Loading...
Minutes-PC 2002/07/29~ CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES M ON DAY, J U LY 29, 2002 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAI RP;~~fl1~~=PAUL~ 60STWICK • COMM1SS10NERS PRESENT pW~t'.~L1S~B~YpS~UI~';""STE~'HEN BRISTOL, ~ ~~~ EA~I~IAftV,`~~)"I-{N~~O~,~C~~VE VACANCY) COMMISSIONERS ABSF~T' u~ ~~€~~ ~~: STAFF PRESENT: /~,, ~ i° Selma Mann, Assista~i~City~Attyc~~l ~~°.' ~ ~~ Greg Hastings, Zon~ng Dr is~~n ~ Greg McCafferty, Prfncipal~~'a~~ Cheryl Flores, Seraic~ra~la~ ~ ~_ < ~, ~. _H,. : AGENDA POST~~G~;l~1yc Friday, July 26, 02, ~n~i outside display ki~sk ==' ~ ~ ~~ ~~ PUBLISHED: A~aaheim ~ ~ ~:, ~ ~ ~~,. CALL TO ORDER ,~~~E; PLANNIN.C~CO • STAFF~t~I?~ DEVELORIS ~~~-~ • PLANNING ~w.riv~iv~~~~ic„~i~~ ~~ ; . ~~ ~ ~ PRELIMINARY~'L~ RE~/I~ ~~ ~ ° ~~ ,.,` <«. ;~~ E,r~ ~~ RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a sfatement regarding any item on the agenda, p/ease 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\CLERICAUMINUTESWC072902.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net J U LY 29, 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 CALENDAR: Item 1-A through 1-E on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy), for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-B through 1-E) as recommended by staff. Consent Calendar Item (1-A) was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED u . REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. A) CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) b) VARIANCE NO. 2001-04443 (TRACKING NO. VAR 2002-045251 c) SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL NO. 2001-00001 (TRACKING NO. SPT 2002-000051- REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF FINAL PLANS: DR Horton, Attn: Cherryl Thompson, 119 North Maple Street, Suite A, Corona, CA 92880, requests review of final site, floor, elevation, landscaping, lighting and fencing plans for a previously-approved 128- unit single family subdivision. Property is located at 5801 East Santa Ana Canyon Road - Maag Ranch. (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) Approved Approved Approved Final Plans, with an added stipulation (Vote: 5-0, Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy) SR1174JD.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 1-A as Variance No. 2001-04443, 5801 East Santa Ana Canyon Road - Maag Ranch, a request to review final site, floor elevation, landscaping, lighting, and fencing plans for a previously-approved 128-unit single-family subdivision. Staff recommended Commission approve the final plans with recommendations stipulated on page 11 of the staff report. Public Testimony: Gregg Green, 200 N. Solomon Dr., Anaheim, CA, states he lives directly adjacent to Maag Ranch in a two-story home that overlooks the development. From his upstairs bedroom he would be looking in the backyards of lots 3 to 6. Currently proposed is a 6-foot wall and 7 feet tall trees to be planted every 50 feet. He feels the trees should be taller and installed approximately 25 feet apart in order to obstruct viewing into neighboring backyards. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • Applicant's Rebuttal: Daniel Boyd, Sr. Vice President of D. L. Hart, 119 N. Maple St., Corona, CA, states they have a sensitive criteria with resisting weight utilities and do not have the complete liberty to commit planting more trees or 07-29-02 Page 2 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • relocation of trees in such a tight area, but could revisit the landscape plan to potentially mitigate Mr. Green's concerns. Chairperson Bostwick wished to clarify if the trees could be placed in the backyards right away. Mr. Boyd responded they could look at it as an alternative with the project City planner. DURING THE ACTION. Mr. McCafferty clarified there would be a stipulation on the final plans submitted for staff approval and building permits that would indicate the lots described by the adjacent homeowner that the trees either be planted in the backyards of the units or if feasible befinreen the front of the wall facing Solomon Drive and the public right-of-way. Commissioner Boydstun clarified they would need to be taller than 7 feet. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if modifying the condition relative to the described terms was legal. Mr. McCafferty clarified a plan correction submitted to staff by the applicant stipulating he is willing to perform such actions makes it legal to change the plans. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • CONCERNS: One person spoke with concerns pertaining to landscaping and suggested planting additional trees along Solomon Drive in order to obstruct view from his property. • ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Final Plan Nos. 1 through 47 as stipulated below based on the following: (i) That the proposed site plan complies with all setback requirements of the RS-5000(SC) Code (subject to block wall modifications for Lots 8 and 9) and Condition of Approval No. 4 pertaining to the bedroom cap for the project. (ii) That the proposed final plans comply with the conditions of approval for Variance No. 2001-04443 and Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2001- 00001. (iii) That the final plans propose architecturally enhanced homes with decorative fencing, floor plans that comply with Code, landscaping that is complimentary to adjacent tracts, and street lighting that matches the City standard. Including the following stipulations to be placed on the plans: (i) That a decorative wall cap as approved be staff, shall be provided along the • entire length of the 12-foot high block wall provided along the northerly tract boundary facing the Riverside Freeway. 