Loading...
Minutes-PC 2001/07/02CITY OF ANAHEIM ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, JULY 02, 2001 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California ~ • COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: IS BOYDSTUN, M;ES VANDERBILT 07-02-01 Page 1 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES r~ LJ RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. DISCUSSION ITEM: Selection of Planning Commission Chairman and Pro-Tempore was continued to July 16, 2001. CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 1-A through 1-C 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 Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, for approval of Consent Calendar Items 1-A and 1-B as recommended by staff. Consent Calendar Item 1-C was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 16, 2001. • C ~ 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 2988 and 3749 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04390) - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Don Bering, 5395 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 2988 (to expand an existing auto sales/service facility to include a car wash/prep area, storage garage and employee parking lot) and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 3749 (to permit an office building). Properry is located at 5395 East La Palma Avenue and 1400 North Brasher Street. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-83 B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4044 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001- 04389) - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: George Adams, 3200 East Frontera Street, Anaheim, CA 92806, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 4044 (to permit a steel storage yard with a temporary modular building with waiver). Property is located at 3400 East Frontera Street. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-84 C. Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of June 18, 2001. (Motion) Terminated (Vote: 7-0) SR8001 KB.DOC Terminated (Vote: 7-0) SR8000KB.DOC Continued to July 16, 2001 (in order to make changes/corrections.) (Vote: 7-0) 07-02-01 Page 2 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2000-00028 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2000-00379 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2000-00032 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2000-00381 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF ITEM NOS. 2a, 2b AND 2d INITIATED BY: Community Development (Redevelopment Agency), 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION A: This irregularly-shaped 2.49-acre property with a frontage of 300 feet on the south side of Crescent Avenue is located 300 feet east of the centerline of Dale Avenue (523 through 537 North Colgate Street; 2752 through 2768 West Stockton Avenue and 2752, 2754 West Crescent Avenue). Reclassification No. 2000-00028: A City-initiated reclassification from the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple Family) to the RS-5000 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone or a less intense zone. LOCATION B: Parcel 1: This irregularly-shaped 10.5-acre property is • located at the northwest corner of Brookhurst Street and La Palma Avenue (1101 through 1111 North Brookhurst Street). Parcel 2: This irregularly-shaped 7.2-acre property is located at the northeast corner of Brookhurst Street and La Palma Avenue (1110 through 1142 North Brookhurst Street and 2141 through 2175 West La Palma Avenue). General Plan Amendment No. 2000-00379: A City- initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate certain properties as follows: Parcel 1: from the General Industrial Land Use designation to the General Commercial Land Use designation; Parcel 2: from the Commercial Professional Land Use designation to the General Commercial Land Use designation. Reclassification No. 2000-00032: A City-initiated Reclassification of certain properties as follows: Parcel 1: From the ML (Limited Industrial) and CG (Commercial, General) Zones to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. • LOCATION C: Parcel 1: Property is approximately 4.59 acres located Approved Granted, unconditionally Recommended adoption of Exhibit A to City Council Granted, unconditionally Recommended adoption of Exhibit B to City Council Recommended City Council review of Items 2a, 2b & 2d 07-02-01 Page 3 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • at the southeast corner of Crescent and Magnolia Avenues (2497 West Crescent Avenue and 430 through 590 North Magnolia Avenue). Parcel 2: Property is approximately 17.54 acres located at the southwest corner of Crescent Avenue and Gilbert Street (2400 through 2470 West Crescent Avenue and 511 through 541 North Gilbert Street). General Plan Amendment No. 2000-00381: A City- initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate certain properties as follows: Parcel 1: from the General Commercial land use designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation; Parcel 2: from the Medium Density Residential land use designation to the Low Density Residential land use designation. Continued from the June 4, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting. RECLASSIFICATION 2000-00028 - RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-85 GENERAL PLAN 2000-00379 - RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-86 RECLASSIFICATION 2000-00032 - RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-87 ~ GENERAL PLAN 2000-00381 - RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-88 SR7996VN.DOC Gregg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this item was continued from the June 4, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting in order for staff to meet with concerned citizens, residence, and business owners. As part of the recommendation based on what Commission requested, there is an additional exhibit, Exhibit B, which would take the property from its current designation of Medium Density Residential Zone to Low Medium Density Residential Zone, which essentially corresponds to a density of what the current mobile home park currently has, in terms of the units, which is 152 units. Chairperson Koos asked Mr. Borrego briefly to explain what took place at the meeting. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, explained that following the last public hearing, staff met with a group of about a dozen residence, business owners, and property owners. It appeared that they were primarily representing the retail center, which was at the corner of Magnolia and Crescent. However, there was at least one individual there who resided at the mobile home park from Gilbert and Crescent. Staff essentially explained the rationale behind their recommended action, and had the feeling from that meeting, that all of their questions had been satisfied. An attorney, representing the property owners for the commercial retail center at Magnolia and Crescent, wrote Mr. Borrego a letter after the last hearing asking for clarification, which he responded to in writing. The attorney then wrote him and indicated that they were satisfied with staffs explanation and did not oppose the action. • 07-02-01 Page 4 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • Andy Rottenbacher, owner for the mobile home park, stated in terms of one particular item, he did not meet with any of the staff. He wondered which of his residence actually attended. He wrote a letter to the Commission indicating his recommendation to change the property width from its current designation of Medium Density Residential Zone to Low Medium Density Residential Zone. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Gregg McCafferty read into the record the following recommended revisions in the staff report: • Paragraph 30, subparagraph E be deleted from the staff report. • Subparagraph F then becomes E. Essentially, has the same recommendations, but also allows the Commission to adopt the Low Medium Density recommendation. • Paragraph G becomes F. I FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: One person spoke with concerns regarding General Plan Amendment No. 2000-00381. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 2000-00028 (to rezone these properties from RM-1200 Zone to the RS-5000 Zone) unconditionally. Recommended City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2000-00379 (to redesignate Parcel 1 from the General Industrial land use designation to the General . Commercial land use designation; and Parcel 2 from the Commercial Professional land use designation to the General Commercial land use designation) by adopting Exhibit ~,A„ Granted Reclassification No. 2000-00032 (to rezone Parcel 1 from the ML Zone to the CL Zone) unconditionally. Recommended City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2000-00381 (to redesignate Parcel 1 from the General Commercial land use designation to the Low- Medium Density Residential land use designation; and Parcel 2 from the Medium Density Residential land use designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation) by adopting Exhibit "B". Recommended City Council consideration of the negative declaration and reclassifications in conjunction with City Council's mandatory review of the general plan amendments. