The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 2002/04/22~ ~ • CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2002 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRPER,S~I~~~TC~I~Y~ARNOLD - - -- - - _ - - -- .. ~- RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Bristol PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H:\DOCS\CLERICAL\MINUTESWC042202.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. CONSENT CAL.ENDAR: Item 1-A through 1-F 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 Koos wished to clarify if Condition No. 041 on the application which states, " that no members other than the members of the resident family shall engage in a home occupation" could be interpreted to mean that if a person owns a single-family home in a residentia! zone he could run a business out of it without living there. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, clarified according to the regulation a person would have to live in the home to be a part of the home occupation or to be involved in the business. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun was absent), for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-C through 1-F) as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Consent Calendar Items (1-A and 1-B) were removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. , 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3921 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2002- 04525) - REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: Desapriya Jinadasa, 1192 North Brookhurst Street, # 1, Anaheim, CA 92801, requests determination of substantial conformance to retain an existing unpermitted storage shed for a previously-approved convenience market. Property is located at 1112 North Brookhurst Street, Suite 1- Cheers Market. Approved Determined not to be in substantial conformance (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Boydstun absent) SR8271 AN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item 1-A as Conditional Use Permit No. 3921, 1112 North Brookhurst Street Suite 1, a request for determination of substantial conformance to retain an existing unpermitted storage shed for a previously-approved convenience market at (Cheers Market). Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends Commission not determine the revised exhibit in substantial conformance wifh the previously-approved exhibits. Staff also noted a correction on the agenda portion to indicate a previously-approved negative declaration in lieu of the exemption mentioned on Item 1-A. ApplicanYs Testimony: Flora Santos, 2053 W. Coronet Avenue, Anaheim, CA, Operations' Manager for Cheers, states she • personally submitted the required site plans, photographs, etc., and unfortunately the request was disapproved. Apparently it was found to be 48 inches too wide for wheel chair accessibility therefore, her request today is whether or not it would be possible to cut the storage shed down somewhat so that it could be approved as opposed to tearing the entire shed down. 04-22-02 Page 2 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ She states the only thing in the storage shed are crates that come from vendors; instead of leaving the crates outside, they are stored in the storage shed. There is nothing in the back of the store and no place on the side of the store in which to store crates, so they put them in the storage shed so that the people who come through have access to the walkway. They believe they could possibly cut the storage shed down somewhat so that it could be wheelchair accessible to allow for the 48 inches required. Ms. Santos states there is a sidewalk in front of the store that goes down to another sidewalk which is wheelchair accessible and has a handicap parking space but feels staff's main concern was going from Cheers to the adjacent store because a large pole separating the two buildings narrows the space. The storage shed, which is a dry storage shed containing only crates, coordinates with the color on the store and is very nice. Chairperson Arnold states the plans say the shed leaves a two-foot walkway and if that is accurate it would be cutting it back 24 inches. Ms. Santos responded it is a very nice storage shed and she would hate for the entire thing to be torn down. So, they would do anything to get it approved. Commissioner Bristol visited the site over the weekend and spoke with the manager, at which time he observed the site obtained not only the shed but also approximately five or six additional rows of crates to the east. He feels if the shed were cut down by 50°/a there would have to be a massive shed stretching from the unit nearby. Ms. Santos stated there are vendors who may drop off their milk, etc., who cannot come back until a day or two later to pick up the crates and that is the main reason for the storage shed. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if liquids are kept in the crates in the shed. ~ Ms. Santos responded no, it is just a dry shed with crates and they realize it needs to be wheelchair accessible even though a cart can easily be maneuvered through the shed and a walkway is there, which slants down in front of fhe store to the wheelchair parking area. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated businesses sometimes leave crates outside in the back of their business however, he was not familiar with the Code on such activity. Commissioner Koos states there is not enough room in the back of the store to store crates. Commissioner Bristol states the inside of the store is very tight also. Commissioner Bostwick states the store backs up to the property line so there is no where to go on the north side of the building. Commissioner Bristol states there is a fence and a gate to the property owner to the north. So off Brookhurst they have approximately 20 feet or 30 feet to the fence and if an extent were added in the back area they would be impacting business. He recalls their Conditional Use Permit in 2000 requesting to retain the sales of aicoholic beverages, etc., and feels they are impacting the unit. When he spoke to the manager she indicated some vendors do not come back for two weeks and he feels that is not good business etiquette because a good vendor would return more frequently and that would eliminate the need for fhe shed to house hundred's of crates. Commissioner Bostwick states they have a storage area on the east side and the doors abut the cabinet of the storage room. He feels they need to use the storage room rather than the excess shed use and work out sufficient room to stack the crates between their vendors and their storage area and deal with it. • 04-22-02 Page 3 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • • ~ ~- ~ ~ • • ~ • ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the revised site plan exhibit is not in substantial conformance with the original site pfan as previously reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3921, and the other exhibits on file for this convenience market based on the following: (i) The unpermitted storage shed encroaches into the existing walkway, leaving minimal clearance for pedestrians and access forwheelchairs and strollers. The Building Division has indicated that the shed as currently developed, does not comply with Title 24 requirements pertaining to handicap accessibility. (ii) The storage shed is not architecturally integrated with the existing commercial center in regard to building materials. The shed has wood siding, although the commercial center has a stucco finish. (iii) Parking spaces could be obstructed if carts are left in front of the storage shed. Patrons could be reluctant to pull vehicles completely forward due to the limited two-foot wide clearance between the shed and the parking area, creating an unsafe parking lot condition. S DISCUSSION: 10 minutes (1:42-1:52) C ~ 04-22-02 Page 4 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ B. a) CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061 (b)(3) GENERAL RULE b) ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2002-00015 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A DRAFT ORDINANCE: City- initiated (Planning Department), request for review and approval of a draft ordinance containing Zoning Code [Title 18] modi~cations related to entitlement and parking requirements for computer rental/internet amusement businesses. Continued from the March 11, and March 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun 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 Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of the attached draft ordinance containing modifications to the ~ Zoning Code relating to Computer Rental/Internet Amusement Businesses as follows: • Incorporates a broad definition of Computer Rental/Internet Amusement Businesses into Title 18, Chapter 18.01 [Definitions - Zoning Code], intended to address any potential for misrepresentation of proposed business operations. • ldentifies Computer Rental/Internet Amusement Businesses as authorized by the approval of a Conditional Use Permit in the CL (Commercial, Limited). • Prohibits Computer Rental/Internet Amusement Businesses in the BCC (Brookhurst Commercial Corridor) and SABC (South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor) Overlay Zones due to similarity to the existing prohibition for Amusement Device Arcades in these overlay zones. • Allows Computer Rental/Internet Amusement Businesses, as authorized by conditional use permit, in the SE (Sports Entertainment) Overlay Zone only, where located within a'planned mixed use development' as defined in subsection 18.50.020.130. • Adds specific parking requirements for Computer Rental/Internet Amusement Businesses. This eliminates the need for a parking study if Code-required parking is provided. DISCUSSION: 2 minutes (1:53-1:55) Concurred with staff Recommended to the City Council approval of the draft ordinance (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Boydstun absent) SR8258CF.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item 1-B as General Rule Zoning Code Amendment No. 2002-00015, a • City-initiated (Planning Department) request for review and approval of a draft ordinance containing Zoning Code (Title 18) modifications related to entitlement and parking requirements for Computer Rental/Internet Amusement Businesses. 04-22-02 Page 5 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairperson Arnold informed Item 1-B has been pulfed because it received a lot of attention at previous • meetings and has received a variety of public input and discussion among the Planning Commission. Planning Commission had concerns such as making sure the title of the business was clear, and he feels there has been a change in the amusement business, which does exactly that. Also making sure that the perimeters are such that the traditional photocopy business centers are not incorporated that would have some computers but would not be primarily Internet Gaming or Internet Amusement. He feels that has also been done. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, states Title 4 is being revised and the revisions have been introduced at City Council and are up for adoption. Some of the revisions pertain to amusement device arcade permits, which are issued by the licensed collector. They are required for five or more devices and include computers with Internet access. This means applicant's will be subject to permits in Title 3 and 4 as well as any Conditional Use Permit requirement in Title 18 worth proposing. Commissioner Koos thanked staff for incorporating all of Commission's comments on the ordinance and feels it defines what an Internet Amusement Business is and alleviates the gray area. r • 04-22-02 Page 6 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISStON MINUTES • C. a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1937 AND 2490 (TRACKING NO. Terminated CUP 2002-04540) - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Ponderosa Property Management, Attn: Russ Manion, 202 West Lincoln Avenue, (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Suite E, Orange, CA 92865, requests termination of Conditionaf Use Boydstun absent) Permit No. 2490 and 1937. Property is located at 3331 and 3339 East Orangethorpe Avenue. