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 11b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4140 Approved reinstatement (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04370) with deletion of time limitation OWNER: John Sewan and Helen H. Kim, 2233 Via Puerta, Apartment G, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 AGENT: Reverend Young J. Ko, 3321 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 3321 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 0.84-acres with a frontage of 122 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, located 1,118 feet west of the centerline of Western Avenue (Western Young Nak Church). Request for reinstatement of this permit by modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on July 19, 1999 to expire on June 19, 2001), to retain a church within an existing oifice building. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-81 SR7995VN.DOC Introduction by staff: Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner introduced Conditional Use Permit No. 4140, for property located at 3321 West Lincoln Avenue, the Western Young Nak Church as a request to reinstate the church by modifying or deleting time limitation. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Statement: Young J. Kim, Pastor of Western Young Nak Church, the landlord is Helen Kim. He is present instead of the landlord. His church is at 3321 West Lincoln Avenue, there are two buildings. The front building is 3319, this is the medical building. Behind this building is the church. Chairperson Koos asked Mr. Kim if he had read the staff report and all the conditions of approval? Mr. Kim responded yes. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. (vote then taken) ~ 06-18-01 Page 35 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 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 for Conditional Use Permit No. 4140 (Tracking No. CUP 2001- 04370), and deletion of the time limitation. Amended Resolution No. PC99-135 in its entirety and replaced with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval. That the numerical address shall be maintained on the roof in contrasting colors in a manner not visible to the street, and to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department. 2. That within sixty (60) days from the approval of this resolution, the existing palm tree located in the tree well in the public right-of-way adjacent to Lincoln Avenue shall be removed and that both planters shall be planted with "Bloodgood" Plantanus Acerifolia trees in accordance with the City Urban Forestry Division of the Community Services Department. • 3. That trash storage areas shall be maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum one-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum three-foot centers or tall shrubbery. 4. That the hours of operation shall be limited to the following: Wednesday and Friday: 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.; Sunday: 9:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. 5. That an on-site trash truck turn-around area shall be maintained per Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 and maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. 6. That subject property shall be maintained in conformance with Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. 7. That the existing structures shall comply with the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim. 8. That there shall be no outdoor activity (including use of the play area) before 8:30 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. • 9. That no day care facilities or private schools shall be permitted as an accessory use to this church on this property. 06-18-01 Page 36 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • 10. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 11. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 12. That signage for subject facility shall be limited to that shown on the exhibits submitted by the petitioner. Any additional signage shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 13. That no exterior amplified bells shall be installed or utilized in conjunction with this facility. 14. 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 as approved for Conditional Use Permit No. 4140 and as conditioned herein. 15. 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 Bristol absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (4:11-4:14) • 06-18-01 Page 37 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES s 12a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 11 12b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04372 OWNER: Vineyard Christian Fellowship, 5340 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Craig A. Pahl, 5340 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 5300 - 5340 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 23.1 acres with a frontage of 1,187 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue located 2,370 feet west of the centerline of Imperial Highway (Vineyard Christian Fellowship). To construct two marquee signs. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-82 Approved Granted SR1004CW.DOC Introduction by staff: • Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner introduced Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04372, for property tocated at 5300 through 5340 East La Palma Avenue, the Vineyard Christian Fellowship. This is a request to construct two marquee signs. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Applicant's Statement: Craig Pahl, 5340 East La Palma Avenue was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Arnold asked applicant if he understood Condition No. 1 that if marquee signs go up, the freestanding signs come down. Mr. Pahl replied yes. Greg McCafferty noted that this includes the Fairmont sign. Mr. Pahl asked for clarification. Greg McCafferty read the condition to him. • Mr. Pahl said he did not understand that from the last meeting. Fairmont is a separate entity, a separate parcel, and it is over 300 feet away. He does not know how Fairmont Schools would respond to that. He asked if he missed something. He knows they were asked if they would incorporate Fairmont's sign to theirs. 