07-29-02 Page 3 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ (ii) That the proposed combination block and steel fence at the main entry shall be reduced to 3 feet in height within the required front setback on Lots 8 and 9. (iii) That the maximum structural height of the homes shall comply with Section 18.84.042.010 pertaining to maximum structural height. (iv) That the final location of the Sycamore and Oak trees along Santa Ana Canyon Road where overhead utility lines exist, shall be reviewed and adjusted by the Electrical Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department, if required, prior to issuance of building permits. (v) That street lights shall be provided along Solomon Drive as approved by the Electrical Engineering Division, per Condition No. 21 of Resolution No. 2001 R-266 approved in conjunction with Variance No. 2001-04443. (vi) That if the trees facing the Riverside Freeway are to be located on the south side of the sound wall, that the landscaping in front of the wall shall be layered to the extent possible to screen the wall, as approved by the Planning Department. (vii) That additional trees shall be planted along Solomon Drive (either in front or behind the screen wall) on Lots 3-6 in order to obstruct view from the neighbor across Solomon Drive (200 N. Solomon Drive). (This stipulation was added at the meeting.) . DISCUSSION: 6 minutes (1:42-1:48) u 07-29-02 Page 4 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • • B. a) CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061 (b)(3) GENERAL RULE b) ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2002-00019 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A DRAFT ORDINANCE: City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests review and approval of a draft ordinance relating to Group Homes and Residential or Group Care Facilities. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy), 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 Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy), 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 group homes and residential or group care facilities. Concurred with staff Recommended to City Council approval of the draft ordinance (Vote: 5-0, Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy) SR8361 CF.DOC 07-29-02 Page 5 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • • C. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04430 (TRACKING NO. CUP Approved Approved extension of time 2002-04582) - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME: Danh C. Ho, for one year (to expire on 25726 Detmeter Way, Mission Viejo, CA 92691, requests an July 30, 2003) extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for a previously-approved 1-lot condominium subdivision to construct 3 detached condominium units. Property is located at 203 North (Vote: 5-0, Commissioner Coffman Street. Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy) ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the environment documentation for this request. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for a one (1) year extension of time (to expire on July 30, 2003), based on the following: (i) That this is the first request for an extension of time to comply with conditions of approval. (ii) That the property has been cleared of weeds, the trash has been picked-up, and that there are no outstanding complaints or violations on file with the Code Enforcement Division. (iii) That there have been no changes to the Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element that would affect this property. Further, the Code amendment requiring additional parking for multiple family residences does not affect this project since exhibits indicated one unit with three (3) bedrooms and two units with four (4) bedrooms. No additional information or changed circumstances are present which contradict the facts used to support the required findings for approval of this subdivision project. SR8351 KB.DOC 07-29-02 Page 6 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES \ J ~ ~ D. a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1742 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2000- 04194) - REQUEST FOR A NUNC PRO TUNC RESOLUTION: City- initiated (Planning Department), requests a nunc pro tunc resolution to amend Resolution No. PC2000-50, to correct the Conditional Use Permit Number in the title of said Resolution. Property is located at 600 South Brookhurst Street - In-N-Out Burger. NUNC PRO TUNC RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-112 Approved (Vote: 5-0, Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy) SR8379GW.DOC 07-29-02 Page 7 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • • E. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of July 1, 2002. (Motion) Continued from July 15, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of July 1, 2002. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of July 15, 2002. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of July 15, 2002. Approved (Vote: 5-0, Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy) Approved (Vote: 5-0, Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy) 07-29-02 Page 8 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1564 (READVERTISED) (TRACKING 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, April 22, June 3 and June 17, 2002, Planning Commission meetings. ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None Withdrawn SR8370AN.DOC ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request for withdrawal of the proposal to modifiy an existing family entertainment center in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 1564. