Loading...
Minutes-PC 2001/11/05~ ~ • CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2001 Council Chambers, City Haff 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRPERSQ.N~T~NY; ARNOLD COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: PAU,L, BtJSTW~„y ;~ ~'~LI~~~BOI(DSTUN, S~l'EF'1~EN E~RI~TQL~GAIL ~`A~`fl~If~~J~, JOHN KOOS COMMISSIONERS ABSENT~-~J~11~JlE~~VAND~RBICT ~ ~' ~~ ~ ~ ~.~~; ~~ ' ~~ ~., ~ Y o ~,~ . ~4 ~ ~ ~ ~ .,. , a STAFF PRESENT: ~~ ' ~~`~ ~~ _;: « f~ ~ ~ f~~ ~'~ ~ ~~ Selma Mann, Assistant C~~Attorne~r~`~ ~ ~°"~ Melanie Rdams~ Associ~te E~°~~neer Greg Hastings, Zoning Q~~sion`IV~anage'~~`°~ Pat Chandler~5eh~or°~~~~See~ear~y~; Greg McCafferty, Prmclp~l'Pl~r~~~r ~ E~ Elly Fernandes;S~e~ior~ecr,etaryv Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner~~ '~ ~ ~ ; ~ `~~ ~ z ` ~-~ °_:, ~ ~ AGENDA POSTING ~' ~om°~~~te~~c~p~r:~f the Planning Co m4ssi~r~"A~enda~as postec~ ~t 10:30 a.m. on ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Friday, November 2,~OCi~, inside ~play case~ocat d~in,the ~`ny~~ of~p~theCoun~cii~'Lha~~nbers, and also in ~ y8 `k ~~~ .. ~~ ' ~...y 'F I s"'~ Y~ r @ $E~ the outside display k~o~s~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ . ~,~,~ .„ ~ ~ ¢ E~;. sN L'~3' y F F 3" i~ ' .n ~~; , :,. i~. F:,: ~ ~ ~~' .. 5i ~,fh,+~~~,,~~N~ffi'~ a..~... rt.. ...w....,, ::: ~^F ~ ~.. .. „ " PUBLISHED: Ana~eim Bulfetir~'~Newspaper on 7hursd,~v;~October 11,""2041.>~~~ , CALL TO ORDER ~ ~ W `'~ " ~~ ~ ~ E ~~ ~ w,~~ ~ ~~ ~"` ~' =' ; ~~"°.mr .„ R r ~ a~ ~ ~ - ~ ...~~ .: '~ '"- -~,s,~ ~% ~~' PLANNING'COMM~S~1~C31~~'MO~NI~{S',,~SE~SI~N 11'OO~A M~`~ • STAFF UF?DATE~~~~G~OMMIS~(C~~t'~U~' VARfOUS'C1T~(~~z~ ~ ~~ DEVELOP~ENyfS ~ISSU~S ~~S REQUEST~17 gY " `" PLANNING ~E3MIVlI~~~~OiV~'" ` S ~ ~, ~ W~< ~'F~ ' f 'A~~ s S ~ • PRELIMINARY`PLAN I~~~/I~W ~~ ~ ~ 5 ~ E~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEA~'tll~_`G SESSION ~~~ ~~~ -~~ _.~>-~ ~ r...,., .~~ 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 I, PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT ' ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H:\DOCS\CLERICAL\MINUTESWC110501.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net 11-05-01 Page 1 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PLANNtNG COMMISSION MINUTES . RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:30 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS: OFFICIALLY ACCEPT COMMISSIONER VANDERBILT'S RESIGNATION AS CHAIRPERSON OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION (MOTION) ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept Commissioner Vanderbilt's resignation as Chairperson of the Planning Commission (2001 /2002). ELECTION OF A NEW CHAIRPERSON (MOTION) ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby elect Commissioner Tony Arnold as Chairperson of the Planning Commission (2001/2002). ELECTION OF A NEW COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON PRO TEMPORE (MOTION) ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), that tf~e Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby elect Commissioner Paul Bostwick as Chairperson Pro-Tempore of the Planning Commission • (2001/2002). APPOINTMENT OF A COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO THE ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES TASK FORCE (MOTION) ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), to continue the subject appointment to the November 19, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to provide Planning Commission additional time to address the selection of a new representative. PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. CONSENT CALENDAR: ltems 9-A through 1-D 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 fhe 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 MOTfON CARRiED ~ (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-A through 1 D) as recommended by staff. Consent Calendar Item 1-D was approved with corrections to be made to the Planning Commission Minutes of October 8 and October 22, 2001. Vote: 6 0(Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) 11-5-01 Page 2 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a) DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM Determined to be in GENERAL PLAN - GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY NO. 2001- conformance with the 00010: County of Orange Public Facilities and Resource Department, Anaheim General Plan Attn: John D. Pavlik, 300 North Ffower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92702, request for determination of conformance with the City of Anaheim General Plan for the licensing of flood control channel land to an adjacent property owner for parking and drive aisle purposes. Property is a parcel west of 2125 East Orangewood. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the County's proposal to issue a iicense for parking and drive aisle purposes on flood control channel property located west of 2125 East Orangewood Avenue is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. SR1112TW.DOC ~ • 11-5-01 Page 3 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • B. a) CEQA EXEMPTION - SECTION 15061 (b)(3) GENERAL RULE Concurred with staff. b) CODE AMENDMENT ZCA 2001-00011: City of Anaheim , 200 South Recommended adoption to Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, City initiated ~Planning City Council. Department) request for code amendments pertaining to parking requirements in residential zones. Citywide. (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Vanderbilt was absent) Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of CEQA Exemption Section 15061(b)(3), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council adoption of the draft ordinance (attached to the November 5, 2001 Planning Commission staff report) amending Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to modifications of parking requirements in residential zones. The proposed draft ordinance contains the following modifications: • requires 3 garage spaces and 3 open spaces for residences with 5-bedrooms or more in all single-family zones. ~ • retains multiple-family parking requirements and continues the incremental increase of .5 space per bedroom for units with more than 3 bedrooms. SR8134CF.DOC • 11-5-01 Page 4 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~ ~~ ~~ C. a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04332 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04473)- REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Max Heitzman, 608 2 Avenue South, Suite 475, Minneapolis, MN 55402, requests for termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04332 (to permit a pharmacy with drive through and three unit retail center with parking waiver). Property is located at 1712, 1720, 1730 West La Palma Avenue and 1017, 1021, 1031 North Euclid Street. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-151 Terminated (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) SR1031CW.DOC 11-5-01 Page 5 NOVEMBER 5, 20Q1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • D. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Approved Meeting of September 24, 2001. (Continued from the Planning Commission meeting of October 8 and October 22, 2001.) (MOTION) (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Vanderbilt was absent) Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of September 24, 2001. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission --------------------------------- Approved, with corrections Meeting of October 8, 2001. (Continued from the Pianning Commission meeting of October22, 2001.) (MOTION) (Commission comments on minutes noted and ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by modified as appropriate) Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent}, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of October 8, 2001 (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner with the following corrections as appropriate to Pages 3, 27 and 30: Vanderbilt was absent) PAGE 3 (PERTAINING TO CORRECTIONS FOR 9/10/01 MINUTES): lTEM NO. 3- Page 14 (15t paragraph): He feels three tall flagpoles, as you drive down Santa Ana Canyon Road, is out of character with the large residential area that has a quasi-rural character. ~ Commissioner Arnold stated he could not support the project proposed by the appiicant because the project does not meet the requirements that Commission has to find in their work to approve a Conditional Use Permit. ITEM NO. 13 - Page 37: LOCATION: 1052-1098 North State College Boulevard* and 2021 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 6.9 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of State College Boulevard and La Palma Avenue (Granada Square). PAGE 27 & 30 (PERTAINING TO CORRECTIONS FOR 10/08/01 MINUTES): ITEM NO. 7- Page 27: (THE FOLLOWING VERBIAGE WAS ADDED BEFORE THE VOTE): During the motion for Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2001-00001, discussion took place indicating "the reason for approval is based upon the fact that the subject request is a unique nature of a wholesale business, and also that the beer and wine would be sold warm and therefore would be permissible." ITEM NO. 9- Page 30: OWNER: SGF Limited Partnership, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 1003, Anaheim, CA 92805 (At the meeting, it was noted that the address "201" was incorrect, following the meeting it was found to be correct.) • 11-5-01 Page 6 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Approved, with corrections Meeting of October 22, 2001. (MOTION) to Page 28 ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was Vanderbilt was absent) absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of October 22, 2001 with the following addition/deletion to Page 28: 2NO ACTION TAKEN - INCLUDED 7HE FOLLOWING: "that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept James VanderbilYs resignation as Chairperson of the Anaheim Planning Commission" UNDER DISCUSSION, LAST SENTENCE, TO READ AS FOLLOWS: He stated, "The urgency on that is that the meeting is tonight and it is critical to have another person attend." Fourth, to set at the beginning of the Planning Commission Meeting on November 5, 2001, the election of a new Chairperson and Chairperson Pro- tempore and appointment of representatives to the AUHSD School Facilities Task Force, ~ ~ 11-5-01 Page 7 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04420 Denied OWNER: Gary D. and Linda L. Schnaible, 11331 Barclay Drive, Garden Grove, CA 92841 AGENT: Farano and Kieviet, 2300 East Kateila Avenue, Suite 235, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1333 South Euclid Street. Property is approximately 0.27 acre located at the southwest corner of Euclid Street and Chalet Avenue (Serenity Hall). Requests to retain an unpermitted meeting hall for self-help groups with waivers of a) minimum number of parking spaces and b) required site screening. Continued from the August 27, September 24 and October 8, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-152 SR8136CF.DOC • Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 2 as a request by Serenity Hall at 1333 South Euclid Street for Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04420 and waiver of code requirements related to parking spaces and site screening. Applicant's Statement: Tom Kieviet, 2300 E. Katella #235, Anaheim, CA, 92806, of Farano and Kieviet, speaking on behalf of the applicants, Gary and Linda Schnaible, stated that they have had this matter continued and had it subject to various conversations and presentations to the Commission up to this point and time. Last week they sent Commission a letter indicating that they were not successful in obtaining a parking agreement with the nearby property. They have made serious efforts with various properties in the area, primarily the school district property at Loara High School and thought they had an agreement in place. Unfortunately, the neighbors in the area apparently issued complaints to the school district and they backed off their willingness to provide excess parking in their parking lot. They have made extensive efforts to secure parking across Euclid Street in areas such as the Korean Church, the public library, and the medical office building but have not been able to do so. At this point, he asks Commission to consider the initial parking study that was done by the applicanYs traffic engineer, Larry Greer of Larry Greer & Co., indicating that it is possible to maintain parking on site with the use of tandem parking. He states tandem parking is allowed frequently in restaurant situations where there is valet style parking and they feel that can be accommodated in this instance, at least on a short-term basis, if the Commission is so willing. He feels this will enable them to attempt to find other ways to ameliorate the parking concerns which they do not believe exist any more because the people that use Serenity Hall are no longer parking on residential streets. Mr. Kieviet feels the parking concerns are caused by a case and property that is being prosecuted by the City for street parking and improper use of residential property for business purposes. He states Serenity Hall provides a valuable community service therefore they ask Commissions consideration of the CUP to be granted, at least, on a short-term basis until they can otherwise ameliorate • it in some other fashion. 11-5-01 Page 8 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PLANN(NG COMMISSION MINUTES • THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Opposition: Mary Hunin, 1326 Falcon St., Anaheim, CA 92804, stated that she grew up, raised her children and works in Anaheim. She stated that she is opposed to granting a CUP for Serenity Hall at Euclid Street and Chalet Avenue. The building in question is not a proper location for the people attending the meetings held there or the residents who live nearby. Seven days a week, mornings, afternoons and evenings cars and people become obstacles on Chalet Avenue. She exits the alley behind Falcon Street which she uses as her driveway. She has to stop because she cannot see as cars parked on either side of that alley, people come in off of Euclid Street. Currently, there is construction on that street, one lane both ways, it is very backed up. They come in off of Chalet Avenue quickly and are turning in to the parking lot. There is no room to park, so they turn around to make a U-turn. She states understandably, Serenity Hall members enjoy socializing, which often takes place around their cars parked on the street. Weekends bring larger crowds, holidays even larger. This past 4th of July, her family hosted a backyard party inviting about 12 to 15 people. They had to park far distance from her house because Serenity Hall was having a large barbecue in their parking lot. In contrast to what the petitioners have said previously, it was packed that day. In fact, the barbecue and patio chairs are still sitting in their parking lot. As opposed to what the speaker said, on October 31, 2001, cars lined