06-18-01 Page 38 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES , Greg McCafferty stated that in the IDC meeting their recommendation was then and now that to support the two marquee signs, all the other signs be removed, including the Fairmont sign. The shaded location map is all one campus with two separate schools on there, one for the church and one they lease out for Fairmont. Staff considered it all one campus and felt there were opportunities on those two large marquee signs to advertise both schools and that was the reason for staff s recommendation on Condition No. 1. Commissioner Vanderbilt indicated he had a letter dated April 30, 2001, which refers to the signs being proposed. It states that, "with these signs as the only identification of the church and school, we would very much like to have them for our members, students and parents". At least by his reading of this it appears that there was some understanding that these were going to be Mr. Pahl's only signs as a result of this Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Pahl agreed stating that those are the only signs, however if Commission looks at the property there are five parcels, but actually three separate, long parcels and three separate driveways going in. Fairmont is one, the church and school are on another one and the field is almost a third one. They were going to put the one sign on the field, one sign in front of the church and then Fairmont would keep their own. He did not understand this in the meeting. Commissioner Arnold stated he thinks this meant the Vineyard School not the Fairmont School. Commissioner Bostwick asked Greg McCafferty if they had complied with Code as far as being 300 feet apart? Greg McCafferty stated they have a large frontage, and they could meet the distance requirements and • they are under the square footage requirements. Commissioner Arnold suggested changing No. 1 to say "not including the Fairmont Private School freestanding sign" for clarification. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, (Accessory structures) 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. 2001-04372 subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated June 18, 2001, with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Modified Condition No. 1 to read as follows: 1. That all existing freestanding signs on these parcels along the La Palma Avenue frontage, not including the Fairmont Private School freestanding sign, shall be • removed. 06-18-01 Page 39 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (4:15-4:21) • • 06-18-01 Page 40 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES S 13a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 13b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3724 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04374) OWNER: The Roman Catholic Church of Orange, 2811 East Villa Real Drive, Orange, CA 92667 AGENT: Andrade Architects, Attn: Stan Andrade, 24501 Del Prado, Suite #D-1, Dana Point, CA 92699 LOCATION: 412 North Crescent Way. Property is approximately 5.01 acres with a frontage of 676 feet on the east side of Crescent Way located 380 feet north of the centerline of Penhall Way (St. Thomas Korean Catholic Center). To construct two modular classroom units in conjunction with an existing church. • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None Continued to July 2, 2001 '~ SR7994VN.DOC ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), to continue the subject request to the July 2, 2001 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 06-18-01 Page 41 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • 14a. CE A QA C TEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 14b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04367 OWNER: Frank W. Reitzel, 840 North Euclid Street, Suite #A, Anaheim, California 92802 AGENT: Isaac G. Aguilar, 1905 East Santa Ana Street, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 842 North Euclid Street. Property is approximately 0.48-acres located at the northeast corner of Catalpa Drive and Euclid Street. Request for approval to establish conformity with existing Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing commercial retail center and to permit a church with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Introduction by staff: Continued to the July 2, 2001 SR8006KB.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner introduced Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04367 for property located ~ at 842 North Euclid Street, as a request first to establish land use conformity for the existing commercial retail center, and then to retain an existing unpermitted church with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's statement: Isaac Aguilar, 1905 East Santa Ana Street. He is the principal agent and pastor of the church at Centro Vida at 842 North Euclid. In the resolution staff recommended that "this request to retain a church at this location be approved for one year. This would allow the petitioner time to find suitable location where the church could grow without impacting the surrounding neighborhood." He asked if they could have more than one year. Commissioner Arnold asked how fast he thinks the church would grow? Mr. Aguilar said two to three years to get something solid and to find something better for the people. Commissioner Arnold asked if two years might help them and if he thinks they would add new members in that time or does he think it would grow later? Mr. Aguilar said it would grow slowly. Chairperson Koos asked if the owner reviewed the staff report about the conditions pertaining to the property itself? . 06-18-01 Page 42 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • Frank Reitzel, owner, 1026 Kiama Street. He stated he did not get the staff report until today, and felt it was negative. The evaluation says the Planning Commission must approve bringing everything up to conformity. He would have to tear the complex down to do that. Also, according to the report it requires 10-foot setbacks. Chairperson Koos asked specifically did he read Conditions of Approval on pages 8, 9 and 10? Mr. Reitzel stated he is referring to Condition No. 4, paragraph 16. Chairperson Koos asked which conditions in particular Mr. Reitzel is concerned about. Mr. Reitzel indicated that the staff report states Planning Commission has to approve setbacks etc. Commissioner Arnold stated that on page 8, starting at the bottom of the page, there are a variety of things having to do with landscaping, address numbers, etc. He asked if Mr. Reitzel had looked at these. These are the sorts of things he is being asked about specifically to bring the property up to standard. Mr. Reitzel said he understood this but he did not have time to review it as he received it today. He understands there is a problem with the landscaping in front, he has had that problem continuously due to restaurants on North Euclid Street for 20 years now. Daily there is trash in the shrubbery, trampling, and he