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-55 SR8273NA.DOC • ~ 04-22-02 Page 7 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES D. a) CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061 (b)(3) GENERAL RULE Concurred with staff • b) ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00013 - REQUEST FOR Recommended to the City REVIEW AND APPROVAL: City of Anaheim, (Planning Department), Council approval of the draft 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162, Anaheim, CA 92805, ordinance requests review and approval of a Zoning Code amendment pertaining to Home Occupations. (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Boydstun absent) ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun 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 Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun was absent ), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the draft ordinance pertaining to home occupations. SR1030CW.DOC u • 04-22-02 Page 8 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~ • E. a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1144, 3106, AND 3842 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2002-04541) AND VARIANCE NO. 4158 (TRACKING NO. VAR 2002-04504) - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Pacific Theaters, Attn: Mark A. Miller, 120 North Robertson Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1144, 3106, and 3842 and Variance No. 4158. Property is located at 2150-2170 South State College Boulevard. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-56 Terminated (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Boydstun absent ) SR8277NA.DOC 04-22-02 Page 9 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ F. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Approved Meeting of April 8, 2002. (Motion) (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun absent ) Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of April 8, 2002. ~ C~ 04-22-02 Page 10 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04277 (READVERTISED) (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04457) OWNER: Gock Woey Jung, 433 South Vicki Lane, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: De Hua Tr, 12201 Brookhurst Street, Garden Grove, CA 92640 LOCATION: 420-504 South Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 1.5 acres with a frontage of 205 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street located 492 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue (Seafood Place Restaurant). Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on November 6, 2000 to expire on November 6, 2001) to retain a banquet hall with service but no sales of alcohofic beverages for on-premises consumption and modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to construction of a block wall. Continued from the November 19, 2001, January 28 and February 25, 2002, Planning Commission meetings. • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None Continued to June 17, 2002 SR8274VN. DOC ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun was absent), to continue the subject request to the June 17, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to comply with conditions of approval. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. CJ 04-22-02 Page 11 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u 3a. 3b. 3c. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Continued to WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT June 3, 2002 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1564 (READVERTISED) (TRACKlNG CASE NO. CUP2002-04521) OWNER: John M. Huish, 18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 900, Irvine, CA 92612 AGENT: Michael Coleman, 18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 900, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 1041 North Shepard Street. Property is approximately 7.0 acres located at the southwest corner of Shepard Street and Carpenter Avenue (Festival Fun Park). Requests to modify an existing family entertainment center by constructing a miniature golf course with waiver of minimum landscape setback adjacent to a freeway right-of-way. ~ Continued from the April 8, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITiONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8278AN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 3 as Conditional Use Permit No. 1564, 1041 N. Shepard Street, a request from the Festival Fun Park with respect to a miniature golf course and waiver of minimum landscape setback adjacent to a freeway right-of-way. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff is in support of the land use since it is an outdoor recreation center but is not supportive of the requested waiver for landscaping adjacent to the freeway and therefore, recommends Commission continue the item in order for the applicant to redesign the project to incorporate the code required landscape. Applicant's Testimony: Michael Coleman, 18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 900, Irvine, CA, states they are a family entertainment center and miniature golf is family entertainment. Currently the park attractions are go- carts, slick track bumper boats, games, kiddy carnival rides, batting cages, simulators and miniature golf. Also there are six attractions that are down; a skating arena, a train, a yo-yo, tilt-a-world, battle bugs and a craze mix and they are trying to build those areas up with new attractions. They have looked at other attractions to build and a list of a few attractions that they have at some of their other parks are laser tag, skate boarding, inflatable slides, water slides, water balloon arenas, rock walls, simulators and miniature golf. They have chosen miniature golf for the subject site because it has to be in one of the family entertainment areas. One of the things he noticed in the draft was that Commission did not feel it was a financial burden. Mr. Coleman states to them it is not a financial burden they can build whatever they need to. They have a 2.2,000 square foot area and to build a miniature golf course requires 20,000 to 30,000 square feet. The area within the park on which to build a miniature golf course is 150x150 square feet. He feels if they have fo adhere fo the 30-foot setback they are going to lose about 20% of the land available to build the course, bringing the area down to approximately 17,500 square feet which would make it very difficult to build a golf course. So without the variance in setback, they might not be able to build the golf course. • Secondly, they feel if they are allowed the variance, a golf course is approximately 75% landscaping and it would be in the City's best interest to allow the variance. It goes right along with Project Alpha to have a maximum amount of landscaping. He states, basically it comes down to a matter of space, without the setback they probably will not build the golf course. 04-22-02 Page 12 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Public Testimony: Phillip Schwartze, 31682 EI Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano, CA, representing Kaiser Permanenfe, refers to a letter written to Commission in which they indicated that they are in the process of building approximately 1,000,000, square feet of hospital complex approximately one block from the proposed site. He states the main issue they faced when they first approached the City was making sure landscaping was available along the 91 Freeway that would comply with the new plans which the City adopted. They have diligently been working to make sure that landscaping requirements are met but the proposed plan encroaches into that landscape area. Mr. Schwartze feels a golf course might be appropriate however he states, a miniature golf course with a"little windmill" or something there is not what he considers landscaping. They recommend Commission deny the requested waiver per the request from staff and Community Development. A statement in the plans regarding tf~e variance refers to properties along that area all being closed in but he states it is absolutely not true. Fry's, which is one of their neighbors is set back substantially from the 91 Freeway and there is an opportunity to landscape and achieve the beautification request that the City is aiming for. Fred Kenney, 3200 E. Carpenter Avenue, Anaheim, CA, representing Camelot Golfland, states his major concern is that a lot of people think the two parks are under the same ownership therefore, there is a problem with parking. He referred to plans he submitted in which Item No. 11 shows that there are 240 parking spaces and states, there really is not. He states the plans show parking spaces behind the batting cages, and when the carnival rides were approved in 1992 those plans also showed parking spaces behind the batting cages and they were never put in. Although it is now true that there are attractions down and they are not using the parking as much as they did back in 1992 -1994, his feelings in previous years as well as now is that there was just as many people on a Saturday night, which is peak night, at the AnaF~eim recreation center as there were at Camelot. However, Camelot has 300 parking spaces and the subject property has 200 parking spaces. He feels if the proposal is approved it really needs to be in the conditions that the proposed site really does have 240 spaces because if there ever came a need for ~ them to have 240 spaces but they only have 200 spaces and Camelot has 300 spaces, which totals 500 spaces that would mean Camelot would be impacted by the improper amount of parking spaces. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Mr. Coleman states the design of the proposed golf course is basically rock and water, like a nature golf course, and they would not have any windmills. Basically within the 30-foot setback all they really want to put there are three golf playing holes. The 30-foot setback is where they are going to start the rock features in the waterfalls. So within the 30-foot setback, they are going to have the three holes and some nice landscaping which would include the trees and shrub-hedge requested by staff. Regarding the parking issues, it is his understanding that they have 240 spots. He states approximately 4 years ago they were doing about $4,000,000 in sales and are currently down to about $1,500,000. So obviously, the volume is not there. He feels the new golf course would benefit both parks because when he observes the patrons he notices that they go back and forth to both parks. Therefore, he feels the golf course would benefit both parks. Chairperson Arnold asked Mr. McCafferty to respond to the number of parking spaces. Mr. McCafferty responded based on the City Traffic and Transportation Manager 's report the existing amount of parking spaces, which is 240 spaces, is adequate for the site. It would just be replacing one recreational type use for another therefore, the net result should not be an increase in the number of parking spaces. He explains there was a maze there previously and the applicant is proposing to replace the maze with another outdoor recreational use. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if the statement of 240 spaces being incorrect does not compo~t with ~ staff's evaluation of the actual spaces on the site. 04-22-02 Page 13 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. McCafferty stated staff's indication, from what has been submitted, is that there are 240 spaces and if there are not 240 spaces, staff should be made aware of it so that the parking component is not impacted. Commissioner Bristol recalls during his visit to the site that it was very hard to determine where the parking spaces were because they are not lined. Commissioner Koos states he has been there a number of times and cannot remember ever seeing anyone parked behind the batting cages and the Camelot owner seems to indicate that it is either not open or not available therefore, he asked Mr. Coleman if he could attest today whether the spaces are available behind the batting cages. Mr. Coleman responded that he did not know. Commissioner Koos affirmed staff recommends a continuance and they will need to determine the spaces in that area as part of the process. He asked Mr. Coleman to discuss the attractions that are down since he mentioned that as a potential reason to justify enough parking, if that was the intent. Mr. Coleman responded it is the parking and also because their neighbor is Golfland and they are building golf, it is direct competition. He pointed out that within a family entertainment center there are only a certain number of attractions they can install and since there are six attractions down they decided to install miniature golf. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if they are down because of the market or exactly what the reason is. Mr. Coleman responded rolling skating is not main stream anymore today is more rollerblading, which he ~ feels most people do at the beach as opposed to going to skating rinks. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify the attractions that are down. Mr. Coleman responded rolling skating is down, battle boats, yo-yo, tilt-a-world and the train. He states the reason the battle boats are down is because it was actually like a submarine and they were very hard to maintain. In today's society more people are suing each other over actions or happenings that occur at amusement parks and the manufacture of the ride is fhe on(y person that can do any work on the ride. So in order for them to make their money and make their insurance premiums they really have to increase the price of all their work on the rides so it is not cost effective to work on the rides. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if the subject proposal takes the place of all the down rides. Mr. Coleman responded no the miniature golf course would only take place of the craze maze. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if there was anything in the previous CUP that the rides previously- approved had to remain operational or if rides could just be filled and in ten years have a bunch of defunct rides. He feels since the six rides that are down are highly visible they should at least be operable. Mr. McCafferty responded the subject proposal has been brought before Commission for various modifications so that at each point they are approving a new set of exhibits. The assumption is that what is shown on the approved exhibits is actually functional. Commissioner Koos stated he would not like to think that Commission would say that because certain rides are down that frees up parking because everything on the site is not going to approve attraction. He feels all the attractions should be operating or should be eliminated if the plan is to never use it again or it is a liability. Both Camelot and the subject property are directly on the 91 Freeway and are a tight • profile and should have a functioning system of rides. He noted the Maze is highly visible off the 91 Freeway and has been clearly in disrepair for awhile, appearing to be in shambles, which was clearly not a service to the neighborhood. He wondered how Commission could be assured that if the proposed golf course, being directly in the streamline of competition of a facility with six courses, did not pencil out that 04-22-02 Page 14 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ would not fall into the track record of saying, "well we do not like that anymore either so we are not going to maintain the landscaping". So if there were a pattern of shoving the rides, what would make Commission believe that it would not happen on the miniature golf as well. Mr. Coleman responded miniature golf basically is landscaping and it does not have any working or mechanical parts so there would not be as much that could break down. Commissioner Koos stated landscaping still has to be maintained and if it does not pencil out in the long run like some of the other ventures then he might refuse to maintain it. Mr. Coleman stated they have a landscape maintenance person who maintains the grounds but as far as rides like the yo-yo and the Tilt-A-World, they are mechanical parts that they have to fix and right now they are working with ZanProa to try to get those up and running. Commissioner Koos referred to the requested variance and wished to clarify that it was stated, if a variance could not be obtained the golf course would not be possible. He feels however, that is the same as any homeowner or anyone else that has to comply with the City's development standards. He states so just on a practical manner Commission has to be able to say, "the reason you should be granted a variance is because special circumstances apply to your property" but in this instance the property is square shaped. Chairperson Arnold stated financial hardship is not a proper basis for a variance it has to be something related to the physical nature of the property that is unique that prevents the applicant from complying with the City's development standards. He concurs with Commissioner Koos that the proposed site is square shaped which looks as though it would comply with a landscape setback and states it may require changes to what is currently on the property in order to comply but the point is what meets the legal requirement necessary in order to justify the variance. ~ Mr. Coleman clarified his statement was that it was not a financial hardship. Chairperson Arnold pointed out that the physical nature of the property would have to justify the means for a variance. He asked Mr. Coleman if he had the opportunity to look at the staff report of the findings Commission has to make. Mr. Coleman responded yes, and one of the things the staff report said is "do not be repetitive" and he did submit a full report on the proposal. However, the way the property is set up is that he has three attractions directly on the freeway. The properties on the east and west are right up to the fence line and the one in the middle is the one they are changing. He feels his special circumstances is that he is right up to the property line as well as both of his neighbors and for him it is just one little part right in the middle of his property. Commissioner Bostwick states since rolling skating is not as popular maybe he should go back and redesign and take out the rolling skating rink that is there and move the entire development back and enlarge it to where it encompasses the roller rink and do a betterjob of planning than trying to "shoe- horn" it into a small space. Mr. Coleman responded that would be a financial burden and there is also a walkway in between the two in order to get to the other portions of their park. Commissioner Bostwick suggested he could make an all-new entry to his arcade, office, etc., right off the parking and move it back. He feels it would enhance the entire property rather than trying to shoehorn it in. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify in looking at attachment (A) to find out what hardship the applicant • had compared to other land uses in the area, and referring basically to the uses inside the property, which really would not be a hardship, if he was saying if he did not get the variance he would not build the golf course. 04-22-02 Page 15 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Coleman responded he would have to check with his board to be sure but would think they would not continue to build simply based on the amount of square footage required to build a golf course (20 to 30 thousand) and if they move it back, it would not fit within the selected area. Commissioner Bristol stated Commissioners had a conversation in the morning session regarding utilizing the 30 feet with heavy landscaping from the property line so that in the event the proposed use is gone the landscaping would still be there. Therefore, the thought process was to continue the subject item to allow architects to integrate landscaping that would probably be required anyway into the project that would constitute 30 feet so that in the event the proposed project was not successful, the landscaping would still be there and have the same possible effect as a buffer landscaping to the use. He asked the applicant if working with the architect and staff to create the landscape barrier integrating to part of the project is something he would agree to do as a compromise and get the variance and at the same time getting landscaping that everyone would like to see. Mr. Coleman responded that is a possibility but he would have to check with his board to see if they would allow it. Commissioner Bristol affirmed and at the same time they could get the exact parking count. Commissioner Vanderbilt wished to clarify if it is true that on weekends patrons have to pay $5.00 up front which would go towards entertainment as a way of making sure people who park into the applicant's parking lot would use his facility. Mr. Coleman responded he did not believe that is happening. Commissioner Vanderbilt wished to clarify if it is free any day of the week. • Mr. Coleman responded basically a patron parks, go inside and use whatever attractions they wish. It is not like Disneyland where patrons have to pay a set price and are there all day. They have the option to stay at the park or go next door to the adjacent park. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if Commissioner Bristol is suggesting that maybe they could still maintain their three holes as long as the intent of the City's landscaping code would be met. Commissioner Vanderbilt clarified it would be a covenant of some type so that in the event the function was no longer there the trees would still be there and hopefully somebody would maintain them in the event they are not there. But, the idea is the applicant has been at the site a long time and if it is not landscaping now then when. He feels they could take the same area they have now and maybe put another use in and possibly install miniature golf on the concrete or something or change the use. He feels in that way a couple of different things could be accomplished. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify what is the development process for these type uses; could the user come in with something different without going before the Planning Commission either by right or under the guides of something they already have approved. Mr. McCafferty responded the Conditional Use Permit process governs the use itself so anything the user would propose on the site in the way of improvement would come before Commission. Commissioner Koos is not opposed to Commissioner 8ristol's idea but wanted to understand how it relates to Commissioner's development practice. He states there are 30-foot landscape setbacks with other people, and maybe it is stretched because it is amusement devices and miniature golf which lends itself to landscaping, but other land uses have to comply with the landscape setback and if they were to say, yes but we also have", "we go above and beyond your landscaping requiremenY', "we want to encroach on fhe setback just iike they are asking to do", they could make the argument and Commission ~ would do a covenant in the event that the miniature golf ends and they would say, "but just give it to us this way so we can".... He states he is just not entirely comfortable with that as a concept but maybe somebody could convince him. 04-22-02 Page 16 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Arnold stated it seems to him that it depends to some degree on what is meant by encroach because it is not all that long ago with condominiums that Commission allowed land in the setback to count as recreational space. So it depends on what is going to go into the landscaping area but if it is something of recreational nature it is counted as recreational use and as landscape setback also. Commissioner Bostwick feels it could be designed where the trees are up closer to the freeway and landscaped heavily around them whether it should be windmills, towers, etc.; they could be farther into the project and that way they would have the setback and landscaping. He feels it could be worked to where there is landscaping along the freeway and states maybe the applicant has not really thought it out fully but their testimony as far as the roller blading is not a good reason. So if they were going to change something, now would be the time to take it out and change it all rather than come back and pay more fees to Commission in order to redo it all over again. He suggests they think about it fully as to what their business p(an is and what they reaNy want to do with their recreational center. Commissioner Koos does not feel findings can be made by any hardship to label the site constrained and feels additionally under utilized portions are all over their property such as defunct rides, skating rink, etc. He states the mere fact that the applicant is saying that they do not want to touch the skating rink because the sidewalk splits the skating rink and the golf course and the customers need to be able to walk there in order to get from the family fun center paying area makes all of the hardships self-imposed. There is no doubt they can develop landscaping within the golf course which could be a benefit that otherwise may not come from the approval. He is not comfortable with it and would like the applicant to give him some comfort level but is unsure whether he could support it at all, especially when options are being looked at to minimize what is going on in the landscape setback. He feels they could work it out the best they could so that they are only encroaching by 10 feet as opposed to the entire 30 feet and would like to see an effort in that respect. Chairperson Arnold states the bottom line on this is that it is the northeast industrial and commercial area, ~ in a redevelopment area and what is critical is that Commission see improvements that will enhance the overall viability of the area. He states Commission keeps talking about how they want that to be a primary economic force in the City and want to attract businesses and industries, etc. However, there are some uses that have been approved that are not necessarily industrial uses because of particular economic circumstances at the time, whether under utilized properties or whatever. He affirms Commission needs to take care to make sure that improvements are happening along the freeway. And, in the subject property landscape setback Commission has already heard Kaiser state they are making efforts in that way and would overall make it a more viable place for businesses to invest. Commissioner Koos states Palace Park in Irvine, off the 405 Freeway, has a 60-foot setback and though it is not industrial but more commercial it can still be done. Commissioner Bristol fee(s the City of Anaheim can do a!ot of things and if Commission cannot integrate 30 feet into a little place that has been there for many years something is wrong. ~ • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION/ CONCERN: 2 people spoke with concerns pertaining to the subject request. A letter was received in opposition to the requested waiver pertaining to the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and • MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun was absent}, to continue the subject request to the June 3, 2002, Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to address concerns raised (re: landscaping and total parking count) at today's meeting 04-22-02 Page 17 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • and to submit revised plans indicating compliance with the Code requirement for a 30-foot wide fully landscaped setback abutting the freeway right-of-way. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 31 minutes (1:56-2:27) ~ ~ 04-22-02 Page 18 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04537 4c. SPECIMEN TREE REMOYAL PERMIT NO. 2002-00003 OWNER: Russell D. Miller, 415 South Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Anaheim Hills Racquet Club, Attn: Russell Miller and Wilfiam Wilkens, 415 South Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 415 South Anaheim Hills Road. Property is approximately 8.13 acres located at the southwest corner of La Paz Way and Anaheim Hills Road (Anaheim Hills Racquet Club). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04537 - Request to expand an existing tennis club by modifying previously-approved exhibits to construct three (3) additional tennis courts for a total of twelve (12). SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2002-00003 - Request for retroactive approval for the removal of four (4) specimen (Eucalyptus) trees. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to May 20, 2002 SR8281 KB.DOC • Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 4 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04537, 415 South Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim Hills Racquet Club, a request to expand the Anaheim Hills Racquet Club and receive retroactive approval for the removal of four specimen Eucalyptus trees at 415 South Anaheim Hills Road. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff's report is for the approval of 11 tennis courts total in lieu of the applicanYs request for 12 and the recommendation also is for retroactive approval of the specimen tree removal permit. He states had staff seen the proposal before the trees were removed, staff s recommendation probably would have been for denial just because it was part of a large windrow along Anaheim Hifls Road, but the fact that they have already been removed staff is recommending approval of that as conditioned. We do have for you a revised condition for the specimen tree removal permit when you are ready for that. ApplicanYs Testimony: Russell Milter, 1090 Rimmed Drive, Anaheim, CA, states he is the proud owner of the Anaheim Hills Racquet Club, purchased approximately a year ago out of bankruptcy and at the time was a completely rundown facility. He grew up in north Tustin and is very familiar with the area. He states there are four issues concerning their proposal. I) They are trying to expand the club to make it more conducive to other clubs in the Orange County area, at least in the same size range. The Ritz Lane Racquet Club has 14 tennis courts and Newport Beach has 20 courts. Anaheim Hills Racquet Club is the smallest club in Orange County. He feels one of the reasons it was bankrupt is because it was not kept up. 2) They are proposing three courts at the northern end of the property with the 25-foot setbacks ~ requested by the City. The courts will not be lighted or opened for night attendance. The property will be landscaped, which will include the northeastern side of the facility. The objective is to be competitive with other clubs. 04-22-02 Page 19 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 3) The driveway has already been deeded to the property and they already have a permit for it. Mr. Russell states the driveway is a safety issue in that people are coming down a road, which was never designed to be an entrance and exit for the property to begin with. Originally the property had four tennis courts on the southern end but they were taken out with the driveway. They are asking to put the driveway back in as when deeded to the property seven years ago. He feels the driveway will eliminate a safety issue because it would permit people to exit and prevent the possibility of accidents, as he understands there has been one fatality approximately four years ago. Mr. Miller states he has had numerous instances where he himself has driven there and almost hit people who are walking their dogs. So the objective is to make sure people do not speed as they exit to prevent someone from getting hit in the dark. 4) They are going to put up the windscreen along the Western side of the fencing to the flood canal so when cars come in the lights will go into the windscreen, which is similar to what is being used on their tennis courts to darken the view so lights do not reflect into the back area. He feels the addition of the courts will certainly reduce the noise along the Anaheim Hills Road because the courts would be used as a blocking from the cars and it would reduce the smell for sure. He states that is proven because of the amount of dirt that is on the windscreens. Every time the courts are washed the windscreens are washed and the dirt is apparent from the smog from the cars. They feel strongly that the addition of the courts will increase the value of the homes in the area substantially as compared to new homes in the Tustin Hills Racquet Club area which are now worth in excess of $1,000,000 and are the backing of the tennis courts to the tennis club. And, if a home is right next to the tennis cfub it is worth almost $200,000 more than if a block away but is still in the same housing development. They are installing 19 new trees along the eastern side or the western side of Anaheim Hills Road and will ~ landscape the bottom area. Mr. Russell states it has been an eyesore for 10-15 years and he would like to clean it up but has not been able to do anything with it because he had to wait until after owning the property for 1 year in order to get an SBA loan, which is the requirement. He states the club is doing very well income-wise and the bank is very happy w+th the way they are doing business. He feels they will not have to sell like the previous owners have had to do. The previous owners went bankrupt and that is why the driveway was never finished. They feel it is an extremely good opportunity to reduce an eyesore in the area and reduce the possibility of hazardous driving conditions and people getting hit along the road. He explains the trees removed were not in the project originally. Three of them were dead and four of them were diseased. They submitted a form to Commission from the arborist to testify to that effect and stated when the trees were trimmed the arborist gave them the "sad report". Public Testimony: Mr. McCafferty informed staff received four letters either expressing concerns or opposition. Richard Rockwell, 248 La Paz Street, Anaheim, CA, states his property is right next to where there used to be a single tennis court and now there are two tennis courts. So he is looking directly at it from his house and yard. He concurs, in principal, the good use for the property is a tennis court but he points out several issues. 1) He feels because the applicant flouted the rules and took the trees out without discussing it with anyone, Commission's approach to get them replaced by evaluation and have a landscape plan substituted is the right approach. But what he does not know is in the evaluation whether it takes into account the importance of the trees to others in the area. As was stated, it is a windscreen • and it also blocked the traffic noise from his house. He admits they are dirty, they shed a lot, and they are a hassle. But he does not have a lot of sympathy because he has to clean up his pool and backyard also. It is tough but the trees are beautiful. However, now he has direct sound from Anaheim Hills Road and the privacy issue is affected also. So what he does not know is when 04-22-02 Page 20 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES the evaluation is set for replacement whether those considerations are taken into effect and if ~ they are not he feels they should be. 2) He states the applicants want to put additional courts on the north end however, where he sees the courts on the plan there are trees. He is unsure whether they are protected trees or not and that concerns him a little bit because everything he reads, refers to the specimen Eucatyptus trees. There are some Eucalyptus trees there but there is also a couple of other type trees as well and one of them is "quite dramatic beyond words". So it does not look like they can add two or three courts and not disturb the trees. He asked if there is a plan showing where the trees are and how they intend to avoid the trees with addition of the tennis courts. 3) There are homes on the west side of the driveway and some of them are two-story homes. So when one drives in there a 6-foot screen would not eliminate the light from the cars and lights would shine on the bedrooms up stairs. He states he is not an engineer but it seems a minimum of 8 feet would be required. 4) Mr. Rockwell states as far as the driveway goes, Anaheim Hills Road is a raceway and people go fast going and coming to the point of unbelief. He admits he does not know how fast they go but he probably joins right along with them. Mr. Rockwell states there is no turnout to get into the driveway and he does not feel it makes sense to treat it like it turns onto another street because everyane knows they can turn onto another street, maintain speed and get out of the traffic. He describes it is kind of an enter quickly, slow down, and turn left again really quickly and find a parking place. So, it woufd be asking a car to come off of a 50-mph traffic pattern and "boom" right into place. He concurs there was a death recently on the street west of the tennis courts and it seems that three or four times a year there is the terrible sound on Anaheim Hills Road and somebody dies or gets hurt badly. He asks has a turnout been looked into and is that something that can be done because when people exit through the driveway, they would have to turn right • and go south. He feels there ought to be a little bit of room to get back into the traffic flow. 5) Condition No. 1, the trash storage plan area - Mr. Rockwell states right now the dumpsters are directly in front of his house but he also knows engineers are in the middle of incomplete projects and therefore believes it cannot be forever. He states it is typically the last thing to be done and staff has recommended it be done within 30 days of some set date beyond his knowledge. He points out that as one travels south towards the clubhouse there are no homes on a level with the tennis courts. The homes are on top of a hill and there is no one looking directly into the club at level. Therefore, it seems a dumpster plan should include the location of the trash dumpsters at the club in an enclosure. He affirms that he is not sure if plans have been submitted but do not feel they should be in front of people's houses as you go north along that service road. Mr. Rockwell states regarding evaluation of the landscape plan, page 7, Item No. 21, under Findings states what the conditions should state for granting a specimen tree removal permit. And as previously stated before, staff already held the considerations for the removal in front of them but the applicants proceeded the decision and took the trees out. Therefore, he does not see how Commission could say yes to the request and feels if there is some discretion a straight evaluation for Condition No. 17 should be a baseline in that some further sum should be set so that no one else dares to make the same error and the City of Anaheim wifl have a good landscape plan that will go on forever. Sonja Grewal, P.O. Box 17578, Anaheim, CA, representing Anaheim Hills Citizen's Coalition, Board of Directors, called Commission's attention to a letter from Wing Hsieh, resident at 224 S. La Paz, who referred to the increase or possible increase