both sides of Chalet Avenue well past Falcon Street and double tandem parking was used in the parking lot, which is a violation of the municipal code. Undoubtedly, Anaheim officials established zoning codes and laws to protect neighborhoods from high- density problems and misuse of property, public and private. Extensive traffic anckcarlined streets bring down the value of residential area properties. It is inconceivable to think that homeo~vners in the Anawood neighborhood should have to compromise the value of their home so that the owners of • Serenity Hall can maintain their business. By their own admission, the petitioners receive compensation for every person who attends meetings in their facility. She states Serenity Hall has been allowed to operate more than 8 months without permits and without regard to city codes. It is simp(y unfair and unlawful to let this continue. It is time to deny the CUP. Willis Baker, 1764 W. Chalet Avenue, Anaheim, CA, 92804 stated that the side of his house is on Chalet Avenue and he has lived in that area for over 20 years. He states he is definitely against the continuance of the CUP. It has a negative affect on the neighborhood. It is a commercial endeavor with socializing done outside the limits of the building that do not add to the neighborhood. They detract from the neighborhood in every way, including property values. The City's own study showed that this establishment in conjunction with the fire department requires a 40 space-parking configuration. There are only 20 parking spaces there. He states this is completely against the City Municipal Code, as he sited in his letter. It is against all common sense and he does not understand how the CUP was ever issued in the first place. He hopes Commission denies this waiver. Applicant's Rebuttal: Tom Kieviet stated that their property is in a commercial zone so they are not necessarily intruding a residential area with a commercial purpose. Secondly, the incident that they spoke of several months ago has not reoccurred. Their understanding is that the property immediately adjacent to them has been the primary cause of on-street parking in the residential neighborhood, not Serenity Hall. As far as the use of tandem parking on site, he asks, why would the neighbors object to it, it is something that allows them to park on site and avoids parking on the residential street. For the neighbors to complain the use of tandem parking seems to be inappropriate. He states insofar as operating without a Conditional Use Permit, it is an important thing to consider that when the Schnaible's initially attempted to buy the property, they approached the City and were given a business iicense to operate as an alcoholic's anonymous meeting facility. It was not until after that they were informed they would need a • CUP. Mr. Kieviet speculates that is one of the reasons that staff and Commission has been willing to make an effort to work with them. He assures it is not that they intentionally went onto the property knowing that they were doing something inappropriate. He reminded Commission that when the 11-5-01 Page 9 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PlANNlNG COMMISSION MINUTES • Schnaible's were informed they had to obtain a CUP, they made the step to do so and now stand before Commission again and reiterate their request that if possible, a CUP is granted to allow them to make other arrangements if necessary. Chairperson Arnold asked staff to comment on the issue to reiterate its recommendations and reasons for denial. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated that staff's recommendation for denial is primarily based on the traffic and transportation measure indicating there is not enough parking for the use. Obviously that is demonstrated by the fact that public testimony here today speaks of tandem parking. Anaheim City Code does not permit tandem parking anywhere in the City and the fact that they have to do that means that there is not enough parking on site to accommodate their use. Therefore, it is impacting the surrounding residential neighborhood and staff feels that the findings Commission makes in terms of impacts of surrounding land uses could not be made. Commissioner Bostwick felt they've tried everything and did not see any way out. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun stated the parking is not there but feels the Schnaible's did their due diligence when they obtained their business license. They have operated in that same area and zoning for a number of years. She states the general public is not always aware of a change in the Code and when the Schnaible's went for their business ficense someone should have informed them. She feels the City has done them a great disservice. Commissioner 8ristol stated that he is very grateful that the Commission voted to give the applicant some additional time to try and find additional parking but as they stated previously the City does not grant ~ tandem parking. There does not appear to be enough parking at the site, and concurs with Commissioner Boydstun. DURING THE ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun clarified that her decision is based on the fact that there was no control over the fire departmenYs inability to finish their parking lot. She feels once the fire department vacates the parcel they are using, Serenity Hall could possibly lease the area and acquire 8 more spaces and this would give them pretty close to what they need. OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition to the subject request. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Denied waivers (a) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces based on the analysis of the City's Traffic and Transportation Manager indicating parking is not adequate for this type of use and further based upon the iack of findings as required by Code Section 18.06.080 and as indicated in paragraph (24) of staff report dated November 5, 2001, and (b) pertaining to required site screening based on the intent of this requirement to screen commercial uses from adjacent alleys and residential neighborhoods. There are no special circumstances applicable to this property with regard to size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that would prevent the construction of the required wall. An existing 4-foot high wall adjacent to the same alley across Chalet Avenue would also be required to comply with current Code for any future • use requiring a conditional use permit unless a waiver of this requirement is granted. The required landscaped block wall would provide visual separation of the meeting hall from 11-5-01 Page 10 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • the adjacent neighborhood and alley. (Vote: 5-1, Commissioner Boydstun voted no and Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04420 based on the following: (i) That although meeting halls are authorized in the CL Zone subject to the approva{ of a conditional use permit, this property is not of a sufficient size to provide a minimum of 40 parking spaces as required by Code. (ii) That without sufficient on-site parking, as determined by the Traffic and Transportation Manager, the meeting hall clients could potentially cause detrimental impacts to the residential neighborhood to the west including noise, increased on- street parking and increased traffic. VOTE ON CUP: 5-1 (Commissioner Boydstun voted no and Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 17 minutes (2:00-2:17) ~J \J 11-5-01 Page 11 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i 3a. CE A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISEDI 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04366 OWNER: Living Stream, A California Non-Profit Corporation, 2431 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: John Pester, 2431 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 2411 - 2461 West La Palma Avenue and 1212 North Hubbell Wav. Property is approximately 40.4 acres located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street, and at the northern terminuses of Hubbell Way and Electric Way (Living Stream Ministry and former Hubbell Site). To permit a teleconferencing center and private conference/training center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the June 4, July 16 and August 27, and September 10, September 24 and October 22, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ~ • Continued to November 19, 2001 SR1113TW.