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated this item would be set for a public hearing before the City Council. DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (1:29-1:39) • 07-02-01 Page 5 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04367 OWNER: Frank W. Reitzel, 840 North Euclid Street, Suite No.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 retain an unpermitted church with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the June 18, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-89 ~ Approved Denied Denied SR8016KB.DOC Gregg McCafferty, Senior Planner, presented this item stating this item was continued from the June 4, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting in order for staff to meet with the property owner to explain the conditions of approval that are being recommended to the Commission. Also, a Code Enforcement Officer surveyed the condition of the parking lot and determined that the parking lot does need to be restriped and resurfaced. Commissioner Bristol stated, for the record, that he was not present at the last meeting, but listened to the tapes. ApplicanYs Statement: Isaac Aguilar spoke in favor of the church's activities, and requested a two to three year extension in order to re-establish the church in a more compatible community. He further requested to have church services on Wednesday's at least 3 months out of a year. He explained that church services are currently being held only on Fridays, and Sunday mornings and Sunday evenings. Additionally, he expressed concern for the use of the adjacent parking lot being shared with the neighbor restaurant, I-HOP, causing it to appear that the church's use required more parking spaces than in actuality. Public Testimony: • Erika Hayden, a neighbor resident, expressed strong concerns regarding the noise levels caused by amplified music and amplified preaching. She was also concerned with the number of parking spaces 07-02-01 Page 6 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • being used by the church members, as well as with the Ioitering that goes on after the church services, and also trash that could possibly result in insects and other pests. Ms. Hayden stated that the community has endured the inconvenience of not being able to enjoy summers with opened doors and windows for two years, and that for two years the church has not had a Conditional Use Permit. She further stated that Code Enforcement has not been able to enforce the rules because the church services are held in the evenings. Ms. Hayden concluded by expressing concern that if the applicant is permitted to stay any longer, that he would want to keep staying there. Elizabeth Sanchez spoke in opposition of the church being in the neighborhood due to similar reasons as Ms. Hayden. Ms. Sanchez stated that she also had experienced some problems with parking and noise. She appealed to the Commission to deny the applicant's request so that they could enjoy their community in peace. Frank Reitzel, owner of the property located at 842 North Euclid Street, first apologized to Commission, regarding the last meeting of June 4`h. He stated that he could not hear what was really being said, and therefore, responded inappropriately. Continuing on with his statement, Mr. Reitzel stated that he was in agreement with the recommendations, except for Item 9 under retail center. He presented photographs to help point out the effects of his presentation. Chairperson Koos informed Mr. Reitzel that if the photographs were presented, they could not be returned. Frank Reitzel was aware of this policy. Mr. Reitzel stated that the staff recommends that he put planter boxes adjacent to the property wall on the East side of the property. However, since the wall is cracked in several places, and additionally, since it is not his property, he believed it inhibited him from obliging their request. Mr. Reitzel further believes that planter boxes would block the vision of the tenants and prohibit ~ access to the traffic on Euclid Street. Also, Mr. Reitzel stated that installing planter boxes in that location would be an invitation for people to walk by and put their cigarette butts in. He feels that he is already having to gather up trash from neighbor businesses, and would not like to enhance and already unwanted duty. He concluded that he feels that the Cypress trees are a part of the building and is, therefore, an asset to the community. Donna Reitzel stated that she is also owner of the property that is in question. She proclaimed that the property is well maintained. Mrs. Reitzel explained that the City picks up trash twice a week, and that she, along with Mr. Reitzel, also picks up trash on a daily basis. She also stated that the majority of the cars parked in the parking lot are coming from the I-HOP restaurant, expressing that even the manager of I- HOP parks there. Given the opportunity to rebuttal the public testimonies, Mr. Aguilar stated that special events at the church would result in an increase of cars in the parking lot periodically, but that holidays also resulted in an increase of cars from the I-HOP patronage. Mr. Aguilar further contended that members of the church sometimes bring food from home and eat in their cars, but felt that he could easily get that under control. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun asked the applicant if he used amplified music for his services. Mr. Aguilar replied yes, further explaining that the amplifiers were 130 feet from the neighbors. Commissioner Boydstun asked if the sanctuary was at the front of the building or the back of the building. Mr. Aguilar replied that it is in the front of the building, toward Euclid Street, and not close to the parking • lot. 07-02-01 Page 7 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • Commissioner Boydstun inquired why there was a need for amplifiers for that small of a congregation, and if it included music. Mr. Aguilar replied that music was included. Commissioner Bristol reminded the Commission and public that he was not present for the last meeting. He assured Mr. Aguilar that he had listened to the tape, and therefore had three observations: • The site is too small for the church • Unnecessary use of amplified music and preaching, particularly since the window is exposed right across the wall. • Item No. 9 is difficult for a one year CUP because it is a very small parking lot. It is highly cemented everywhere and the contestants are not the proper owners of the said property. Commissioner Bristol further observed that all other conditions in the staff report would bring the center nearly to compliance for a commercial center. Therefore, he expressed agreement with Mr. Reitzel of redoing Condition No. 9 or eliminating 9 all together, but restricting the use for one year. And, banning the use of amplified music. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked the owner if he still stood behind his letters where he had exceptions with some of the items on the recommendations for the CUP, or if now, he was in agreement with the staff's suggestions. Mr Reitzel stated that since that time he had spoken with Mr. Bass, Social Planner, and they had worked out their differences. • Commissioner Vanderbilt then referred his question to the staff, asking them to observe the landscaping in the pictures where Mr. Reitzel indicated that the landscaping was blocking the frontage of the building. Commissioner Vanderbilt pointed out that Mr. Reitzel said that when he made his agreement with the tenant, he was of the understanding that they would have as much exposure as possible, and that this requirement of putting in a potted plant would block some of it. Commissioner Vanderbilt wondered if it looked like it would be more than 10 percent of the wall signage. Mr. Reitzel replied that it would be the window sign. Gregg McCafferty, Senior Planner, explained that before they were allowed 20 percent of the area of that elevation, and now it is 10. And, that since the fabric store has been there a very long time, that the sign was put up under the City's 20 percent requirement Code, and therefore would be in conformance with that provision of the code. Mr. Reitzel, referring to the window size section of the code, stated that it would be taken care of. Commissioner Arnold expressed that he was not supportive of this particular CUP for the following reasons. • The size of the property is too small for this particular use. • The impact on the neighbors. • A fear that there is more going on than what is represented. • No justification, based on how they are actually operating. Commissioner Bostwick stated that he concurred. • Chairperson Koos stated that he also concurred with Commissioner Arnold, based on the public testimony, and the previous public hearing. He generally has a concern about churches occupying 07-02-01 Page 8 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • traditional retail tenant spaces. He expressed that he knows it happens a lot, but disagrees that it is the kind of land usage that the City should be supportive of, especially since it is a commercial center which is adjacent to residential. So, since they have been there two years without a permit already, he recommended that they get out as soon as possible. Commissioner Bristol stated that he disagreed. He said that he thought the City had an opportunity to bring a center into compliance, especially since there was a willing owner of a piece of property. Commissioner Bristol felt that since they had already been there for two years and during that time had not posed a problem to the community, and somehow after two years all of a sudden now they are a problem, he felt that they should be given the opportunity to move. He stated that the City had done many of these type churches where people are given an opportunity to move. If the Commission strengthens the CUP, regarding the music, and the parking, which would give them the same break that other churches have had; time to find another suitable location, and also an opportunity to bring it into compliance. Commissioner Bristol further stated that he drove through the parking lot and agreed with Mr. Aguilar that a lot of people were coming from I-HOP. Chairperson Koos stated just for the record, that Mrs. Hayden, on two occasions, has stated, that Code Enforcement could not respond due to the time frame of the business. Chairperson Koos asked Mr. Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, to explain why action would or would not be possible within two years. Don Yourstone expressed that Code Enforcement could, indeed, address any noise problems that occur on weekends, because people were assigned to work weekends. He further expressed that if a problem occurred when people were off duty that Code Enforcement could make arrangements with the staff to come out and do a sound reading on the violation of any noise or any other problems in the neighborhood. Additionally, Mr. Yourstone pointed out that it had been noted by staff's memo, that there are some ~ problems with the shopping center that will be addressed and corrected. Chairperson Koos asked Mr. Yourstone if it was normal procedure when a complaint is received to check to see if the property use is in violation of the permit. Don Yourstone explained that when an officer gets an assignment, he should check to see if it is a permitted use on the property. He further stated that he was not aware of any noise complaints received from this property. He agreed to check the files to verify any complaints against the property, although he suggested that any such complaints would be indicated in any officer's memo. Chairperson Koos stated that he took the opportunity to observe the parking lot activity last night prior to today's meeting, and actually witnessed some of the complaints of the public testimony. Therefore, he expressed that he could easily see the neighbors concerns. He further stated that he was not willing to sacrifice the conformity of this center for continued disruption to the neighbors. He then asked Commissioner Bristol if his desire to extend time to the church was due to a desire to balance the neighbors and the church in order to get the conformity of the center. Commissioner Bristol conceded that it was correct that he desired conformity, because as he stated, he believed the applicant and he also believed the neighbors. Commissioner Arnold stated that giving one more year would actually prove to be more time than it appeared, explaining that CUP where property is an ill fit makes it very difficult to get a real turn around. Commissioner Bostwick stated that perhaps it was a disservice to extend more time to the church because lingering would hinder the growth of the church. • Commissioner Bristol further stated that a fast move would cause the church to end up on the street. 07-02-01 Page 9 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • Commissioner Bostwick contended that it would let the church know that they needed to find a new home very soon. L FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: Two people spoke in opposition to the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 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. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion to approve Waiver of Code Requirement and motion FAILED TO CARRY with the following vote: AYES: BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, NAPOLES NOES: ARNOLD, BOSTWICK, KOOS,VANDERBILT ABSENT:NONE Commissioner Bostwick offered an alternative motion to deny Waiver of Code Requirement and MOTION CARRIED with the following vote: • AYES: ARNOLD, BOSTWICK, KOOS, VANDERBILT NOES: BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, NAPOLES ABSENT:NONE Commissioner Bristol offered a resolution for approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04367 with changes to conditions of approval and THE RESOLUTION FAILED TO CARRY with the following vote: AYES: BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, NAPOLES NOES: ARNOLD, BOSTWICK, KOOS, VANDERBILT ABSENT:NONE Commissioner Bostwick offered an alternate resolution to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04367 and THE RESOLUTION PASSED with the following vote: AYES: ARNOLD, BOSTWICK, KOOS, VANDERBILT NOES: BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, NAPOLES ABSENT:NONE Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 44 minutes (1:40-2:24) • 07-02-01 Page 10 JULY 2, 2001 PL.ANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04363 Granted for 5 years (to expire on July 2, OWNER: Helen Goldman, Harvey Tepper, Robert and Renee 2006) Tepper, Attn: Robert Tepper, 19500 Merridy Street, Northridge, CA 91324 AGENT: The Consulting Group, Inc. Attn: Dayna Aguirre, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Suite No.870, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 3440 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 1.2 acres located south of the southeast corner of Knott Street and Lincoln Avenue. To permit a telecommunications antenna with accessory ground-mounted equipment. Continued from the June 4, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-90 SR1106TW.DOC Gregg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 4 stating this item was a continued item from the June 4, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting. He explained that at the request of the Planning • Commission, the petitioner has brought back a plan that shows a flagpole installation at the front of the commercial retail center, with the accessory equipment on the roof of the Stater Bros. Market. McCafferty stated that staff continues to believe that an alternative installation, such as an architectural enhancement to the center is appropriate and, therefore, continue to recommend denial of the flagpole. ApplicanYs Statement: Dayna Aguirre stated that she read the staff report and concurred with the conditions. She stated that Sprint PCS met with the property owners within the shopping center, and worked with all of them, amending their current lease, as well as some additional negotiations that took place in order to meet the Commission's recommendation. Ms. Aguirre stated that Sprint PCS designed a facility thaYs a"win/win" situation for all, and hopes Commission will be supportive of the changes. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, appealed to the Commission, contingent on the approval of the flagpole installation, recommending a condition of approval that the flag be proportional to the model pole. McCafferty stated that there is an installation that Commissioner's are aware of on Center Street where the flag on that pole has no proportion to the actual flag mass. Therefore, McCafferty suggested if the Commission chose to approve the flagpole, a condition is made which requires them to work with staff on determining what the right size of the flag should be. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that in regards to staff's opinion to find something that is visually more appealing, there is a church on Knott, about two blocks south that has a spire tower. Therefore, he asked, if that was considered at all or is that not an option? • Dayna Aguirre stated that Sprint PCS did provide staff with a search ring, showing the area that they were trying to stay within, and the intersection was their primary objective. Ms. Aguirre stated that they looked 07-02-01 Page 11 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • at seven other locations, as presented at the last hearing, and each one failed either due to leasing zoning or signal propagation. Chairperson Koos stated that the problem for the Commission had been solved, but that one had been added for him. He stated that the nine-foot screened walled equipment being proposed on top of the roof of the mini-strip center, was originally behind the center before. Therefore, he asked, if it was too far of a cable run or something? Dayna Aguirre confirmed yes, it is too far. Chairperson Koos asked if is too far in terms of how the curve lies, in terms of the routing, or why is it too far, because, he explained he has seen cable runs that are long. Dayna Aguirre explained that for SprinYs equipment, they are not allowed to go beyond 150 feet for a cable run. She further explained that what they have right now, is stretching it, and, this was even a tricky built for them, but they are willing to buy off on it. Chairperson Koos expressed that he has seen more di~cult situations for them. Commissioner Bostwick stated that he knows they put the