of rainwater runoff from the new driveway cut, and asked that the issue be discussed. Ms. Grewal states the Anaheim Hills Citizen's Coalition, Board of Directors input is limited to the following: ~ - Regarding the CUP request, they feel 11 courts are appropriate, as staff recommends. She states to go any further would be going higher than what was originally approved in 1973, and at that time there were 19 acres of land. Ms. Grewal states it is not the appficant's fault 04-22-02 Page 21 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • that land was sold off but it is reality. Therefore, Commission would be asking the neighbors to absorb more intense use on less land than what was originally approved. _ Regarding the driveway, they feel there is more than one way of screening and because the neighbors are so impacted they ask if Commission has the latitude, that it requires the applicant to meet with the neighbors who are directly affected and evaluate various schemes of screening; perhaps the one staff recommends, just landscaping or landscaping on their side which would be slightly higher, but the neighbors should be involved since they are being asked to accept noise impacts which are much closer than some of the other neighbors would be subject to. _ Regarding the specimen tree removal permit they feel Commission will hear from other testimonies that the trees were healthy trees. Ms. Grewal states she drives by there all the time and did not notice the trees dying from the top, which commonly happens when beetles get in the trees. They were healthy all the way up. And, the fact that the removal was done on a three day holiday weekend with full knowledge that they were protected trees and staff had afready informed them, it is a concern to the Anaheim Hills Citizen's Coalition, Board of Directors that the person on the property lied to police who attempted to stop the work on a holiday. The police went out one Monday and were shown plans that indicated City approval for the tree removal. Ms. Grewal feels that in addition to what Mr. Rockwell has stated, everything that was done should indicate to Commission that what staff is recommending is more than appropriate. And, if the applicant were required to landscape the area it would be an asset to his club as well as to the area. _ They feel if the driveway is approved, there is a likelihood there will be some very unsafe U- turns made. Therefore "no U-turn" signs should be considered, one opposite La Paz Way and another opposite the Texaco Station. It is more than likely that will be an attractive place to • make U-turns. Pat Goodman, 6020 E. La Paz Way, Anaheim, CA, states her home is directly adjacent to the flood control channel and the current entrance to the Anaheim Hills Tennis Club. She thanked staff and Kevin Bass, Planner, for doing a great job on the project and for listening to the citizen's input. She wished to express the following concerns: 1) Drainage from reworking the property to put in the new tennis courts could create a slide effect at the bottom of the hill where it turns onto La Paz Way. Currently, during heavy rains, mud, sand and rocks wash down and even a car going slowly down the hill has a tendency to skid. 2) She feels the current entrance should remain open so there could be two entrances and exits from the property. 3) In the event something happens to waters, she suggests drought tolerant plants should be included in the new tennis court area. Bob Bessire, 240 La Paz Street, Anaheim, CA, states he resides directly across the driveway and is really interested in the plan of getting with the applicant and deciding exactly what it looks like because although an 8-foot black screen was suggested he would be living outside of the huge black screen and would like to see something more than `just some ugly screen, maybe some vegetation". He states the original proposal from the Planning Commission, was that there be a chain link fence with slats in it with vines on the other side of the fence. But his real concern is that currently landscaping is not maintained at all. At one time there was a sprinkler system in place but that is long gone. So the plan for the past ten years is that they would not water anything and therefore, the trees would begin to die. As a result they were diseased trees and pulled out. He asks, if the applicant plants 16 new trees and the • plan is that there be irrigation, "what is irrigation, does it run off from the rain"? He feels it needs to have a sprinkler system and be maintained because currently going down Anaheim Hills Road on the right side it is all green and beautifully landscaped but going into the tennis court area it is all dead. In fact, the area 04-22-02 Page 22 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • is purposely sprayed to kill all weeds right after the rains so that there is absolutely no vegetation on the ground. Chairperson Arnold interrupted to inform that there is one more speaker for the item but staff just handed him a note that the applicant indicated indeed seven trees were removed. Therefore legally, Commission is required to readvertise and will not be able to make a final determination today but would continue to receive as much testimony as possible. Lyle J. Feran, 236 La Paz Street, Anaheim, CA, states westward of the driveway is his house. So, any traffic coming into the driveway will cause lights to shine right into his kitchen, family room and upstairs into the masier bedroom and that is a major concern. He noted the staff report recommendation and concurs with others that a 6-foot chain link fence with slats in it would not be enough and the vine would just follow a fence line and not grow any higher. He strongly recommended Commission look at other type of fencing that would be higher as opposed to some type of black fabric. He suggests trees similar to Itafian Cypress so there is a greenbelt, something pretty to look at. Also, a major concern is safety on the access road as it has already been mentioned there has been one death and also the speed there is terrific. He recommends Commission considers speed bumps all the way down the access road in order to slow traffic down. He is concern whether or not the owner is going to lease the clubhouse out to parties, receptions, etc., and if so will there be someone on premises during those times. He states in the past, it has been rented out and people did not know how to use the sound system and the speakers would be on, not only in the clubhouse, but also on the tennis court. Therefore, a lot of music came blaring out to the entire neighborhood. Mr. Feran states what they are looking for is a good neighbor and somebody that will consider and • contribute to the peace, health, and safety of the neighborhood. Applicant's Rebuttal: Mr. Miller responded that he has no problem with the residents on how they want to address the issue of the lights. He states they are community friendly and would like for people who live around them to be happy. Regarding the U-turn, the reasons the driveway was installed is because of the problem on La Paz Way. Coming out of La Paz Way and making the turns is creating accidents because you have to go to the right and there is no U-turn there. He confirms they would love to meet with the people and discuss whatever is best for them. He feels landscaping installed in the bottom area and the additional tennis courts will prevent the runoff from the dirt. Chairperson Arnold asked Mr. McCafferty to give the report on the findings regarding the trees. Mr. McCafferty informed Larry Pasco, from Urban Forestry, would identify the trees torn down by photograph and additionally Code Enforcement could give a brief history of the Code Enforcement activity since November 2001. Larry Pasco, Park Services Manager, stated in December, 2000, the trees were topped and at that time they did an evaluation and determined the trees were topped below the height of 25 feet, which was the Code limit (specimen trees, Eucalyptus that are protected cannot be topped below 25 feet). He stated there were 8 trees topped but one of them was dead. Seven of the trees were alive and healthy. All the trees along the windrow are Eucalyptus Globulus trees, which is a pretty hardy Eucalyptus variety. Mr. Pasco stated there were a number of other Eucalyptuses out in the canyon that was susceptible to pest and diseases but the subject trees were of a hardy variety and were in pretty good condition. He presented photographs, which depicted the trees right after they were topped and before they were • removed in January and they revealed green growth on the seven remaining trees. The evaluation Park Services conducted on the value of the trees takes into consideration a number of factors that considers the species, the condition of the tree, the size of the tree, the site that it is planted 04-22-02 Page 23 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES in, the contribution that it makes to the site and also the placement. So part of the formula that is used to ~ monitor the value of the tree also considers how valuable the tree would be as the screening plant and in this case it did screen the tennis courts from view and sound. He confirms the International Society of Arboricultural, International Arborist Association and a number of nationally recognized tree outfits accept the formula. He feels the monetary value would have been significantly higher had the trees not been topped. He states the trees in that wind drive had a history of being topped over the years and a tree that is topped lessens its value. The irrigation would include a drift irrigation system for new trees and that means providing water to a plant whether it is a tree or shrub and would be covered in the plan. Commissioner Bristol recalled the applicant mentioned that he gave Commission an arborist report however the Commissioners could not recall receiving it and he asked Mr. Pasco if he received one. Mr. Pasco responded "t personally have not seen that". Mr. McCafferty stated there are two ways to remove a tree, 1) the applicant ask for City approval or 2) have an arborist certify that the trees are dead, damaged, diseased or endanger of falling. He cautions that is done before the tree is cut down and in this case that was not done. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if staff received a report after the fact. Mr. McCafferty responded he was not aware of anything in the file but if the applicant were petitioning for Commission approval to remove the trees they would not need it. It is only if they are going to try to do it administratively through the Code. Commissioner Vanderbilt wished to clarify if topping is not a pruning technique. Mr. Pasco responded topping is a method of just cutting the top of the tree off and not an acceptable way • of pruning if trying to develop a tree. Trees that are topped become dangerous because from the point of the cut, branch attachments develop and if they are allowed to grow tall they become weak and fall off in the wind and can cause injury. Topping a tree weakens the tree and makes it susceptible to infestations of different types of diseases. Eucalyptus in the canyon are susceptible to a type of beetle or boar that gets in them and once they are topped during certain times of the year they are really susceptible to the boar and in most cases will die within 5 or 8 years. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated anyone who tops a tree is either not knowledgeable about the stress put on the tree or is just simply trying to minimize the leaves that fall from the tree, maintaining the screening it provides but reducing the amount of foliage they have to deal with. He wished to clarify if when the topping occurred Mr. Pasco went to the applicant and pointed out that it was illegal and asked them to remove the foliage remaining from the cut. Mr. Pasco responded he did not personally go to the residence but Code Enforcement did after Park Services communicated to them the situation and they reviewed the photographs. Commissioner Vanderbilt wished to clarify if there is some record that exist that the owners were on notice about the significance of the trees and that any kind of trimming or even removal would require City approval. Mr. Pasco responded he understands that is the case. Mr. McCafferty clarified the November staff report for the additional courts documented a number of times that no trees were planted for removal as part of the request. It is well documented both in public record as well as the documentation from Code Enforcement that no trees were planned to be removed. An arborist report was submitted after the trees were already removed. In fact, it was after the trees were ~ already topped. In reading the report, based on the condition of the trees at that time, it was the arborist's opinion that the trees should be removed. Chairperson Arnold clarified but after they were already topped. 