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 07-29-02 Page 9 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 3b. CONDITlONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3950 Approved reinstatement (TRACKING NO. CUP2002-04556) for 5 years (to expire on July 21, 2007) OWNER: David L. Rudat, P. O. Box 1841, Orange, CA 92856 AGENT: A T& T Wireiess, Attn: Martin Zimmerman, 424 Beliflower Boulevard, # 218, Long Beach, CA 90814 LOCATION: 1110 East Oranqefair Lane. Property is approximately 0.25-acre having a frontage of 60 feet on the south side of Orangefair Lane located 196 feet west of the centerline of Raymond Avenue. Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on July 21, 1997 to expire July 21, 2002) to retain a telecommunications monopole and equipment enclosure. Continued from the July 1, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTtON NO. PC2002-193 SR8365VN.DOC ~ Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 3 as Conditional Use Permit No. 3950, 1110 East Orangefair Lane, Anaheim, CA, a request for reinstatement of the permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on July 21, 1997 to expire July 21, 2002) to retain a telecommunications monopole and equipmenf enclosure. Commissioner Koos indicated he is abstaining on this item due to his close relationship with the wireless telecommunications industry, While he has previously conferred with the City Attorney and determined that he does not have any financial conflict of interest, he abstains to avoid any potential perceived conflict. ApplicanYs Testimony: Marty Zimmerman, 424 Bellflower Boulevard #218, Long Beach, CA, representing AT&T Wireless states it is a renewal of a CUP along the 91 Freeway, in a light industrial zone surrounded by industrial property. The equipment is inside the building and a 61-foot pole next to the building. Ne has issues with the following three conditions: 1) Condition No. 10, which relates to making sure that new towers do not intertere with the public safety system. He understands that they would remain responsible for getting the City a contact and making sure they do not interfere with the City system buf feels there is no reason to do tests because they have been on the air for the last five years which is representative of a real, live test. He asks that it be deleted. 2) Condition No. 7, they have a very short co-ax cable running above ground connecting the pole to the building. The condition would require him to rip the cables out of the pole away from the radios and trench in the ground for something that really cannot be seen anyway. • He asks that it be deleted. 07-29-02 Page 10 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3) Condition No. 4 requires removal of graffiti within 24 hours of occurrence. He feels they are unmanned facilities and chances are he would not know within 24 hours. He requests a condition that states within three working days of notice. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify, regarding Condition No. 7, if the cable is visible to the public. Mr. Zimmerman responded no. Commissioner Boydstun clarified the condition would not affect him if the cables are not visible to the public. Mr. Zimmerman asked to modify the verbiage "and" to "or" in Condition No. 7. Chairperson Bostwick states Condition No. 10 is a new condition being placed on the applicant and wished to clarify if it would be feasible to delete since he is already in operation. Mr. McCafferty responded staff recommends that Commission not delete Condition No. 10 but modify it so that it reads, "That within thirty (30) days from the approval of this resolution, the Operator shall submit to a test to confirm that the facility does not interfere with the City of Anaheim's public safety radio equipment unless otherwise permitted by the Orange County Sheriff's Department". Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify if Condition No. 4 could be modified to read, "twenty-four (24) hours from time of "notification" instead of "occurrence". • Commissioner Bristol suggested using "and/or" because chances are three days would go by before the applicant is notified. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, states staff would have an issue with the possibility of the applicant not being notified and Code Enforcement not being made aware for several weeks because the applicant would have no obligation to go out and remove the graffiti. It would be up to the property owner to notify the applicant that something needed to be done. It is a standard condition that has worked very well and Code Enforcement gives flexibility in cases where it really is unnoticeable. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously- approved CEQA Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this request. Approved the request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3950 (Tracking No. CUP 2002-04556) to retain a telecommunications monopole and equipment enclosure for a period of five (5) years, to expire on July 21, 2007. Amended the conditions of approval contained in Resolution PC97-100 in its entirety and replaced with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval • (Conditions Nos. 1, 4 and 7 through 15 are new conditions; and Condition Nos. 4, 7 and 10 were modi~ed at today's meeting): 1. That this permit shall expire on July 21, 2007. 07-29-02 Page 11 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 2. That the telecommunications facility shall be limited to 61 feet in height, with 3 sectors consisting of 4 panel antennas per sector with maximum dimensions of 4 feet in height by 1-foot in width on the existing tower and accessory ground- mounted equipment. No additional antennas shall be permitted without the approval of the Planning Commission. 