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), to continue the subject request to the November 19, 2001 Planning Commission meeting as requesfed by the petitioner in order to provide additional time for staff to review the proposed Traffic Management Plan. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 11-5-01 Page 12 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04409 OWNER: Madison Squares Anaheim Hills, 2795 West Lincoln Avenue, Suite F, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: The Consulting Group, Attn: Duan Dao, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 870, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 7777 East Santa Ana Canvon Road. Property is approximately 3.06 acres located at the terminus of Camino Tampico, with a frontage of 783 feet on the northwest side of Santa Ana Canyon Road located 390 feet northeast of the centerline of Eucalyptus Drive (Madison Squares Self Storage). To permit a telecommunications antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment. Continued from the August 13, September '10, October 8 and October 22, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. C J OPPOSITION: None Withdrawn SR8108VN.DOC ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept petitioner's request for withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04409, since the petitioner has finalized an acceptable alternative stealth design for the telecommunication facility and therefore, a conditional use permit is no longer required. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained and Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 11-5-01 Page 13 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04404 November 19, 2001 OWNER: Synod of Southern California, 1501 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90017-2205 AGENT: The Consulting Group, Attn: Paul Kim, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 850, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 2580 West Orange Avenue. Property is approximately 2.6 acres located at the southeast corner of Orange and Magnolia Avenues (St. Pauls Presbyterian Church). To permit a telecommunications antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment. Continued from the August 13, September 10, September 24, October 8 and October 22, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8053VN.DOC ~ Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 5 at 2580 West Orange Avenue as a request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit telecommunications antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment. Commissioner Koos abstained from this item with the following statement: "Mr. Chairman, I shall be abstaining from this item, due to my close relationship with the wireless telecommunications industry. While I have previously conferred with the City Attorney and determined that I do not have any financial conflict of interest, I am abstaining to avoid any potential perceived conflict." ApplicanYs Statement: Paul Kim, stated that at this time he realize that the item has been continued several times before but he wished to ask for one final continuance to the November 19, 2001 hearing. His consultant group met with the homeowner's association once before and they were not satisfied with the design and asked for some changes and his engineers were not able to meet them until the past Wednesday. He states he would like to resolve those issues ~rst and address their concerns before he submits their request to the Commission. Therefore, they ask for a continuance to the November 19, 2001 hearing. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Arnold referred to Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, and wished to clarify if he had not indicated earlier that the property owner has been in contact with the Planning Department. Mr. McCafferty responded that the petitioner, Paul Kim, has been in contact with the Planning Department's case planner for this project and as late as last Friday has shown some conceptual plans for a new church building which is not part of Commission's consideration today. That would require a separate Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, he wished to bring it back to Commission with a full staff report including their recommendations for denial. ~ Commissioner Arnold clarified part of the idea is that perhaps this should be incorporated into staff's architectural changes on the property that would be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 11-5-01 Page 14 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. McCafferty affirmed that is staff s recommendation. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), to continue the subject request to the November 19, 2001 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant in order to meet with concerned citizens (homeowner's association) to address/resolve issues regarding the design of the subject request. Further, staff requested that the applicant provide the City with a 90-day extension letter to extent the time limits required by the Permit Streamlining Act. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained and Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (2:18-2:21) ~ • 11-5-01 Page 15 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 6b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00059 Granted 6c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part 6d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04453 Granted, in part 6e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16233 Approved OWNER: John Priem, 12012 Knott Street, Garden Grove, CA 92841 Mr. Shih Chang, C/O James Chang, P. O. Box 8032, Newport Beach, CA 92658 AGENT: Comstock Homes, Attn: Brad Porter, 321 12th Street, Suite 200, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 LOCATION: 832 South Knott Avenue. Property is approximately 2.1 acres with a frontage of 243 feet on the east side of Knott Avenue located 280 feet south of the centerline of Rome Avenue. Reclassification No. 2001-00059 - Petitioner requests reclassification from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone to the RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple - Family) Zone or less intense zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04453 - To permit a detached and attached condominium project with waivers of a) minimum parking space dimension, b) maximum structural height adjacent to a single-family zone, ~ c) required building setback adjacent to a major arterial highway and d) minimum distance between buildings. Tentative Tract Map No. 16233 - To establish a one-lot condominium subdivision to construct 18 detached and attached residential condominiums. Continued from the October 22, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-153 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-154 SR8122KB.