04-22-02 Page 24 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • AI Brady, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, states on November 19, 2001, when the CUP was modified to add the two new tennis courts, there were many stipulations that no specimen trees would be removed. On December 7, 2001, Mr. Pasco discovered that seven of the trees had been topped. He went out and did measurements on the trees and reported back to Code Enforcement. On December 12, 2001, Officer Bill Small went out and issued a notice of violation to William Wilkins and at that time he was advised by Mr. Wilkins that they were aware they were not supposed to top the trees beneath the 25-foot level. Additionally he indicated that he knew he was not supposed to remove any specimen trees in relation to the new tennis courts they are constructing. On January 23, 2002, Code Enforcement received another cafl, after a holiday weekend, that indeed trees had been removed. When Code Enforcement went out there were a few stumps left near where new construction was going on but most of the evidence was covered up because they had already laid the concrete for the new courts. After the two incidents, it was Code Enforcement's belief that the applicant topped the trees in December in preparation for their removal in January. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if there had been other Code Enforcement incidents with the subject property. Mr. Brady responded there was one other incident a couple years back with the previous owner, Mr. Wilkins, regarding a boat that was being stored on the property but the issue has been resolved. Melanie Adams, Principal Civil Engineer, wished to respond to questions related to grading and drainage which were brought up by some of the citizens. She states regarding the site being prepared for the tennis courts, the grading plans should be submitted for review and approval of the grading activity; the levels of the grade and the direction and the amount of drainage. In addition, if the new landscaped area exceeds 2500 square feet an area, then that landscaping and irrigation plan must conform to Chapter 10.1 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, which speaks about landscape water efficiency. One of the citizens talked about the drought tolerant and that is the aim of that code. In addition, there is concern about the ~ maintenance of the landscaping and the tennis court yards, etc., and to that the Public Works Department would like to add a condition for a storm water quality management plan to be prepared and submitted for review and approval. Chairperson Arnold states given the number of trees that would have to receive a retroactive approval for removal, the item would definitely have to be continued. He is concerned about the history or the pattern of the project. In November, Commission received a request for a CUP to increase the number of tennis courts on the property by two and now there is another three. In the meantime, trees that were very clearly not supposed to have been removed have been removed and it turns out it is not that there were four removed but there were seven. He is not entirely convinced that even if Commission conditions the CUP very carefully that the history of the subject facility indicates that those conditions would be complied with. He asks, "are we going to come back from a holiday weekend to find lights on the tennis court for example, and have to go through that whole process and, are we going to find additional trees that mysteriously become topped or removed or something". He states he is just deeply troubled by the history of the subject facility. Commissioner Koos stated he would like to see a landscape plan that shows an inventory of what is on the site so Commission can see what is being removed because the plans that were submitted in the package today are very sketchy. Normally, even if someone removes even one specimen tree, Commission would have a pretty detailed landscape plan as a process. Commissioner Bostwick concurred and asked also for a plan of the kind of coating or covering they are going to put on the fence, its height and the extent of where it is going to be located so that Commission as well as the neighbors would have some feeling of what is going to happen in their neighborhood. Commissioner Koos states he thinks it is great that the applicant agrees to meet with the neighbors and he firmly urged him to do so within the next four weeks and hopefully have all the plans in order by that • time. Commissioner Bristol stated he visited the site during the weekend and walked the entire property with two of the residents nearby. His thoughts as he communicated with the residents were as follows: 04-22-02 Page 25 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ - The lights as vehicies come off the new cut off of Anaheim Hills Road. - Shrubbery and the Italian Cypress. He cautions whatever is decided they must be mindful of the powerlines that are not very tall within the site. He would fike to see staff address that issue in addition to the six feet. - Parking, traffic and circulation within the project is tight. While visiting the site, as he drove all the way down he found he had to back up and then come back out to park and then walk. He believes the tennis courts would impact it more. He was there when there was a tournament going on and not all of the stalls were being utilized and it was still difficult. - If there are no lights on the new northerly courts project, then literally how much traffic, if any difference on La Paz or the new cut in the evening, would impact the neighbors that are not currently being impacted with courts. - Also circulation that would impact the current neighbors because now the stalls are southbound and one has to back up and go the other direction. So if one were going against traffic he would have a circu{ation problem. - The curb cut may be viable or it may not be depending on how it is perceived because it could possibly encourage a U-turn somewhere else. Commissioner Bristol suggests all of the above concerns should be addressed and probably more thoroughly than the ones being addressed at hand. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. • OPPOSITION/ CONCERN: 5 people spoke with concerns/suggestions pertaining to the subject request (1 person represented the Anaheim Hills Citizens' Coalition); and 4 letters were received in opposition/concerns pertaining to the subject request (2 were received prior to the meeting and 2 were received at the meeting). ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun was absent), to continue the subject request to the May 20, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order to readvertise the request to reflect the correct number of trees removed, i.e., seven (7) instead of four (4) specimen trees; to allow the applicant time to address concerns raised at today's meeting (re: parking, traffic and circulation, curb cut, landscaping, and fence heighUcovering/location); and for the applicant to submit a detailed landscape plan. Commission also suggested the applicant meet with concerned neighbors in order to address their concerns. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 44 minutes (2:28-3:12} ~ 04-22-02 Page 26 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMlSS10N MINUTES 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to • 5b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002-00402 May 20, 2002 5c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00070 5d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 5e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04530 OWNER: James H. Kroll, 1970 Aspen Street, Los Osos, CA 93402-2402 AGENT: RHL Design Group, Inc., Attn: James Forgey, 1201 South Beach Boulevard, Suite 207, La Habra, CA 90631 LOCATION: 1201 South Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 1.2-acres {ocated at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Brookhurst Street (Arco AM/PM Service Station). GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002-00402 - Request amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate the property from the Low Density Residential land use designation to the General Commercial land use designation. RECLASSIFICA710N NO. 2002-00070 - Request reclassification of Portion A from the property from County of Orange, County C-1 (Commercial) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone or less intense zone. ~ CONDITIONAL l1SE PERMIT NO. 2002-04530 - Request to permit a gasoline service station with an accessory convenience market with sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption and an accessory car wash with waivers of a) maximum structural height abutting a single- fami{y residential zone boundary and b) minimum distance between driveway openings adjacent to an arterial highway. * Waiver (b) has been deleted. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8279KB.DOC OPPOSITION: A letter of opposition pertaining to the request for sales of beer and wine for off- premises consumption was received prior to the meeting from the West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council (WAND). AC710N: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun was absent), to continue the subject request to the May 20, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order to submit revised plans for the service station building and car wash structure. ~ VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 04-22-02 Page 27 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1 Concurred with staff 6b. CONDI710NAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04523 Granted, in part OWNER: Julia T. Kan, 634 Crest Vista Drive, Monterey Park, CA 91754 AGENT: EI Misti Picanteria Arequipena, 1551 Brookhurst, Unit 3, Fullerton, CA 92833 LOCATION: 3070 West Lincoln Avenue. Units D-E*. Property is approximately 1.4-acres located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Grand Avenue. Request to permit on-premises sale and consumption of beer and wine within an existing restaurant.** * Originally advertised as Units A-Q. "` Advertised request to establish land use conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing commercial retail center and liquor store was deleted. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-57 SR1071CW.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 6 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04523, 3070 West Lincoln Avenue, Units D-E, a request for on-premises sale and consumption of beer and wine within an existing restaurant. t Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval as conditioned. ApplicanYs Testimony: Bettina Montez, 13472 Weymouth St., Westminster, CA, Latin Translator for Mr. Juan Copara, the applicant. Juan Copara, 3070 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA, representing Picanteria Arequipena EI Misti, asked of the result regarding the license requested in order to get a license for beer. Chairperson Arnold responded staff is recommending approval and Commission will vote on it. He asked Mr. Copara if he has read and understands the conditions. Mr. Copara responded yes, and he understands the conditions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun 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 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. 04-22-02 Page 28 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04523 (to permit on-premises sale and consumption of beer and wine within an existing restaurant) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated Ap~il 22, 2002. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights; and stated the action taken today is a land use approval, therefore the applicant would still need to obtain an Alcoholic Beverage Control License. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (3:13-3:17) • ~ 04-22-02 Page 29 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1 Concurred with staff 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04529 Granted, in part OWNER: Pan Pacific, 1631 South Melrose Drive, Suite B, Vista, CA 92083 AGENT: Los Compadres Mexican Restaurant, Attn: Ruben Serrato-Rivera, 2219 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 2219 West Ball Road. Property is approximately 15.86 acres located at the northwest corner of Ball Road and Brookhurst Street. Request to permit on-premises sale and consumption of beer and wine within an existing restaurant. * Advertised as 905-949 South Brookhurst Street and 2201-2299 West Ball Road *"` Advertised request to establish tand use conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing commercial retail center was deleted CONDITIONAL USE PERM17 RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-58 SR1072CW.