3. That the monopole structure shall remain painted white to blend with and match the surrounding structures. 4. That the portion of the property being leased to the telecommunication provider shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of e~ss~et~se notification. 5. That no signage, flags, banners, or any other form of advertising shall be attached to the antennas or the transmission tower structure. 6. That the height of the monopole shall not exceed the height of the attached antenna arrays at any time. If the arrays are lowered, the monopole height must be reduced to correspond to the height of the arrays. 7. That the cable connecting the equipment shall be underground a~ or shall not be visible to the public. 8. That the operator of this use (the "Operator") shall ensure that this installation and choice of frequencies will not interfere with the 800 MHz radio frequencies required • by the City of Anaheim to provide adequate spectrum capacity for public safety and related purposes. 9. That at all times, other than during the 24-hour cure period provided in Condition No. 11 below, the Operator shall not prevent the City of Anaheim from having adequate spectrum capacity on the City's 800 MHz radio frequency. 10. That within thirty (30) days from the approval of this resolution, the Operator shall submit to a tesf to confirm that the facility does not interfere with the City of Anaheim's public safety radio equipment unless otherwise permitted by the Orange County Sheriff's Department. This test will be conducted by the Communications Division of the Orange County Sheriff's Department or a Division- approved contractor at the expense of the Operator. 11. That within thirty (30) days from the approval of this resolution, the Operator shall provide a 24-hour telephone number to the Zoning Division (to be forwarded to the Fire and Police Departments) to which interference problems may be reported, and shall resolve all interference complaints within 24 hours. 12. That within thirty (30) days from the approval of this resolution, the Operator shall provide a"single point of contact" in its Engineering and Maintenance Departments to ensure continuity on all interference issues. The name, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address of that person shall be provided to the City's designated representative. 13. That the Operator shall ensure that each of its contractors, sub-contractors or agents, or any other user of the facility, shall comply with these conditions of ~ approval. 14. That should this telecommunication facility be sold, the City of Anaheim, Zoning Division shall be notified within 30 days of the close of escrow. 07-29-02 Page 12 J U LY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 15. That all equipment, including supply cabinets and power mefer, shall be instailed and maintained on private property and shall be screened from public view, as approved by the Zoning Division. 16. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Conditional Use Permit No. 3950, as conditioned herein. 17. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained, Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (1:49-1:59) • ~ 07-29-02 Page 13 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA NEGATNE DECLARATION (READVERTISED) 4b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00075 4c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 4d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04554 4e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16371 4f. WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 542 Continued to August 12, 2002 OWNER: Island Investment, P. O. Box 8032, Newport Beach, CA 92658 AGENT: Pelican Homes, Attn: Brian Johnson, 33971 Selva Road, S~ite 135, Dana Point, CA 92629 LOCATION: 1126 North Euclid Street. Property is approximately 2.38 acres having a frontage of 286 feet on the easf side of Euclid Street located 280 feet north of the centerline of !.a Palma Avenue. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00075 - Request reclassification of the subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone to the RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) zone, or a less intense zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04554 - Request to construct a 36-unit attached residential condominium subdivision with waivers of a) required improvements of streets, b) maximum fence height, c) minimum • dimension of parking spaces, d) minimum number and type of parking spaces, e) minimum building setback and f) minimum width of pedestrian accessways. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16371 - To establish a 13-lot, (8 numbered, 5 lettered), 36-unit attached residential airspace condominium subdivision. Waiver of Council Policy No. 542 - To waive sound attenuation of residential projects adjacent to a primary arterial highway. Continued from the June 17, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8367KB.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 4 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04554, 1126 North Euclid Street, to establish a 13-lot, (8 numbered, 5 lettered), 36-unit airspace attached residential condominium subdivision. ApplicanYs Testimony: Brian Johnson, 34352 Shore Lantern, Suite 135, Dana Point, CA, states he has concerns and asks for clarification on the following items: ~ 1) Condition No. 22 discusses a 6-foot high wall, proposed by the applicant, which consists of a 3-foot high wall and 3-foot high Plexi glass. He feels a 3-foot high wall and 3-foot high Plexi glass do not create a massive wall and it would create privacy. 07-29-02 Page 14 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 2) Condition No. 23 relates to 20-foot garages and he proposes garages for 19 feet in which a large and mid-size car would fit easily. In reviewing the plans, the City's architect never mentioned that a 19- foot garage would be a detriment. 