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 6 at 832 South Knott Avenue as a request for a reclassification, a conditional use permit, with waivers and a tentative tract map. ApplicanYs Statement: Brad Porter, 321 12th St. #200, Manhattan Beach, CA, Project Manager of Comstock Homes and the proposed developer of the project submitted to Commission, stated they have a 2.1 acre site that is vacant land on 832 and 842 South Knott Avenue which is just north of the intersection of Ball Road and Knott Avenue. He states they are proposing 18 detached residential units with a common driveway, homeowner's association and private streets. They are looking at two different types of homes, 1,800 square foot approximate homes and 2,000 square foot approximate homes. Both which are up to 4 • bedrooms and 2 1/2 bathrooms all to include the amenities that a new home would come with including laundry room, kitchen, living room and ample bedrooms. There are 3 waivers of concern. One of them being the maximum structural height adjacent to a single-family zone. They have worked with staff to try 11-5-01 Page 16 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ and eliminate as many of the waivers as possibie. They have worked with staff and come up with several designs and something they can both live with. Their design takes into account the maximum number of setbacks as possible from the adjacent property lines. They understand that the Code was originaily written to encourage development towards the middle of the site, especially for this zoning primarily because they would be condominium or apartment type units and thus would require some break from the side. With their detached housing obviously those setbacks become rear yards for the individuals. There is private open space as opposed to common open space and the maximum structural height setback is 50-feet. The project submitted shows there is a 20-foot setback, down to a minimum of 20 feet however that is only on two properties, Lots No. 7 and No. 12. The rest are a minimum of 28 feet and a maximum of 35 feet, all of which include smaller windows in the rear yards that would overlook the neighbors' property so that there is no visual impact onto the neighbors' residence. The second waiver is the required structural setback next to a major arterial highway. A 20-foot setback is what is required and their current site plans comply with that in that their buildings are 20-feet setbacks from the right-of-way on Knott Avenue. Within that they have 15 feet of landscape that is up to the block wall that would act as the western most perimeter of the project. With that they have a small wall that is 2 to 3 feet high as a signage wall that explains why it is down to 7 feet. He states that is a declaration that they would like to see in there but are by no means set on it. They will have landscaping in front, including vines that will grow up on the walls attractively landscaped and complying with all the code requirements for planting of existing trees. Lastly, is the minimum distance between the buildings. He states this gets back to the RM Zoning that they have been made aware of that usually complies with a lot of the structural massing of a condominium building where there are multiple units in one structure. Thus, if there were two structures there would be a lot more need for spacing in between. With the smaller detached residences they are complying with the R1 Zone (single-family) requirement of 5 feet on each side-yard so a 10-foot separation between the structures makes it appear as though it was a single-family community. ~ He addressed page 11 of the staff report, Item No. 16, outlining the requirement that no windows or balconies be permitted on the rear elevations of the detached condominiums. This is a little in contrast to an earlier statement that there would be small unopened windows that are more like decorative light emitting windows that are fixed in place, nonopenable, nonaccessible for ingress and egress but something that provides a little bit of light. It does not indicate, as well, anything about first or second floors. They would like to have sliding doors or windows on the first floor that do not obstruct the neighbors' view. The only other thing in the condition is that Lot 12 should be reversed and they are in full agreement with that. They would like to see a modification of the first sentence that addresses the second story windows. In summary, Comstock Homes has been in business for approximately 22 years, 10 of which include building single-family detached residences in infield locations throughout Southern California. This is their first project in the City of Anaheim and they are looking forward to providing a beautiful product that will continue the growth and beautification of West Anaheim. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Public Testimony: Art Royer, 835 S. Canoga St., Anaheim, CA, stated that he is excited to see this development go in. It is the best development the community has seen for the proposed vacant lot. However, they do have a couple concerns. They would like to see that the developer adhere to the plans which are presented to Commission today. The landscaping setbacks and variances are acceptable to the community which surrounds the project. Being that the homes are single-family single level which surround the project there are some concerns by the residents. They ask that possibly the developer would put up an 8-foot wall on the north, south and east perimeters of the development. Should the developer change the density of the structures or deviate from the submitted plans then they ask that the rezoning be denied to RS-3000. If the developer does not develop the site within a reasonable period of time they ask that it ~ remains or reverts back to agricultural residential RSA-43000. He states this particular area on Knott Avenue is probably the last enclave for their community and they would like to see what the developer plans with the single detached homes that best suits the needs of the community which surrounds it. He 11-5-01 Page 17 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ states if this is the ~rst project that Comstock Homes has developed in the City of Anaheim they would definitely encourage that they build more, they are beautiful. Paul Mergott (address unknown - green card not submitted) stated that he is adjacent to the southeast property line of the proposed property and concerning the changes on Lot No. 12, which is right behind his home, he just wanted clarification on the setbacks that are proposed on the south and east property lines of that lot. ApplicanYs Response: Brad Porter responded that for the property lines on the south there are varied setbacks. If the southeast corner is the one with the building facing horizontal versus vertical in the back, the minimum setback is 20-feet. The reason the home was proposed to be reversed or flipped in that particular instance is because that wall only has one window, so to speak, that would look on the neighbors and there would be an obscure window so that it minimizes the view impact there. Otherwise, if it is turned the way it is currently proposed, there are several other windows from bedrooms, etc. on the second floor