cell site out in Yorba Linda at one of the shopping malls, where they built an old fashion wood water tower, and, explained the equipment is clear around behind the Vons Market; a very long distance. Therefore, he asked, how did they do that, if you can't do 50 feet? Dayna Aguirre explained that they can do 50 feet, but cannot go beyond 150 feet, adding that she did not know exactly what carrier that was at that location. • Chairperson Koos answered that it was Sprint. He confirmed that he was at the site, and was, consequently, trying to think about how big that building is, and where that back area is, and wondered if it was like a cable tray up the back of the building, and over the roof, and then into a trench to the flag pole. He stated that it is hard to believe that it is only a 150 feet. Dayna Aguirre confirmed that, it is only a 150 feet. Chairperson Koos stated that the nine foot screened wall is like a story high, and big. Dayna Aguirre stated that the current screening thaYs there, is almost like a false front, that Stater Bros. has, so they would basically try to mimic that as much as possible. Ms. Aguirre further explained that it is not even a parapet, it is just a wall, and there is nothing behind it, so their equipment essentially would be hidden within that area. They would just be providing additional screening so that it is not visible along Lincoln. Commissioner Bostwick asked if there is any reason why they could not bring it over to the edge of the building and wrap around the building, rather than just wrapping around SprinYs equipment, so that it looks like part of the building instead of just a box added on? He added that that there are two stores there, coming out onto the edge, and then towards the alleyway so that that finishes that building off, rather than just a small box. Dayna Aguirre agreed that that is something they would definitely consider. Chairperson Koos asked whether it is screening the entire building, and how big is your shelter? • Dayna Aguirre answered that the leased area, itself, is 17 by 18. 07-02-01 Page 12 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • Greg McCafferty suggested that perhaps another option, instead of putting a massive parapet that extends around that side of the building, they could find a location where the building bends around from Stater Bros. to integrate one of the cabinets into one of the retail center walis that's out of the walk-way. And, maybe then the cable run would not be that long. He added that It is hard to tell from the site plan whether that is possible, by just looking at the photo stems as long as they are not placed in front of one of the retail units. He suggested that perhaps instead of a big parapet, just an equipment screen box that would be on the ground, and put up against the retail center wall, integrated into the wall somehow. Commissioner Bostwick asked if the cabinets that are on the next item, located on Lewis Street, was a part of Sprint or if it is a different carrier? Chairperson Koos answered, that the carrier is Singular, but the same consulting Company. He then asked Ms. Aguirre if she thought they could make it happen since the dimensions seemed close to 150 feet? He also asked Ms. Aguirre if she knew how it would look on the roof; explaining, that the screens, never turn out right because they have bolts all over them and look unsightly. He felt 9 feet tall would not look good. Chairperson Koos asked, whether Sprint's construction crew told them that it could not be accomplished? Dayna Aguirre answered, yes, they did. She explained that it is, primarily, up to the engineers not necessarily the construction team. The construction team find ways of doing many things that seem to be impossible, but the ultimate buy-off is from the art of engineers, however, they seem to believe that they are going to lose too much of a signal stream through the cable run. Commissioner Bristol asked why the pole or something go didn't in the back area as previously discussed? He further stated that Sprint originally proposed a light stand in the back, and therefore, Commission asked them to look at putting up a flagpole, and to look at the old PAC Bell, which would now • be a storage company. Commissioner Bristol suggested putting it in front of that, rather than in the shopping center as a way to make it look more appropriate to the property. Consequently, he asked, Ms. Aguirre if Sprint just could get accomplish that somehow? Dayna Aguirre responded that in that time frame, they could not get a response from anyone adjacent to the property. Therefore, since Sprint already has a signed lease with the property owner, obviously it was much more feasible for us to stay on the property. Chairperson Koos asked, in terms of aesthetics, how is the cable going to get from the roof to the pole? Dayna Aguirre replied that it is going to be from inside, and would not actually show cable trays or anything from the side of the building. She further confirmed that it would be through the roof, and into the ground, on the inside of the building, and then underground. Chairperson Koos asked if Sprint could trench from the back alley through the unit? Dayna Aguirre replied that it was up to the engineer. Commissioner Bosfinrick stated that he would go with the staff's recommendation for denial of the flagpole. He suggested they locate a different place, or work out a different arrangement, since the end result would not be appealing. OPPOSITION: None • ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration 07-02-01 Page 13 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04363 for 5 years (to expire on July 2, 2006), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated July 2, 2001 with the following modifications: Modified Condition No. 7 to read as follows: 7. That the proposed flagpole shall be limited to displaying the United States flag and/or California State flag. The flag shall be proportional in size to the monopole. No signs, banners or any other form of advertising or identification shall be attached to the proposed "flagpole" structure. No signs, banners or other advertising shall be permitted attached to this flagpole. Amended Condition No. 5 and replaced with a new condition, to read as follows: 5. That the accessory equipment be ground-mounted and within an enclosure behind the shopping center. Added the following condition: 17. That the monopole shall have a uniform width. ~ ~ VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 20 minutes (2:25-2:45) 07-02-01 Page 14 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • 5a. 5b. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04384 Granted for 5 years (to expire on July 2, OWNER: Brumleu Investments, L.P., Attn: Bob Brumleu, 1700 2006) South Lewis Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: The Consulting Group, Attn: Paul Kim, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Suite No.870, irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 1700 South Lewis Street. Property is approximately 7.7 acres, with a frontage of 375 feet on the east side of Lewis Street, located 230 feet south of the centerline of Howell Avenue. To permit a telecommunications antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-91 SR8018VN.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating that is a request for a Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04384, for property located at 1700 S. Lewis Street; a request for a telecommunication's antenna, and accessory ground-mound equipment. • Applicant's Statement: Paul Kim stated he is representing Singular Wireless. He stated that currently, Singular Wireless, as well as Sprint, are experiencing coverage difficulties in the vicinity of this proposed site. In an effort to respond to these concerns they have identified this site as an essentially crucial site to be developed into the network. He thoroughly reviewed, and considered staff's comments, both their pre-file comments as well as their conditions, in the staff report. Based upon initial pre-file comments there were essentially several issues and concerns that they brought up with staff, and he strongly feels that Singular has not only given thorough consideration for each of them, but that they also have addressed them adequately. The concerns that they've had is that the proposed monopole would adversely affect adjoining land uses, and that the monopole would be significant in height and would be seen from the surrounding industrial area, as well as that it would be out of context. They feel that this site would be ideal, for several reasons, first of all, this particular location is in an M L Zone which is heavily industrial in nature. Secondly, the location of the flagpole is, in fact, located at a location, where an old flagpole used to be, and for some reason was removed. They are essentia!!y putting back a flagpole in that same location. They've also addressed their concerns and complied with other conditions, for example, they've agreed to screen the equipment cabinet with landscaping, which is next to the flagpole, so that it will not be seen from the public view. They feel that the flagpole, and equipment cabinet, is set back far enough from the setback requirements in the frontage of the property to the point where, in this location, because of the fact that it is the front area of the entrance of the industrial building, that the flagpole is sufficient in its context, and is well placed. Singular strongly feels that staff concerns have been adequately addressed by this design, and that they've done a great deal to minimize the impacts to the surrounding community. Chairperson Koos asked Mr. Kim what was his proposed landscaping in front of the equipment cabinet? • 07-02-01 Page 15 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ~ Paul Kim stated that they do not have a specific landscaping plan, and that landscaping would be receptive to comply with submitting a separate landscape plan during approved, Plan Check process, as is required. They are open to any suggestions, regarding landscaping. Greg McCafferty advised it be listed as Condition No. 4 in the staff report. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Paul Kim stated the width of the poles, is actually, approximately 19 inches. Singular feels it is sufficient enough to provide for the cable to run up along to the antennas. However, he foresees a problem in being able to create a uniform width because at the top it gets slightly wider, nevertheless, from a distance, and a visual standpoint, it would achieve the desired effect of having a pole that is uniform all the way up. Commissioner Arnold stated that he wondered if there was some limit on how wide it would get. Paul Kim stated that based upon these plans, it is difficult to determine off-hand. Although, it does not seem as though you would have to carry out, probably, an increase of approximately 6 inches or so to accommodate enough uniform width. But, that is something he would have to look into it. Chairperson Koos stated Condition No. 3 should probably be modified, if this project is approved. Greg McCafFerty confirmed staff would modify that condition for the resolution. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated, regarding the exisfing flag on Center Street, due to the existing pole, that most poles have the rope and some type of pulley at the top that allows for the flag to move in different directions. He pointed out that the illustration shows the flag flown at full mass with the wind blowing in it. • He therefore, asked if it would present a problem to have a rope or some sort of device that allows the flag to fly more freely in any given direction, and not wrap around? Paul Kim expressed that he was not certain. He then asked if the one on Lincoln, is fixed. Chairperson Koos stated that he thought it was. Pau! Kim felt confident that their construction crew could probably come up with something that could address that concern. Chairperson Koos advised, if it is not raised and lowered, it will have to be lit at night. Commissioner Bostwick stated that it needs to look like a flagpole. Paul Kim indicated they could definitely look into designing that look. Commissioner Bostwick asked why the office building on the corner of Lewis and Katella, was not utilized. Paul Kim replied he did a thorough alternative site analysis. The initial search ring is actually located at the intersection of Lewis Street and Cerritos. Commissioner Bostwick stated it could not be more than about 400 feet away. It is either within their search ring or close to their search ring. Greg McCafferty advised that the building is at least fwo to three stories. • Paul Kim stated he was driving by that area in order to do his alternative site analysis, and found Katella and Lewis to be outside of the search ring. And, he further stated that for the most part, in that area, the 07-02-01 Page 16 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • buildings seem to be relatively one to two-story industrial type buildings. Their maximum height that they need to achieve is about 45 feet. He stated that they do not want to strive for a situation where they would alter a building significantly, where they would have to add a great deal of height to architecturally integrate. So, there are several reasons why several candidates would drop out. One would be primarily, it does not meet some engineering requirements as stated by their radio frequency engineers or simply their lease agreements or site acts obtain lease agreements with some other site, as well. Greg McCafferty suggested if the flagpole is going to be approved, that Condition No. 5 be modified. Stating that the first sentence needs to say that the monopole shall be uniform in width, and be constructive, permanent materials simulating an authentic flagpole and that wou(d take care of that. Commissioner Bostwick stipulated that the flagpole appear real. • ~ ~ •- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04384 for 5 years (to expire on July 2, 2006) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated July 2, 2001 with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 3 and 5 to read as follows: • 3. That the proposed flagpole shall be limited to the display of the United States flag and/or California State flag and be proportional in size to the monopole. No signs, banners or any other form of advertising or identification shall be attached to the proposed "flagpole" structure. 5. That the monopole shall be uniform in width, be constructed of permanent materials simulating an authentic flagpole, and have a mechanism which would allow the flag to fly freely. The pole shall have a steel finish exterior and maintained in good, clean condition. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 15 minutes (2:46-3:01) • 07-02-01 Page 17 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINlJTES • 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Continued to 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3724 July 16, 2001 (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 No.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. Continued from June 18, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8017VN.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request to construct two modular • classroom units in conjunction with an existing church. Property is located at 412 North Crescent Way, Saint Thomas Korean Catholic Center. Applicant's Statement: Stan Andrade, the architectural agent for the St. Thomas Korean Center and the Diocese of Orange, stated that in acceptance of everything in the conditions, he wanted to make sure, of what Ms. Vanessa Norwood is recommending; that the two previous resolutions be put aside, and that one new resolution with these particular conditions take the place of those two. Based on the confirmation of this resolution, Mr. Andrade stated that he had a couple of questions; one: is the sewer capacity litigation fee an absolute, because they are adding a couple of classrooms. Greg McCafferty advised that might be a fee that is adopted by ordinance, but that he would have to check on that. Stan Andrade stated the second question asking if (tem No. 4 was in the conditions regarding the signage, and that this is probably a carryover from one of the two other previous resolutions. He did not think that that sign exist right now. He stated that Item No. 7, is asking that prior to building permit issuance or within a one year period, that Condition No. 3, and Condition No.4 be put in place. Therefore, he asked whether it states that the sign needs to be built and put in place before a building permit can be issued. Greg McCafferty advised Condition No. 4 be taken out of No.7. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • Commissioner Bristol asked if anyone from the church was present. 07-02-01 Page 18 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • Stan Andrade replied, unfortunately they were not able to make it. Commissioner Bristol asked the purpose of the two module buildings. Stan Andrade stated, currently, they meet a need they have that is already on site. They do religious education, as part of their program, to children grades K to junior high. Commissioner Bristo! stated that this church has been before Commission a few times in the past, and at one time informed Commission that there was no school on the focation. They are located next to a freeway, railroad track, and an industry area. He then asked if this is an expansion? Commissioner Bristol asked whether this is catechism? Stan Andrade explained he is a representative of the church, and did not have all of the answers, but offered to refer to someone in the church and get back to Commission. Chairperson Koos then suggested continuing this item. Commissioner Bristol stated that he would like to speak to someone from the church. He then offered a motion for a continuance until July 16, 2001. Commissioner Napoles seconded the motion, and a vote was taken. The motion carried. • • ~ ~- ~ ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None • ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the July 16, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order for a representative of the church to be present and to allow the applicant to submit a more detailed Letter of Operation. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 12 minutes (3:02-3:14) r~ ~J 07-02-01 Page 19 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04382 OWNER: Southern California Alcohol and Drug Programs, Inc., 11500 Paramount Boulevard, Downey, CA 90241 AGENT: Lynne Appel, 11500 Paramount Boulevard, Downey, CA 90241 LOCATION: 405 South Rose Street. Property is approximately 0.27 acres, with a frontage of 75 feet on the west side of Rose Street, located 310 feet north of the centerline of Santa Ana Street. To permit a transitional living facility within an existing apartment complex for recovering substance abuse mothers and their dependent children, with waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-92 Approved Denied Granted for 3 years (to expire on July 2, 2004) SR8012KP.DOC Senior Planner, Greg McCafferty introduced Item No.7 by stating that it is for the use of an apartment complex as a shelter for homeless women. ~ Applicant's Statement: Linda Pell stated that this organization has been before Commission on a number of occasions. Ms. Pell explained that the organization has been operating in the City. They chose the City of Anaheim because of its proximity to 321 State College Boulevard. Transportation will be provided to the mothers that reside in Costa Mesa. She stated that the organization is really cognizant with the City of Anaheim's policies. Ms. Pell added that she though the building looked good on the outside, on the inside it was not, and that the organization has really star~ed a massive clean up that the neighborhood can be proud of. Suggesting that one of the things about all of their programs is that they tend to be a good neighbor. Nancy Harless, Program Director, stated one of the problems the women have in the six months program is where will they live, once they have graduated from the program. Ms. Harlass explained that the program helps the women with their resume, receive GEDs, etc. so that they will be able to have transitional living, as long as they remain sober. She indicated that some of the women were in the audience. Andrea Branam stated that she was leaving in four weeks, and otherwise would not have anywhere to go once she left the program. Ms. Branam stated that she is the single mom of four kids, and it was a relief for her to find out that the center would be there for her once she graduated. • Bud McDonald, Co-founder of the group, stated that they were starting a men's program for Cyder House. He said they received a grant to start Holy House in 1985. Mr. McDonald explained that there were 400 women in Holy House for all kinds of reasons, and that women are allowed to bring their children with them. He further explained that the reason for the transitional house is so they could find a number of places to put the women after they finish the program, and where they are in a controlled and safe environment. Mr. McDonald rendered an emotional scenario of a girl that was the epitome of everything they were trying to do. Illustrating that she was a beautiful woman, had two children, and when her time 07-02-01 Page 20 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • was up, she had to leave because they had no place to put her. He added that consequently she went back from whence she came, and died with a needle in her arm, four months later. Mr. McDonald stated that, at that point, he vowed that it would never happen again. He proposed that this is why they needed the property at Pearl Rose. Bridgett Popkin stated that she has a job, but did not have a place to live. She stated that having the transitional apartment would provide her with a head start, because there would be other sober women, meetings, and counseling. Ms. Popkin expressed that as an escrow officer, it would not take her a long time to get back on her feet. She affirmed that having the support is everything. Michelle Wasson stated that she feels there is a great need for the Heritage House Village in Orange County due to the limited options available to recovering addicts with children. She stated that she entered the program after leaving a physically abusive relationship in which she had relapsed, and if she had not entered the program, she would have lost her 16-month old daughter. Ms. Wasson stated that she would be graduating soon and feels it would be a great benefit to have a safe environment in which to continue her recovery. Ms. Wasson further stated that like many of the other women, she has no family support. Transitional living with others who are recovering addicts, struggling to get back on their feet with the same goals; to stay sober, take care of their children to the best of their ability, and become productive members of society again, would be a God sent. Johnell Pe'a expressed a plea for Commission to grant Heritage Village the Conditional Use Permit so that she, like many other women, could have one on one counseling. Ms. Pe'a stated that she is trying to stay sober and clean for herself and for her children. She explained that she is the mother of a 7-year-old daughter and two twin boys that currently live at the program. Vicki Maxwell, holding her eight-month-old son, while standing at the microphone, stated that she has • been at Heritage House South for five months, and will graduate in one month. Ms. Maxwell explained that she has no family support and no place to go once she graduates. She informed that she has a college education, and felt confident that she will be able to apply it, as long as she remains clean and sober, and in an environment where it is somewhat structured. She exclaimed gratitude for the childcare provided on the property so that she can be close to her son. Ms. Maxwell stated that she would like to be able to stay in transitional living to be able to make that adjustment to the outside world. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Arnold asked Greg McCafferty to state for the record why staff was recommending three years as opposed to a shorter time. Greg McCafferty explained that this is a land use thaYs not really deflned by the Anaheim City's Municipal Code, and because of that, staff thought that three years is appropriate so that any potential impacts on the neighborhood can be assessed. He stated that based on staff's experience with the facility on North State College, it certainly does take awhile for them to get up and running, as the petitioner mentioned. After cleaning out the units, re-carpeting, and doing all the clean-up, it takes awhile for them to actually get operational, and thaYs why staff feels that finro to three years is appropriate. However, In this case, staff suggests three years as the appropriate time for this facility. Commissioner Boydstun stated that she is very familiar with the area that they are going into, and thinks that it is going to be a double plus for Anaheim City. Additionally, Commissioner Boydstun feels that it is a facility that is needed, and thinks this program will help turn around that whole area. She affirms that past experience with the organization eliminates all possible quorums. Commissioner Bostwick asked if there would be a manager on the property. ~ 07-02-01 Page 21 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • Linda Pell confirmed that a manager would be on the property seven days a week, from approximately 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Additionally, the program will have management presence on the property on Saturdays and Sundays. She asserts that the program is quite structured and would remain in a very suitable and respectful way for everyone living there. Commissioner Boydstun asked if the program provides care for residents when they are going to work, as well. Linda Pell affirmed yes, and also so that they can go to the meetings and do the things they need to do to stay clean and sober and to be better parents. Chairperson Koos stated that the proposal states for a maximum of 6 people, per two-unit apartment. Regarding the proposat, he asked, for a woman that has four children you would team her up with a single person? Linda Pell affirmed that Chairperson Koos' statement is correct, and further explained that a woman with four children would be teamed with a pregnant woman because in order to come into the facility, because of the grant from the Orange County Family Commission, a woman must be pregnant or parenting. She expressed that Orange County Family Commission's interest is on young children, because they feel that is most important, developmentally, for a lot of these kids. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if Ms. Pell would clarify again what the expectation is for childcare to occur at State College. Linda Pell explained that the program would have small childcare groups. Maybe three children that would be babysat by somebody paid for out of this grant, so that the mothers could attend a twelve-step • meeting in the evening, AA or NA. Which is the most traditional thing that the moms need the care for. Ms Pell stated that, also, when the mother is in counseling, whether parenting, or co-lateral counseling we would watch the children. She stated that this is all spelled out in a very extensive grant that the program wrote to the family's Commission, to the City of Orange, and, consequently, they gave Heritage Village almost $900,000. She exclaimed that it was quite an honor, and Heritage Village is very proud to have their trust. DURING THE ACTION: Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, suggested a change to the condition statement that Condition No. 11 would read Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. McCafferty stated that there is no revision. • ~ ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None FAVOR: 7 people spoke in favor to the subject request. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Denied Waiver of Code Requirement pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces since it was determined not to be necessary. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04382 for 3 years (to expire on July 2, 2004) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated July 2, 2001 with the following modifications: • Modified Condition No. 11 to read as follows: 07-02-01 Page 22 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINU7ES • 11. That subject property shall be developed and 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, 2, 3, and 4 and as conditioned herein. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 25 minutes (3:15-3:40) • • 07-02-01 Page 23 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4166 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001- Approved modification 04378) Approved two (2), 8c. RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH one-year extensions of CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL time (one retroactive) to expire on OWNER: International Sanga Buddhist Assoc., 8752 December 6, 2002 Westminster Boulevard, Westminster, CA 92683 AGENT: Paul Kott, 1225 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 610 South Sunkist Street. Property is approximately 1.07 acres with a frontage of 268 feet on the east side of Sunkist Street, located 400 feet north of the centerline of South Street. To permit modification of exhibits for a previously-approved cultural and meditation center with accessory caretaker's residence and a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval. SR8020KB.DOC CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-93 • Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval and to modify previously-approved e xhibits for a cultural and meditation center with accessory caretaker's residence. Paul Kott, agent, 1225 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, explained they are requesting modification to previously-approved Conditional Use Permit No. 4166. The property owner, the International Sanwa Buddha Association, desires to construct a cultural and meditation center with a caretaker's residence on site, which was previously approved December 6`h, 1999, for the previously stated use. Requesting no further waivers of any kind to the existing conditions, all the church activities occur during the same time, between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.; all church related activities are indoors, with exceptions of special holidays, subject to special permit by the Planning Commission. The code requires 44 parking spaces on the site and the revisited plans provide for 54 on-site parking spaces, plus street parking if needed. The existing residential structure that currently exist on the property would be integrated into the new temple. The square footage is going to be reduced with the height of the roof going from 35 feet previously approved, to under 28 feet. Setback and landscaping requirements are either met or exceeded by the petitioner's request. Additionally, the petitioner requests a retroactive extension to comply with the staff recommendations as indicated in the report. As part of their religious observances, they have four annual festivals which are not exclusively indoors. The first one is the Tet Festival celebrated one weekend in either January or February; Buddhist Commemoration Day, celebrated for one day at the beginning of March; Buddha's birthday, celebrated one day in mid-May; and Memorial Day, celebrated one day in mid-August. The outdoor festivity includes amplified, soft music, no dancing, no outdoor eating, no outdoor "gong banging", and other things that were discussed at the last meeting. They have meditation sessions, occurring daily, and Vietnamese and English language courses would be given from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. On Sundays church is usually attended by approximately 25 members at a time. The general service, occurring on • Sundays from 12:00 noon until 1:00 p.m., is typically attended by about 150 people, including children. Staff requested an asphalt type of roofing material. The staff had recommended a coral red tile roof, and 07-02-01 Page 24 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • they have agreed that that would be fine with them. That would be something to tie in the roof of the existing residences, as well as the new build'+ng itself. Mary Bush lives at 5892 Karen Avenue, Cypress, California and is owner of the property directly south of this property. They share one of the block walls. There is a block wall that is a 175 feet long, but it is only 6 feet high from a 140 feet from the back to the middle area of the property. It is three feet high for the last 35 feet for the middle of the property to the street area. She is concerned that if the wall is not 6 feet high, people and kids will play on it or jump across onto her property. Francis X. Nutto lives at 621 S. Jambalaya St., in Anaheim, behind and just south of petitioners property and supports the petition. After reviewing the new plot plan, it is apparent that the proposed changes are insignificant. The original landscaping and buffer zones appear to be intact. Staff feels that the concrete tile roof is more compatible with the architecture than a composition roof, but asked if they examined the possible need for structural reinforcement of the existing roof if concrete tile is required. The visual benefit of the concrete tile may not be worth the financial burden if structural changes are required to support the heavy tile load. Therefore, Staff suggests that the Planning Commission let the staff recommendation stand, but modify the proposed conditions of approval, so that compliance is voluntary, at the discretion of petitioner. Neighbors generally agree that this proposed use, is the least objectionable use of this property. Chairperson Koos asked Mr. Kott if he had comments on request for a block wal! extension? Paul Kott stated it was the first he heard of it, and he doesn't think children would play on the wall, but in the spirit of being a good neighbor, the group would be very reasonable about trying to accommodate their neighbors. • THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol agreed with Mr. Nutto, and doesn't think there are that many tile roofs or blue roofs over in that area. Therefore, the petitioner should have the option. Chairperson Koos asked if there is an expiration date on this. Greg McCafferty said it was approved in December 6, 1999, and has a one year approval until December 6, 2000, then it has 180 days to come back for an extension of time, which the petitioner complied with. If a retroactive extension of time is approved, it would be until December 6, 2001. Chairperson Koos felt Commission should add more time because the petitioner is free of any code violations. Greg McCafferty stated Commission could give him two, one-year extensions of time so it could take it to 2002. Commissioner Arnold thought they approved four religious festivals a year. Greg McCafferty stated he was reviewing the past action on this permit, and although that was discussed, it was not carried through the condition. What was carried through was Condition No. 2 modifying to take out no special events shall occur on the property. So, the fact that it was taken off would allow them to come in just like any other church and apply for a special event permit for whatever festival they wanted. Commissioner Bristol stated he liked Condition No.16 of the CUP, that any outdoor event shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 6170 sound pressure levels of the Anaheim Municipal Code. • 07-02-01 Page 25 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • Greg McCafferty stated that because Condition No. 2 requires that all the church activities be conducted indoors, there is no need to have Condition No.16. Commissioner Bristol clarified that they cannot have any outdoor events. Greg McCafferty stated they can have special events, but they would have to be conducted indoors, unless the Commission, as part of this action, permitted them to have the outdoor events in conjunction with the four events. Paragraph No. 9, on Page No. 2, should be 42, and that would also carry through to the recommendation in paragraph 21. Condition No.1, on Page 6, would be consistent with Commissions passed approval; the hours of operation would be 10:00 a.m. instead of 7:00 a.m., until 7:00 p.m., we recommend deleting Condition No.16, if Commission concurred that all the activities should occur indoors. Normally, all activities need to occur indoors, but when you have a special event, often times they have, with commercial business, the activity occurs outdoors. Staff felt because of where it was, that they should all occur indoors. Commissioner Boydstun asked if they could change Section 2 to add an exception for the four annual festivals? Chairperson Koos stated let the applicant represent as stated. During the Action: Commissioner Boydstun stated they should give them the option on the roof. Tile may mean major construction and surrounding properties are not tiled. Commissioner Arnold felt that what they are proposing is better looking than the tile. • Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, clarified that the resolution deleted Condition No. 25, and the Commission would specifically include the four festivals in this resolution. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated they had to do extension time. However, regarding the wall issue, the code requires that in the first 25 feet, be no higher than 3 feet, like any other front setback. However, if the two property owners are in agreement, and a variance is applied for, they can come back before the commission as a separate issue. z~l ~ t~]~JI1- [ci b'~_~.'i~l Pil~~i-e~:~ L~l i r:l ~~ 4_~-1- I1- [riK~l Pil Pi I b'~7 [~7- I_~~ 1[~l- OPPOSITION: One person spoke with concern related to the subject request. FAVOR: One person spoke in suppo~t, but also voiced a concern related to the subject request. ACTlON: Determined that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 4166 (Tracking No. CUP 2001- 04378) with the following revisions made to the staff report at the meeting: Modified subparagraph (b) (iii) of Paragraph (21) to read as follows: (b) By resolution, approve Conditional Use Permit No. 4166 (Tracking No. CUP 2001-04378) to modify exhibits for a previously-approved cultural and ~ meditation center with accessory caretaker's residence based on the following: 07-02-01 Page 26 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • (iii) That this facility as revised, would provide 54 parking spaces which is 10 spaces (28%) more than required by Code (42 spaces). Therefore, this development should not create a traffic or parking burden upon the adjacent streets or adjoining properties. Approved the request for two (2), one-year extensions of time (one retroactive) to expire on December 6, 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 December 6, 1999, 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. Amended Resolution No. PC99-221 in its entirety and replaced with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval. 1. That church activities shall only occur between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m., as indicated in the submitted letter of operation. • 2. That all church related activities shall be conducted entirely indoors, with the exception of allowing four (4) annual holiday festivals. 3. That no private school shall be operated in conjunction with this facility. 4. That the water backflow equipment and any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division behind the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 5. That since this project has landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet, a separate irrigation meter shall be installed and comply with city Ordinance No. 5349 and Chapter 10.19 of Anaheim Municipal Code. 6. That the existing 3-foot high retaining wall adjacent to Sunkist Street shall be resurfaced with stucco to match the proposed building in color and texture. 7. That a photometric plan shall be submitted to the Police Department and Zoning Division for review and approval. Said plan shall show lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernable the appearance and conduct of persons on or about the parking lot. When installed, said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the windows of nearby residences. • 8. That no roof-mounted equipment shall be permitted. 07-02-01 Page 27 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • 9. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses. 10. That plans shall be submitted to the City Tra~c and Transportation Manager for his review and approval in conformance with the Engineering Standard Detail No. 137 pertaining to sight distance visibility and wall/fence locations near Sunkist Street. 11. That any trees planted on-site shal! be replaced in a timely manner in the event that they are removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 12. That all trees planted on-site shall be minimum 24-inch box size. 13. That a Lot Line Adjustment plat shall be submitted to the Development Services Division of the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer and then recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder to merge the three (3) existing lots such that any new building and its improvements lie completely within one (1) parcel. 14. 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. 15. That the on-site landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained in compliance with City standards. ~ 16. This condition was de/eted at the meeting of July 2, 2001. 17. That all existing water services must conform to current Water Utility standards. Any existing water services that are not approved by the Water Engineering Division for continued use shall be upgraded to current standards or abandoned by the developer. If existing services are no longer needed, they shall be abandoned by the developer. 18. That the private water well located on the subject property shall be abandoned if no longer in use, in accordance with the requirements of the Water Engineering Division. 19. That the legal owner of the subject property shall provide the City of Anaheim with a public utilities easement to be determined as electrical design is completed. 20. That plans shall be submitted to the Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval in conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway location. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. 21. That the two (2) existing mature trees adjacent to Sunkist Street shall be retained and maintained as part of this project. u 07-02-01 Page 28 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • 22. That the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requesting termination of Variance No. 4180 (waivers of location and orientation of buildings required site screening and minimum lot width to construct four single-family residences) to the Zoning Division. 23. That the number of persons residing on-site shall not exceed five (5). 24. That a new six (6) foot high decorative concrete block wall shall be constructed to replace the existing chain link fence along the north property line. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans and submitted for building permits. 25. This condition was deleted at the meeting of July 2, 2001. 26. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Revision No. 1 of Exhibit Nos. 1 through 4, and as conditioned herein and excluding the monument sign depicted on Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No. 1; and that any wall and/or fence constructed in the required front setback along Sunkist Street shall not exceed three (3) feet in height as specified by the Zoning Code. 27. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 4, 7, 10, 13, 19, 20, 22, 24 and 25, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for • further time to compiete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 28. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 5, 6, 17, 18 and 26, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 29. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 22 minutes (3:41-4:03) ~ 07-02-01 Page 29 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • 9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Continued to 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04383 July 16, 2001. OWNER: White Star Partners, LLC, Attn: Terry G. Roussel, 4590 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite No.610, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 2991 East White Star Avenue. Property is approximately 3.73 acres located at the northeast corner of White Star Avenue and Armando Street. To permit the retail sales and installation of automobile parts and accessories. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8019KB.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the July 16, 2001 Planning . Commission meeting in order to allow the petitioner to submit revised floor plans and sign plans. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~~ U 07-02-01 Page 30 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES • 10a. 10b. 10c. ~ ~ CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 Continued to WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT July 16, 2001. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 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. Continued from June 18, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR2076DS.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the July 16, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to readvertise the subject item to include a proposed medical office building north of the subject site as part of the parking waiver. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 07-02-01 Page 31 JULY 2, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:05 P.M. TO MONDAY, JULY 16, 2001 AT 9:30 A.M. FOR A WORKSHOP ON SOBER LIVING/GROUP HOMES AND PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. ~ r~ ~.J Submitted by: Received and approved by the Planning Commission on Ossie Edmundson Planning Commission Support Supervisor 07-02-01 Page 32