3) A 20x20-foot garage equals 400 square feet and his garages are 19x23.8 feet, which equals 452 square feet. He feels he exceeds the overall capacity as it relates to 19 foot clear versus 20 foot clear and is 1 foot short. 4) Regarding the waiver as it relates to parking; He is less than 10% and believes the majority of residence in the area would have one car and other residence would use public transportation to the commercial businesses surrounding the area. The City architect states the parking is adequate even though it is 10 spaces short. 5) Condition No. 31, the Traffic and Transportation Manager recommends that he design for a gated community but he took that into consideration initially and determined a gated community would cause him to lose units therefore, he does not want a gated community. 6) Condition No. 26, he asks for clarification. Mr. Johnson states what he interpreted the Planning Commission instructed him to do was to go back and redesign the site and come back with something more urban that would work better with residence walking to surrounding commercial businesses. He feels he has done that by arriving at an elegant but simple plan, that would create a nice environment within the City of Anaheim. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • Commissioner Boydstun asked the applicant if the decorative-type entrance shown on the plans could be extended to the end of the street for a better appearance. Mr. Johnson responded yes. Commissioner Bristol asked why he feels a 19-foot garage is adequate. Mr. Johnson responded a large car and a mid-size car would easily fit into a 19-foot garage and the majority of cars being sold are mid-size. Commissioner Koos asked if he could state what hardships the site has that prevents him from complying with the standard. Mr. Johnson responded the hardship is that he needs to generate an additional 8 feet. There are 4 garages on the south and north side and without the additional 8 feet he could not comply with additional setbacks. Putting in the additional 1 foot would mean increasing the size of the units, which would mean an additional cost and the market could not afford the house once it was built. Commissioner Koos states it is a hardship that is self-imposed and Commission cannot meet the standard required to make a lega! finding. Commissioner Bristol states staff has a concern that the north and south parallel parking are not useable, and he asked Mr. Johnson how he feels about it. Mr. Johnson states he totally disagrees, the parallel parking spaces meet code. There is a 24-foot separation between where the cars would be parked and the garage units as well as throughout the traffic pattern from building to building. ~ Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if the idea of the use of Plexi glass on Euclid Street is strictly for noise or privacy. 07-29-02 Page 15 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Johnson responded strictly for noise, visibility would still be possible so there would not be any privacy. Chairperson Bostwick states homes being built on La Palma Avenue and Weir Canyon Road have used similar fences he wish to clarify why it would not work on the subject project. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states there are a couple distinctions; the homes on La Palma Avenue and Weir Canyon Road actually rear onto La Palma Avenue. The fact that they rear onto La Palma Avenue require they have a 6-foot boundary wall, and because they potentialiy wanted to preserve views they decided to install plexi glass. In the subject matter, the townhomes would be fronting onto Euclid Street and have more of a pedestrian connection to the street. Over a period of time plexi glass gets cloudy, scratched up and fooks a mess. Commissioner Koos states in the developments off of Serrano Avenue and Weir Canyon Road plexi glass was used and it has aged quickly and does not work as well as some people may have thought. W ith respect to Euclid Street and given the area he feels another material might work better. Chairperson Bostwick states he disagrees with the parking plans because the applicant is planning 4- bedroom units, and to think that residence would not have 4 cars is totally wrong. Most neighborhoods have two cars and do not use the garage but have two or three vehicles parked on the street and driveway. He feels because of the tightness of the project and the limited streets, there must be sufficient parking. Mr. Johnson responded it could be achieved on the tri-plex units, which are the three units in the center, by taking out fhe carriage unit over the garage on each of the two bedroom units (2.25 requirements for spaces for the two bedroom units totals 9 spaces eliminated). That would take it from 36 down to 32 and ~ would mean one parking space short of the requirement. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, states there is no need to be short one parking space. The plan could be designed to provide adequate parking. The biggest problem in the City of Anaheim is inadequate on-site parking. Every household has a minimum of four to six cars. He disagrees with the applicant stating the proposed residence would only have one car or would only use public transportation. Chairperson Bosfinrick suggested continuing the item in order to permit the applicant to work further on the design, or Commission could proceed with making the decision and the applicant would have to design to fit their choices of denial or approval for each condition. Commissioner Bristol states he still has an issue with the width of the garage and that would designate a redesign. He has a 50-year-old house with a 23 foot garage and it is very difficult to open the car doors. Commissioner Eastman wished to clarify if there are cities that allow 19 feet garages. Commissioner Boydstun states being in the rental business she finds people have SUV's and bigger cars. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if someone buys the house and has a large vehicle and cannot get into the garage what he or she would do for parking. Commissioner Boydstun states the project is in an area where there is no extra street parking. All parking must be inside. Commissioner Koos states normally staff would recommend a continuance, but instead this time believed Commission would deny the waivers but still approve the project. He wished to clarify how it would be possible without instituting a large design change that would not reflect the current proposal. i Mr. McCafferty states staff was not entirely comfortable with revising the exhibits and coming back with final plans, but were also sensitive to the fact that the applicant redesigned the project per Commission's request. The communication from the applicant was that he had to have the decision at the current 07-29-02 Page 16 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ meeting. Normally, it would be a continuance to redesign and it would give staff a couple more weeks to get exhibits that match the intent. In this rare circumstance, staff stated the changes would have to be reflected on the exhibits that were submitted as final plans. Commissioner Koos states it is a good design in terms of how the project looks and feels at this point and if the applicant has issues with respect to escrow, etc., he is sensitive to that. However, if Commission could somehow approve the project with denying some of the waivers, and it comes back and could not be built unless all the issues were resolved in a final site plan review, etc., then he could go forward with it if Commission so chooses. Mr. McCafferty states staff would want to be comfortable with regard to the map. If there are units dropped off, whether that could be a change that is reflected in the final map that would go with the City Council and ultimately recorded. Melanie Adams, Principal Civil Engineer, states the final map could have fewer units than proposed, but Public Works would have to determine that the final map substantially conforms to the tentative and that it could be a decision easily made between Public Works and Zoning staff. Chairperson Bostwick asked Mr. Johnson if he preferred a continuance or for Commission to vote on the item. Mr. Johnson states it is down to two items, the width of the garage and the number of parking stalls and he would like Planning Commission to make a decision. Commissioner Eastman concurs with Commissioner Koos that a reason cannot be found to grant the waiver for the garages. Under Condition No. 24, she could be comfortable with giving up the one parking • space if the garages could be bigger. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify how Commission could be certain that no other variances would be triggered by going from 19 to 20 feet on the garages without seeing the plans. Mr. McCafferty states regarding the units along Euclid Street there would not be much the applicant could shift in the building footprints. The applicant would have to shift within the existing footprints or eliminate a unit. If the applicant eliminated a unit, that would change the street elevations of the project. If anyone of the waivers created an issue, it would be Condition No. 23 because it is designed very tight. It could not be guaranteed that if the applicant complied with the 20 feet that it would not create some other difficulty with regard to setbacks. Commissioner Bristol states on waiver (e), the north and south would increase and he would lose a unit. Mr. McCafferty states if Mr. Johnson could continue for two more weeks it could be narrowed down to the outstanding issues. Mr. Johnson wished to clarify if it would only be two weeks. Chairperson Bostwick clarified it would be finro weeks. ~ 07-29-02 Page 17 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • • • •- • • ~ • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to August 12, 2002, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the petitioner time to redesign the plan to eliminate some of the waivers. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: 27 minutes (2:00-2:27) ~ u 07-29-02 Page 18 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002-00404 5c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00077 5d. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04512 5e. TENTATfVE TRACT MAP NO. 16359 5f. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF ITEMS 5c.. 5d., AND 5e. OWNER: North Orange County ROP, 2360 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92803 AGENT: Western Pacific Housing, Attn: Pablo Leon, 16940 Von Karman Avenue, # 200 Irvine, CA 92606 LOCATION: 950 North Gilbert Street. 2360 West La Palma Avenue. and 1021 North Moraaa Street. Property is approximately 9.2 acres located at the southeast corner of Gilbert Street and La Palma Avenue (ROP Site). GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002-00404 - Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan from the Low Density Residential land use designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00077 - Request reclassification of the subject properties from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) and CL ~ (Commercial, Limited) zones to the RS-5000 (Residential, Single-Family) zone, or a less intense zone. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04512 - Requests waiver(s) of: a) required improvement of private streets, b) minimum lot depth adjacent to an arterial highway,c) minimum lot width, d) minimum lot area, e) maximum lot coverage and f) minimum open space, to construct 76-unit single- family residential subdivision TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16359 - To establish a 79-lot, 76-unit detached single-family residential subdivision. Continued from the July 15, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. • Continued to August 12, 2002 SR2112DS.DOC 07-29-02 Page 19 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • • ~ ~- • ~ • ~ ~ • OPPOSITION: Two letters and a petition with 93 signatures in opposition of the subject request was received prior to the meeting. IN SUPPORT: Sixteen letters in favor of the subject request was received prior to the meeting. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request as requested by the applicant to the August 12, 2002, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow staff the opportunity to meet with the petitioner to discuss potential design changes. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ • 07-29-02 Page 20 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. CLASS 1 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04551 (READVERTISED) OWNER: Southern California Edison, Attn: Sean Kelly, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770 AGENT: Novak and Associates inc., Attn: Lori Truong, 132 North Maryland Avenue, Glendale, CA 91206 LOCATION: 2721 Stonvbrook Drive.* Property is approximately 3.1 acres having a frontage of 265 feet on the north side of Stonybrook Drive located 130 feet west of the centerline of Sherrill Street. * Originally advertised as "no address assigned". Request to permit a telecommunications antenna and microwave dish on an existing electrical transmission tower and accessory ground-mounted equipment. Continued from the July 15, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to August 12, 2002 SR8349VN.DOC ~ Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 6 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04551, 2721 Stonybrook Drive, Anaheim, CA, a request to permit a telecommunications antenna and microwave dish on an existing electrical transmission tower and accessory ground-mounted equipment. Commissioner Koos indicated he is abstaining on this item due to his close relationship with the wireless telecommunications industry. While he has previously conferred with the City Attorney and determined that he does not have any financial conflict of interest, he abstains to avoid any potential perceived conflict. Applicant's Testimony: Paul Novak, 132 N. Maryland Avenue, Glendale, CA, representing Sprint PCS, states they concur with the majority of the staff report however, there is concern with Condition No. 15. Southern California Edison owns the subject property and has towers on it. Sprint is proposing to locate some of its equipment onto one of the towers. Southern California Edison leases the property to a nursery and the nursery has a storage container on the property filled with apparent cuttings. He feels the conditioning question relates to something that is beyond their control. Sprint does not have a problem towing off anything but would not want to tow off something that they do not own and get sued over it. He requests the condition be deleted. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify if Code Enforcement could not get rid of it. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states staff feels that Edison owns the property and is allowing Sprint ~ to come onto their property with an additional use and because of that, Edison should have sufficient control to make the nursery comply with the City zoning code. 07-29-02 Page 21 J U LY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Bristol states there should be a two-week continuance until someone can present a definitive answer of what is on the property. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. I OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to August 12, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by Commission in order to permit time for the petitioner to meet with the property owner, Southern California Edison regarding existing site conditions, including an unpermitted storage container and overgrown vegetation. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained, Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (2:28-2:32) • • 07-29-02 Page 22 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2090 (TRACKING NO. CUP2002-04571) OWNER: Aoun, 558 South Harbor Boulevard, # 100, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: The Shack, Attn: Bob Gibson, 1160 North Kraemer Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1160 North Kraemer Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.9-acre having a frontage of 175 feet on the east side of Kraemer Boulevard located 242 feet south of the centerline of Coronado Street (The Shack). Request reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on August 27, 2001 to expire August 27, 2002) to retain public entertainment accessory to an existing restaurant with sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-114 Approved Approved reinstatement for 1 year (to expire on August 27, 2003) SR8358KB.