that would face into there. So they are agreeing to flip it with the front door facing their community versus the other way. Referring to 20 feet setbacks along the east it would be the 20-foot minimum as explained earlier. The 28-foot setbacks would be a minimum of 28 feet and a maximum of 35 feet, just the same as they are on the east and north property lines. Commissioner Koos reminded Mr. Porter that the neighbor brought up the issue of an 8-foot wall. He asked the applicant what was his response to that. Mr. Porter stated that he guessed it would be a judgment called by the Planning Commission. Obviously they feel as though a 6-foot wall provides their potential buyers with privacy and would not impact any more than what is there right now. On the landscaping plans, they are conditioning the rear yards to have • trees planted 20 feet on center, which is a condition and will be maintained by the homeowner's association so to ensure that the trees will not die and they will grow and provide some sense of So in addition to the second story windows and being a minimum of 28 feet away from the prope with trees that are planted on the property line no one can look down into the neighbors' propert states they are not opposed to it, but would prefer that a 6 foot high fence all the way around be He proposes that the trees would create a sense of privacy as much as an additiona{ 2 feet of w THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. privacy. rty line y. He standard. alf woufd. Commissioner Bostwick stated that he thinks it would be a very nice project and he is glad that the neighborhoods are behind the project because it would be a nice beautification for West Anaheim. Commissioner Koos concurred and stated that he sat on the West Anaheim Revitalization Task Force for approximately 8 months with Esther Wallace and the density is about 8%2 units an acre which is about what the neighborhood requested. So this project is right in the same ballpark and it fits the intent of that whole effort well. He is also in support. Commissioner Boydstun stated that she would like to comment on the 8-foot wall. She thinks that once it was back there that people on both sides might hate it because it really cuts out a lot of sunlight and is ugly. With the trees the way they are scheduled and required, she thinks it will give a much softer and nicer feeling than having an 8-foot brick wall. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated just for Commission's information, the setback to the rear that is being provided for the residences are actually consistent with the single-family zones that currently exist in the City. In fact, some of them are more generous than what the City has now. Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer, asked for clarification from the applicant on Units 7 through 12, . whether or not sidewalks are provided in front of the homes. 11-5-01 Page 18 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Porter clarified that at this time they did not have sidewalks proposed in front of Lots 7 through 12. The sidewalk would parallel coming in the main driveway from Knott Avenue and would go into a ramp as you walk towards the area. Commissioner Koos asked Mr. McCafferty if he had given thought about the applicanYs request to reword the first sentence of Condition No. 16. Mr. McCafferty clarified that Condition No. 16 on page 11 of the staff report to be reworded "that no balconies and only opaque windows shall be permitted on the second floor rear elevations of the detached condominiums abutting the northeast and south property line". That would allow them to have the windows on the second floor that cannot be seen through, but staff still believes they should not have the balconies on the second floor. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None One person asked for clarification regarding the setbacks on the south and east property lines of the subject request, Lot 12; and one person spoke in favor of the subject request with concerns/suggestions. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 2001-00059 (to reclassify this property from the RS-A- 43,000 Zone to the RM-3000 Zone) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated November 5, 2001. ~ Approved, in part, the Waiver of Code Requirement as follows: Denied waiver (a) pertaining to minimum parking space dimension on the basis that it had been deleted subsequent to public notification; and approved waivers (b) pertaining to maximum structural height adjacent to any single-family zone, (c) pertaining to required structural setback adjacent to a major arterial highway, and (d) pertaining to minimum distance between buildings based on the findings as stated in the staff report dated November 5, 2001. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04453 subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated November 5, 2001 with the following modification: Modified Condition No. 16 to read as follows: 16. That no balconies and only opaque windows shall be permitted on the second floor rear elevations of the detached condominiums abutting the north, east and south property lines. Furthermore, the residence for Lot No. 12 shall be reversed so that no windows into habitable rooms on the second floor shall face the south property line. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. Approved Tentative Tract Map No.16233 to establish a one-lot, 18-unit detached residential condominium subdivision since the design and improvement ofi the proposed subdivision would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Low- Medium Density Residential. • VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) 11-5-01 Page 19 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appea{ rights for the tentative tract map and the 22-day appeal rights for the reclassification and conditional use permit. DISCUSSION TIME: 19 minutes (2:22-2:41) ~ r ~ ~_~ 11-5-01 Page 20 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04417 OWNER: Leedy Ying Trustee, 12550 Whittier Boulevard, Whittier, CA 90602 AGENT: GPA Architects, Inc., 1240 North Jefferson # J, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 101 East Ball Road. Property is approximately 3.4 acres located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Anaheim Boulevard. To establish a three-unit commercial retail center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the August 27, September 24 and October 22, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. r CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None Continued to November 19, 2001 SR8141 KB. DOC ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), to continue the subject request to the November 19, 2001 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the property owner to allow additional time to meet with Community Development staff regarding the possible sale of the subject property. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 11-5-01 Page 21 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 8b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04451 Granted for one year (to expire on OWNER: Jill A. Richter and J. Rise Richter of Richter Farms November 5, 2002) Trust, 5505 Garden Grove Boulevard, Westminister, CA 92683 AGENT: lnterpacific Asset Management, 5505 Garden Grove Boulevard, Westminister, CA 92683 LOCATION: 1084-1086 North State College Boulevard. Property is approximately 6.9 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of State College Boulevard and La Palma Avenue (J. C. Fandango). To permit a restaurant with public entertainment and on-premises sale and consumption of aicoholic beverages with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the October 22, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-155 SR8116VN.DOC ~ Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 8 as a request for a parking waiver and Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04451 to permit a restaurant with public entertainment and on premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages at 1084 to 1086 North State College Boulevard, J. C. Fandango. ApplicanYs Statement: Hector Jose Castellanos stated that they have been in business for 15 years a total of 25 in Anaheim and they are in full agreement with the staff report. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol asked the applicant if he noted in the staff report that staff and the police recommend a one-year CUP. He explains the reason they are doing this is because of the amount of reported incidences over the last 12 months. He asked the applicant what he is doing to combat that. Mr. Castellanos responded that they let go of their private security firm and hired a new firm. He believes private security was contacting the Anaheim Police Department instead of taking care of the problem themselves. So they hired a new company and on the busier days they have more patrol units. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated staff has one change to the conditions of approval; Page 9, Condition No. 11 of the staff report, the change is needed to be consistent with the police department memorandum which recommends Condition No. 7, that there shall be no amusement machines or video game devices maintained on the premises. So staff recommends modifying Condition No. 11 to say there shall be no pool tables, amusement devices or video games maintained within the subject establishment. The rest of the sentence should be deleted. ~ 11-5-01 Page 22 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Arnold asserted he was concerned about the statement made regarding private security handling incidents themselves. He stated it seems if crimes are being committed that that is something for the police department to handle. Mr. Castellanos stated that a disturbance could be anything from someone walking into the parking lot of the shopping center and refusing them service or entrance because they are intoxicated; a controfled substance or a domestic problem between couples, having problems inside or even before they come inside; to someone breaking into a car, fortunately, for that they have more security. Chairperson Arnold asked if he was saying that the more security would deter those kinds of activities. Mr. Castellanos responded, sure. The major problem is loitering, people coming in just to see if they can steal a car radio or something because once the parking lot gets full people park along the back of the shopping center. So they have units there just watching the cars basically, making sure no one is drinking in the parking lot, loitering or dumping trash out. Chairperson Arnold stated that he is glad to hear that new security is being implemented there and hopefully that will improve the record of the subject area. He thinks the use is a good one, but feels that the one-year limitation is wise in order to keep an eye on what is going on and ensure the conditions are being complied with. Commissioner Bostwick stated that the question in his mind is that there is a requirement for uniform security guards as determined by the police department so it suffices that Commission would not need to put a number or times on the proposal. He cautioned the applicant that obviously his request is for a restaurant with entertainment but it is well known that the establishment is operating more as a nightclub and not a restaurant. So with that they are stepping over the line. He admonishes the CUP is for one year and hopefully, they clean up the act or they may have more problems. , • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved the Waiver of Code Requirement pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces based upon the recommendation for approval by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager and based upon the findings as stated in the staff report dated November 5, 2001. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04451 for one year (to expire on November 5, 2002) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated November 5, 2001 with the following modification. Modified Condition No. 11 to read as follows: 11. That there shall be no pool tables, amusement devices or video games maintained within subject establishment. r~ ~ 11-5-01 Page 23 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (2:42-2:51) • ~ 11-5-01 Page 24 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00061 9C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04455 OWNER: Camino Grande Villas, Attn: Steven Butterfield, 24422 Avenida De La Carlota, Laguna Hills, CA 92633-3636 AGENT: Tetra Tech Wireless, Attn: Jim Marquez, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770 Southern California Edison, Attn: Robert Teran, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770 LOCATION: (No address). Property is approximately 16.6 acres Iocated at the northwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Stage Coach Road. Reclassification No. 2001-00061 - To reclassify subject property from RM-3000(SC) (Residential, Multiple-Family - Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to the RS-A-43,000(SC) (Residential/Agricultural - Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04455 - To permit a telecommunication antenna and microwave dish on an existing electrical transmission tower and accessory ground-mounted equipment. ~ RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None Continued to December 3, 2001 SR8137VN.DOC ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bosfinrick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), to continue the subject request to the December 3, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to explore alternative locations for the subject request. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained and Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 11-5-01 Page 25 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 10a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 11 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04456 OWNER: Anaheim Gateway LLC, Attn: John Manavian, 120 North Robertson Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048 AGENT: Woody's Chicago Hot Dogs, Attn: Luis Martinez, 13523 Dalwood Avenue, Norwalk, CA 90650 LOCATION: 1500 North Lemon Street. Property is approximately 26.34 acres located at the southeast corner of Lemon Street and Durst Street (Woody's Hot Dogs). To establish a mobile food concession cart outside an existing home improvement center (Lowe's). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-156 Approved Granted SR8115AN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 10 as a request to establish a mobile food concession cart outside an existing home improvement center (Lowe's, at 1500 North Lemon Street). Applicant's Statement: Brian Webb, 13523 Dalwood, Norwalk, CA, an employee of Woody's Chicago Style, stated they franchise mobile food concessions for the Lowe's Home Improvement Center. They originally started with Eagle ~ Hardware and Eagle Hardware was bought out by Lowe's. The Lowe's Corporation asked them if they would do all of their concession in the 11 Western states and that is why they are proposing today. Mr. Luis Martinez is their prospective franchisee and he is interested in putting the cart at the Lowe's location on 1500 Lemon Street. He asserts they have been in business for approximately 15 years and they know what they are doing. He proclaims when they show up for a health inspection, the health inspectors look at their cart and they are in awe over the business they project. They are a highly formatted company and are stricter to their rules for people to abide. He a~rms they are a franchise and they want people to see their operation as a first class operation. They stress their cleanliness and stated everything they do is on the cart itself including the advertisement. He states there is another operation that is very similar to their operation right now and it is successfully being run at Home Depot. They are asking for the same opportunity to be able to operate on a Conditional Use Permit to prove that they will not be detrimentaf to the Anaheim community. Luis Martinez, 13523 Dalwood, Norwalk, CA, stated that he would be the operator and the owner of the proposed concession cart and hopefully it would enhance customer service at Lowe's. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun stated that she knows the carts are movable and asked if the carts were taken in every night or if they were stored at Lowe's. Mr. Webb explained the carts are returned to a commissary where all the food and the cart are cleaned at that facility. It is a trailered operation. They are looking as they check with Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc. nearby and note that they have commissary operations and they are willing to take it to the next level. He states they are not to the next level yet but would like to take it to the next level and feel it is very close for the franchisee. • Commissioner Sristol wished to clarify what he means by take it to the next level. 11-5-01 Page 26 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Webb clarified that Mr. Luis would actually buy the franchise at that point. They want to ensure that everything is right for Commission as well as for them. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if he was saying he was ready to proceed and already has something currently planned. Mr. Webb confirmed. Commissioner Koos stated that he never perceived these type franchises to be a problem in other cities. While living in Anaheim Hills he used to go to the Costco in Yorba Linda where he witnessed this type of operation and therefore does not see a problem. He questions the one-year limitation but states if Commission wants to follow that, he would go along too but he could see maybe dropping the restriction all together or making it 5 years. Commissioner Boydstun stated that she agrees because the carts are taken in and serviced every night. She thinks that is an ideal thing for customers shopping there. Chairperson Arnold stated that he agrees with both Commissioners Koos and Boydstun and notes that it seems not only accessory to a home improvement store but almost a necessity. They all seem to have them and they seem to work well. He states in response to staff's concern about setting the precedent, part of his thinking on this and perhaps part of the reason to approve this is that indeed hotdog concession carts are accessory to home improvement stores. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated to Commission if they are considering approving it maybe taking what the applicant said in terms of bringing the cart inside and formalizing that as part of a condition. • Commissioners Boydstun and Bristol reiterated that the cart would be removed and cleaned every night. Commissioner Bristol stated if it makes staff more comfortable Commission could tie the requirement to the Conditional Use Permit at Lowe's but he does not think that is necessary right now. The cart is not going anywhere. Chairperson Arnold stated that he did not know if Commission needed to tie the requirement to the conditional use permit. Commissioner Bristol stated he thinks the comment "that it is accessory to this use" is kind of common knowledge, it is a part of the public hearing and it is not like the petitioners will take the hotdog stand and go up and down Lemon Street. DURING THE ACTION: Discussion amongst the Commissioners took place pertaining to the expiration of the CUP. Commissioner Boydstun clarified that if Lowe's were to close the applicant would not have any customers so he would also c{ose. Commissioner Bristol noted Commissioners comments and asked if staif concurs with deleting Condition No. 1. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated that under the conditions staff would not have any concern if there were no time limit on the project as long as the conditions are continuously complied with. Commissioner Bristol stated that Condition No. 1 is deleted. ~ Commissioner Koos asked if there was a condition about it being removed off the site as the applicant stated to clean every night. 11-5-01 Page 27 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Bristol stated that he thinks that is for cleanliness if they brought it inside. He affirmed the Nealth Department would shut them down before the City would. ~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was 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. 2001-04456 (as an accessory use to the Lowe's home improvement store) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated November 5, 2001 with the following modification. De{eted Condition No. 1 VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 8 minutes 2:52-3:00 ~ ) ~ ~ 11-5-01 Page 28 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 11a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. CLASS 11 11b. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04461 Continued to December 3, 2001 OWNER: Heinz-Crowley Company, 303 Poppy Avenue, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 AGENT: Plasti-Line West, Attn: Frank Witherington, 1625 Taylor Avenue, Corona, CA 92882 LOCATION: 1231 Auto Center Drive. Property is approximately 6.91 acres located at the northwest corner of Auto Center Drive and Phoenix Club Drive (Hardin Buick Pontiac GMC). Waiver of (a) maximum number of signs, (b) maximum sign area, (c) minimum distance between freestanding or monument signs, (d) maximum height of freestanding or monument-type signs and (e) maximum sign width, to construct a third sign (one monument existing, one approved and one freestanding sign proposed) for an existing auto dealership on a property with less than 600 feet of frontage. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. ~ ~ SR1028CW.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Sostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), to continue the subject request to the December 3, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to meet with staff to discuss signage for the entire property. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent} DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 11-5-01 Page 29 NOVEMBER 5, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ )JOURNED AT 3:05 P.M. TO MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 AT 10:00 A.M. TO DISCUSS DRAFT MOTEL CONVERSION ORDINANCE, THE POINTE ANAHEIM PROJECT AND PRELIM{NARY PLAN REVIEW. ~ ~ Respectfully submitted: ~~ ~~ti~~~~l.~ Pat Chan er, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2001. 11-5-01 Page 30