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 7 as Conditional Use No. 2002-04529, 2219 West Ball Road, a request to permit on-premises sale and consumption of beer and wine within an existing restaurant- Los ~ Compadres Mexican Restaurant. Greg, McCaffe~ty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval as conditioned. Applicant's Testimony: Reuben Rivera, 2219 West Ball Road, representing Los Compadres Mexican Restaurant, stated he appreciates the approval and will do his best to keep up with the City Ordinance. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. FULLUWING IS A Si1MMARY UF I HF F~LANNIN(~ COMMI551ON AC Il[]N_ I OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun 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 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. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04529 (to permit on-premises sale and consumption of beer and wine within an existing restaurant) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated April 22, 2002. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun was absent) ~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (3:18-3:19) 04-22-02 Page 30 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINU7ES ~ 8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3 8b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04528 OWNER: Ofelia Sanchez, 1190 North Cherry Way, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Bettina Montes, 817 North Broadway, # C, Santa Ana, CA 92701 LOCATION: 1190 North Cherry Way. Property is approximately 0.18-acre with a frontage of 67 feet on the east side of Cherry Way located 93 feet south of the centerline of Romneya Drive. Request to permit and retain an unpermitted granny unit in conjunction with an existing single-family residence with waivers of a) minimum number of parking spaces, b) minimum front yard setback and c) permitted encroachment into required yards.* * Waiver (c) has been deleted. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-59 Concurred with staff Denied Denied SR8251 AN.DOC • Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 8 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04528, 1190 North Cherry Way, a request to permit and retain an unpermitted granny unit in conjunction with an existing single- family residence with waivers of a) minimum number of parking spaces, b) minimum front yard setback and c) permitted encroachment into required yards. Greg McCafferty informed staff recommends denial for the waivers and denial of the Conditional Use Permit for the granny unit. ApplicanYs Testimony: Bettina Montez, 13472 Weymouth St., Westminster, CA, Latin Translator for Mr. Sanchez, the applicant. Pablo Sanchez, 1190 N. Cherry Way, Anaheim, CA, stated he is present to request a granny unit for his parents due to medicinal and geriatric reasons. He offered medical documentations of his parents who are 68 and 70 years old, which he believes is over the age requirement (62 years). He states if his parents live at the granny unit they will not affect the parking spaces because they are pretty old and do not know how to drive. He brought neighbors who live close to the property along with him who support his use of the granny unit. Public Testimony: Maria Delos Angeles Catellanos, 1196 N. Cherry Way, Anaheim, CA stated she owns her duplex and does not have any problems with her neighbor, Pablo, having a granny unit and there is no problem with parking and space. Mr. Sanchez stated there is an issue with the garage due to the fact that the property is too old. It was • built in 1923 and they could not find the permits for the garage that is attached. So there are two issues, one is the granny unit and secondly, there is a garage on the front, which is incompliant with the requirement. He feels when the garage was built it probably had the permits but because it was built in 1923 there are no records. He went to the assessor and received a plan, which shows the garage 04-22-02 Page 31 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ attached but they refuse to give credit for it. He presented a copy showing the building permit for the building only and in addition it shows a drawing of a second story and indicated that the garage was not the correct size in getting part of the City property but it has been approved. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify when the building permit was approved. Mr. Sanchez responded it is dated July 5, 1977, however the assessor informs it does not count and he does not understand why. Commissioner Koos explained the assessor does not grant approval. Chairperson Arnold concurs and wished to clarify if Mr. Sanchez is saying that the garage was buift in the 1920's. Mr. Sanchez responded the house was built in 1923. Commissioner Eastman stated not with a front garage. Mr. Sanchez responded there was no record for the garage. He offered a photograph showing the garage and stated he believes the assessor had to get it from somewhere and he was told it was from the City but has since found out that the City does not have anything. However, when looking at the records it show the same building permit that the City has on records but it is only a building permit and does not show planning. He feels Commission might have the records of who was the inspector at the time. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if he is referring to the 1970's. Mr. Sanchez clarified July 5, 1977. • Commissioner Bristol clarified it was for the additional top. Mr. Sanchez responded yes but on the map it shows also the garage, which was not built properly or at least did not have the right size. Commissioner Bristol stated the County records show approximately 1,700 square feet in addition to the bottom second story. Mr. Sanchez responded the records received from the assessor show 1,150 square feet on the first floor and 800 square feet on the second floor; 3 bedrooms, 3 baths and an attached garage. Chairperson Arnold requested the plans being discussed be submitted for the records. Commissioner Bostwick wished to clarify if it is correct that the house was built as a single story in the 1920's and now there is a second story added on top, a garage on the front and they have turned the garage that was in the rear into a two story addition as well. Mr. McCafferty is unsure of the complete history of the building permits but feels that the garage, given the vintage of the original home, was loaded off the alley and what is seen now as the granny unit was the garage, which is evidence by the garage door shown in the photograph. He states had the applicant built an addition in the 1970's they would be required, just like today, to comply with City parking requirements and would not have been allowed an encroachment into the front setback. He feels conceivably, what may have happened is they came in with the site plan to show the addition on the second floor only and they are focusing in on what the addition was in the 1970's and not what was there. He states often times what happens is there is an approval for one thing and the building • inspector will visit the site and find out there is a whole host of other things that they cannot make sense of, and he feels that is what happened in this case. Commissioner Bristol stated the County records show it was built in 1923. 04-22-02 Page 32 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Sanchez stated in a letterjust recently received there are complaints about parking and space. He brought along a neighbor who lives directly in front ofi his house that would attest there is no problem at all and who stands in favor of building the granny unit. Elloena Samora, 1232 West Romneya Drive, Anaheim, CA, states she is present to speak in favor of the granny unit and hopes Mr. Sanchez receives the approval. Chairperson Arnold wished to verify Mr. Sanchez's statement that she would attest that there is no parking problem with his particular property. Ms. Montez stated Ms. Samora lives so close to Mr. Sanchez that if someone complained, it would affect everyone. Therefore Mr. Sanchez was able to go door to door and inquire if there was a parking problem. Chairperson Arnold stated he needed Ms. Samora to verify Mr. Sanchez's statement and not Ms. Montez, the interpreter. Ms. Samora stated, "there is no problem with parking, it is okay". Mr. Sanchez offered to submit medical records of his parents. Chairperson Arnold advised if the medical records were submitted to Commission they would be maintained as public record and could not be returned. He suggested just informing of the conditions as opposed to submitting the records. Mr. McCafferty stated the medical records were not the basis for staff's recommendation and were not necessary to obtain. • Mr. Sanchez stated the reason he wanted to submit their records is to assure Commission that he wants the granny unit for his parents. Additionally, he wished to submit copies of paperwork referring to application for immigration to rent the apartment. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Arnold stated this request is not the same situation as the request reviewed in January of the property on Boden Drive and he actually did not see a problem with the request as, 1) It appears it is a situation that has existed for sometime and 2) The total number of parking spaces is not a problem. However, it is the configuration, which is difficult on the lot as there is a garage that is far out i~to the front setback. The City of Anaheim has a policy of allowing granny units, which is a reasonable means of accommodating housing needs for seniors who are related to the residents of the building. Commission regularly allows waivers of setbacks and sometimes parking spaces. So this is a difficult situation. He states if someone were coming before Commission up front, he feels there would be a problem with the request but the subject proposal appears to be a long standing situation and it would seem to be unequitable to deny it at this point. Although he quickly affirms that he does not wish to create standards where Commission encourages people to violate the code and come in and beg forgiveness later but in this situation he has a hard time saying no to the applicant. Commissioner Eastman asked in viewing the front of the house, is there a reason why two cars cannot be parked in the garage that is on the front of the house. Mr. McCafferty clarified it is because they do not have enough clearance interior dimension. The Code requires 20x20 and their width is approximately 16 feet. So they cannot accommodate two spaces, per City Code, and neither can they accommodate the spaces in front of the garage. Commissioner Eastman asked if there is a reason the back unit could not accommodate a car and still ~ have the granny unit. Mr. McCafferty stated they could park vehicles in the back in an enclosed area. 04-22-02 Page 33 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Eastman wished to clarify if they could change the garage to accommodate another car as well as their accommodations for someone to live in part of it would it qualify as a granny unit. Mr. McCafferty responded yes, they could extend the detached granny unit to include a two-car garage and then provide the other open spaces on the lot. Commissioner Eastman responded, "okay, as long as the structure complied with Code". Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, interjected with new evidence from the case planner that there was actually a basement below the rear structure, which would mean parking would be prohibited on top of the basement. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if the plans just submitted with the garage outlined are the ones from 1977. Chairperson Arnold clarified the plans are stamped September 24, 1979 on the bottom. Commissioner Bristol stated the plans show the garage and not the livable, habitable building the way it is currently. Ms. Montez stated it shows the front unit. Commissioner Bristol did not feel it was the front unit because it shows 20 feet from the garage to the street. He states it appears to be that where the granny unit might be now and in front of that is where the other garage is, because there is not 20 feet between the street and the current garage. He believes what was there in 1979 is what was there before the unpermitted addition, and the current garage is being utilized as a garage and the old garage is made habitable. ~ Ms. Montez responded there is another building permit dated July 5, 1977 and is the only permit that they have from the Building Division Department, which afso shows the garage built improperly. She states the architect explained that PL means property lines and the property lines shows on the permit but it seems as though when the Building Division Department approved it they did not look at the PL on the sides. Mr. Hastings clarified the point Ms. Montez makes is that the portion of the plan that is visible shows 16 feet from the base of the building to what appears to be the property line. He states however, the property line is the dashed line so there is obviously less than 16 feet from the property line to the front of the garage on the plan, which is the plan that Planning never approved. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if the Building Division Department approved the plan. Mr. Hastings responded the Building Division Department approved a plan two-story room addition in the back, which has nothing to do with the front. So whatever happened occurred before the approval. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if the garage was built prior to the two-story addition. Mr. Hastings responded according to the current plans, yes. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if it was not permitted. Mr. Hastings responded Planning does not have records to that effect. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify what is happening with everything going on in the back. • Mr. Hastings responded the current plans Commission has does not show anything regarding the back area, only the front section of the house. 04-22-02 Page 34 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Eastman wished to clarify if the basement under the garage in the back is a fuil basement under the entire garage. Commissioner Koos wished to clarifij what exactly is in the basement. Steve Lankenau, Code Enforcement Officer II, states there is a long history to the property. He first visited the property approximately a year ago and at that time found six different residences inside the property, according to the owner all being rented out. The garage in the rear had an unpermitted loft, which had occupants in it; there were three unpermitted bathrooms in the rear granny unit; the size of the basement is approximately 10x12 underneath the garage, which also had occupants in it; in the upstairs to the main house, the stairwell had been closed off; there was a separate unpermitted entrance from the side going up to the top unit; the interior stairwell had been closed off and turned into closets and then the owner occupied the downstairs main house. He states as far as the history, he is unsure exactly how far Commission wants him to get into it but he stopped by several times and issued several notices of violations to have the occupants immediately leave the unpermitted rooms. That process went on for approximately six months until he finally got the occupants cleared out and then things got put on hold as far as following proper procedures through the P{anning Commission. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if during that time ownership changed hands. Mr. Lankenau responded no, the owner just bought the property prior to his first visit. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if the current owner is not the same owner as when the issues with the property first started. • Mr. Lankenau clarified the owner has been the owner the entire time. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if in Mr. Lankenau's opinion there is anything permitted other than the original structure and the addition and if anything is safe in the house. He feels there certainly must be a large number of unsafe things. Commissioner Vanderbilt wished to clarify given the intent for the structure to support two elderly people if he had any concerns about where they intend to live if the proposa{ is not approved. He noted some of the photos depict a hatchway into the bathroom where it is necessary to step up over a foot of wall. He wished to clarify if it is on the second story or first story. Mr. Lankeanu responded that is the entry to the second story loft in the rear granny unit (rear garage). Commissioner Vanderbilt stated maybe he should direct his question to the applicant about the intent. Mr. McCafferty did not feel anything the applicant submitted provided evidence that a 6%-foot setback off the street was ever approved by the City, which becomes of great concern to staff in terms of trying to maintain Code and not set a precedent in the area. Chairperson Arnold asked the applicant to respond to Commissioner VanderbilYs question. Commissioner Vanderbilt reiterated given the size of the granny unit and the fact that there is a second story, is there any part of the granny unit that they are going to live in specifically or if they plan to live in the entire structure. Mr. Sanchez responded they are a couple and would be using the entire back. He states they were present to ask permission to build the garage on the back but there is a basement and it is not safe to use • as a garage. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if it is correct that he (Mr. Sanchez) had a number of different people living in the house as paying tenants and if it is true that Code Enforcement worked with him to get the 04-22-02 Page 35 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ people out, Mr. Sanchez responded it was oniy one time that there was one person there and Steve (Mr. Lankenau) inquired of his living status and he responded when he got the house the person already lived there and asked to stay a couple of days until his escrow closed because he was also buying a house. Mr. Sanchez requested Commission to ask Mr. Lankenau how many times he visited the property and found furniture because he feels it was only a bed and a dresser. However, Steve (Mr. Lankenau) had the impression that people were living there because there were items in the granny unit, but there were no people. Chairperson Arnold asked Mr. Lankenau if he saw people in particular. Mr. Lankenau responded he actually saw people twice, whom he assumed, were residing in the different residences. He explained he met two young guys living in the upstairs above the garage; he also met the people that were living upstairs from the downstairs main house. But, in general when he walks into a residence and find rooms with unpermitted bathrooms, personal effects, bedding, etc, most of those are assumptions that obviously somebody is living there. He states during the day when he does his inspections, he normally does not come across the occupants. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify that he did come across some people. Mr. Lankenau responded yes, he definitely came across some and if it is required of him he could give the dates of his inspections and present numerous photographs and copies of all the notices of violations he issued. Commissioner Bostwick wished to clarify since there is a basement under the garage, which was not ~ permitted when the house was built what supports the garage floor. Mr. Lankenau responded the only thing visible as far as support is a three-inch pipe in the center of the room, which goes up from the floor to the ceiling. However, since the entire room is drywalled or plastered it is difficult to get an idea of structurally how it is being supported. Commissioner Bristol states for what he is gathering from when Mr. Lankenau was inspecting the house the structure seems unsafe and he would have hesitated to walk into the facility. Therefore, he asked why it took so long for Mr. Lankenau to bring it to Commission and then only after a granny unit was requested. He asked if he took the property to some other place in the City to be looked at as to whether to build and inquire if it is structurally habitable versus whether a granny unit could be permitted or not. Mr. Lankenau wished to clarify if the question is structurally why did it take so long. Commissioner Bristol clarified yes, because with the information he is gathering right now he would not want to step inside the structure. Mr. Lankenau responded he is also a Structure Building Inspector and worked for almost 2 years for the City of Anaheim in Structural and as far as the structure aspect he did not see any problems as far as imminent life and safety issuss at that moment. Most of them would come from just the habitable portion of the garage, firewalls, things that actually could imminently cause fire to spread but as far as structural standpoint ofi things collapsing, he did not see anything that caused him thaY much concern. Commissioner Bristol asked if he did not have an electrical concern. Mr. Lankenau responded yes, definitely. ~ Commissioner Eastman wished to clarify if typically garages do not have the kind of support across the beam to support floors, furniture, etc. Mr. Lankenau responded no, not at all. 04-22-02 Page 36 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Eastman stated an immediate concern for her would be is it reaNy structuralty sound to support living in the upper story of the garage. Mr. Lankenau responded no, definitely not in the garage but he could not see structura{ly inside because it is all drywalled. Commissioner Bostwick states he appreciate their problem and what they are trying to accommodate but obviously the property has gone through major changes throughout the years, turning from a residence into a boardinghouse and now trying to go to a residence. However, not only does the garage on the front not meet the code but also the garage that they are trying to turn into a granny unit in the back appears to be unsafe. He concurs with staff and cannot support the proposal. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify what happens if Commission votes no, because he understands the applicants can no longer use the facility as a granny unit but does not understand what is going to happen with respect to the garage that is in the front setback. Mr. McCafferty clarified the applicant would need to shave it back to the permitted structural setback line. Mr. Sanchez responded if he were required to do that he would lose his bedroom. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify to which bedroom was he referring. Mr. Sanchez responded if he tried to move the front garage to put it on the side required, he would lose part of the bedroom that he currently has, which is behind the front garage because the requirement is 20 feet and he has 6 feet. Commissioner Koos stated in all likelihood a garage could not be put there. ~ Mr. Sanchez reiterated if they did that they would lose a bedroom. Commissioner Bostwick stated the garage in the back which they want to use as a granny unit could be returned back to a garage and they would need to get rid of the basement making it possibfe to park in the back and utilize the house as it was originally designed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Arnold stated he has been convinced by the evidence, especially of the pattern of what has been going on, based on the report from Code Enforcement and also the canditions of the particular unit. Therefore, he has reassessed his thoughts and is now in agreement with staff's recommendation. OPPOSITION: None FAVOR: 2 people spoke in support of the subject request; and 3 people filled out "speaker cards" in support of the subject request (one being the interpreter). ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun 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 3(New Construction), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental ~ documentation. Denied Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows: 04-22-02 Page 37 APRIL 22, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Denied waivers pertaining to (a) minimum number of parking spaces and (b) minimum front yard setback because there is no justification for granting the waivers based on the characteristics of the property nor have there been similar waivers granted in the vicinity; and denied waiver (c) pertaining to permitted encroachment into required yards since it has been deleted. Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04528 (to permit and retain an existing granny unit in conjunction with an existing single-family residence) based on the evidence presented at the meeting and based on the following: (i) That the existing second unit as sited on the property is not properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code and under California Code Section 65852.1; (ii) That the existing second unit was intended to be garage parking and as such, the unpermitted conversion adversely affects the adjoining land uses by creating substandard conditions whereby vehicles associated with the property block the public sidewalk and cannot accommodate on-site parking; (iii) That the size and shape of the property on which the second unit is built is adequate to allow the full development of a second unit without the need for waivers and in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun was absent) ~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 41 minutes (3:20-4:01) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:03 P.M. TO MONDAY, MAY 6, 2002 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. ~ Respectfully submitted: Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2002. 04-22-02 Page 38