has no idea how to correct that. Chairperson Koos suggested he read Items 8 through 27 carefully as they pertain to the property more so than the use, then he can identify the items that he is concerned about. OthenNise it is difficult for Planning Commission to understand, without pointing to conditions, what he wants addressed. ! Mr. Reitzel stated he is concerned with the landscaping. He takes care of his own graffiti and he has no common wall with the wall that is mentioned in the report. It is on other property and he cannot attach vines to this wall as it is not his. Commissioner Arnold asked if the wall was on someone else's property? Mr. Reitzel replied yes. The housing was built in approximately 1955. The property he owns was not built until 1968, the common wall on the north side next to the preschool is his wall, it is his building wall, it is zero property. The wall in the parking lot was there from the housing and the wall to the east was built when the duplex was built there. Chairperson Koos asked regarding Condition No. 9, if he is saying the common walls are on the other properties? Staff recommends that this be a condition to place five potted trees adjacent to the west elevation. Mr. Reitzel said if you put trees out there, the trees have to drain, and they would drain on the cement and stain the cement. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if he could use a drip irrigation system. Chairperson Koos stated this is not an uncommon request being made of commercial centers that do not have current landscaping. Chairperson Koos stated the Commission was trying to raise the planning standards and there are current Code requirements they a~e trying to address. He asked Mr. Reitzel if he has a problem with five trees ~ and if there are more conditions he is concerned with? 06-18-01 Page 43 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ~ Mr. Reitzel stated that his concern is bringing it up to conformity. It was in conformity when the property was built. Chairperson Koos said the Code says before any new use can be approved, the underlying center has to be up to current standards. Greg McCafferty stated that if this is continued for finro weeks, staff could meet with Mr. Reitzel to explain all the conditions and work with him to address his concerns and come back to Commission, so he is comfortable with all conditions. Chairperson Koos felt this was a good idea and that this item would probably be continued based on staff recommendations. He noted that there were two people who have been here since the beginning of the meeting do they want to be heard? They indicated yes. Mr. Reitzel indicated this is the first problem he has had here. The property to the east of him was built in 1975 or 1980 by Mr. Lynn Thompson and he put the wall on the property. Chairperson Koos stated that he does not think this is considered a probfem, this is the normal procedure to go through. He explained that Mr. Reitzel could have permitted uses coming in and out over the years, but this might be the first entitlement that goes in that would require this kind of scrutiny. This is an ordinary process to go through. Rebuttal Testimony: ~ Erika Hayden lives east of the subject property at 1683 Catalpa Drive. She and her husband own the duplexes there, they live in the back unit and are renting out Unit A. She opposes this as the church is noisy. They use an amplifier system to preach, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday nights. Tuesdays and Thursdays, the church band rehearses there and they use electric guitars and amplifiers. On the posted exhibit, the north and south buildings on the map, the corridor shown goes into her daughter's bedroom. The sound travels even with trees and the brick wall, the noise is incredible. The last two years in summer they did not keep their front door open, they had a steel door installed to keep sound out. They had vinyl windows installed in their daughter's bedroom for soundproofing. They would like to keep the windows open in summer and not run the air conditioning. 7he church has barbecues and they leave trash on top of the brick wall, on the ground and in the landscaping. When they do leave their services, in the staff report on page 3, Condition No. 13, evening services are until 8:30p.m. and Friday until 9:OOp.m., last night (Sunday 6/17/01) they did not leave until 10:OOp.m.. The police department showed up last night (Sunday 6/17/01), they loiter in the parking lot past 8:30p.m. which is late for them. They have called Code Enforcement but they do not operate after 6:OOp.m.. In terms of gra~ti, the owner does a good job of painting the wall. However, they were under the impression this was a shared wall. There is a knob in the sidewalk that is property line dividing mark, it is a six-foot wall and people in the parking lot can look over and look into their yard and this makes her uncomfortable. The wall can be built up to eight feet but the noise is still amplified. Allen Hayden, 1683 Catalpa, he lives on the east side of property. The church is asking for another year to grow, now they are asking for two years. He thinks they are big enough when you see the fathers take their young children to the back wall to urinate on the wall. They are parking three cars on east and west side, they are also parking cars next to each other, at least three deep in middle. With the noise and all this church is big enough. ~ 06-18-01 Page 44 JUNE 18, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ~ Mr. Aguilar said that they do not have services on Wednesday and have not for two and a half months since they feel that the neighborhood should be quiet. Another thing is if somebody there has children and their child urinates on the wall, he feels that is bad as they have three bathrooms inside. He is embarrassed now by this. If they are too noisy, he will try to keep that as low as possible, he will do his best. He apologized for that. If there is something he can do, he will do it. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke with opposition to the request. ACTION: Chairman Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bristol absent), to continue the subject request to the July 2, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order for staff to meet with the owner. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 8 minutes (4:22-4:40) ~ ' MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:42 P.M. TO MONDAY, JULY 2, 2001 AT 10:00 A.M. FOR WORKSHOP WITH SCHOOL DISTRICTS. Respectfully submitted: ( ~ ~- anice O' n r, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~" 3~" 0 J ~ ~ 06-18-01 Page 45