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 7 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2090, 1160 North Kraemer ~ Boulevard - The Shack, Anaheim, CA, a request for reinstatement of the permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on August 27, 2001 to expire August 27, 2002) to retain public entertainment accessory to an existing restaurant with sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption. ApplicanYs Testimony: Robert Gibson, 1160 N. Kraemer Blvd., Anaheim, CA, representing The Shack, states he read the staff report and it consists of the same conditions they have been abiding by for the last three years, therefore he is present to answer any concerns or questions. Public Testimony: Irv Pickler, 2377 Mall Avenue, Anaheim, CA, representing Bryan Industrial Properties, wishes to go on record as supporting staff's recommendation. OPPOSITION: None IN SUPPORT: One person spoke in favor of staff's recommendations for the subject item. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously- • approved CEQA Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this request. 07-29-02 Page 23 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES , Approved the request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2090 (Tracking No. CUP 2002-04571) to retain public entertainment accessory to an existing restaurant with sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption for a period of one (1) year, to expire August 27, 2003. Amended Resolution No. PC2001-126 in its entirety and replaced it with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: 1. That the accessory public entertainment shall expire on August 27, 2003. 2. That the outdoor patio area may be used by patrons for seating and smoking purposes only. That no other outdoor activities, including but not limited to dining, drinking, entertainment, dancing etc. shall be permitted on this property. 3. That the number of persons attending any event at this property shall not exceed the maximum occupancy load as determined by the Anaheim Fire Department. Signs indicating the maximum occupancy shall be prominently displayed within the premises. 4. That the property owner shall provide any new business operator/owner with the conditions of approval contained in this resolution. 5. That the sales of any type of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises shall be prohibited. 6. That there shall be no live entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted on • the premises at any time without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. 7. That the activities occurring in conjunction with the operation of this establishment shall not cause noise disturbance to surrounding properties and shall conform to the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance. 8. That all doors serving subject establishment shall comply with the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and shall be kept closed and unlocked at all times during hours of operation except for ingress/egress, deliveries and in cases of emergency. 9. That at all times when entertainment or dancing is permitted, uniformed security guards shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department to deter unlawful conduct on the part of employees or patrons, and promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, and prevent disturbance to the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises. 10. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the windows of nearby businesses. 11. That there shall be no pool tables, amusement devices or games maintained within subject establishment without issuance of proper permits as required by the • Anaheim Municipal Code. 12. That the business operator shall comply with Section 24200.5 of the Business and Professions Code so as not to employ or permit any persons to solicit or 07-29-02 Page 24 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. 13. That there shall be no public telephones on the premises located outside the building. 14. That this establishment shall be operated as a"Bona Fide Public Eating Place" as defined by Section 23038 of the California Business and Professions Code. 15. That there shall be no bar or lounge maintained on the property unless licensed by Alcoholic Beverage Control and approved by the City of Anaheim. 16. That food service with a full meal shall be available from opening time until either 10:00 p.m. or closing time, whichever occurs first, on each day of operation. 17. That subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a public premises (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premise as defined in Section 23039 of the California Business and Professions Code. 18. That the sales of any type of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 40% of the gross sales of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of any type of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be made available, subject to audit and, when requested, inspection by any City of • Anaheim official during reasonable business hours. 19. That there shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. 20. That the operator of subject facility shall pay for the cost of any Code Enforcement inspections which may be required to address Code violations or violations of these conditions of approval. 21. That there shall be no direct pedestrian access to the outdoor patio area from outside the building. All access to this area shall be solely through the restaurant. Further, that a sign shall be posted at the entrance to the patio stating that this area shall be used for seating and smoking purposes only and that no dining, drinking or dancing shall be permitted in the patio. 22. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 23. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the SP94-1, DA-3 Zone unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the Planning Commission or City Council. 24. That a valid business license shall be maintained for this business from the City of Anaheim Business License Division of the Finance Department. ~ 25. That this resolution shall be permanently posted in an obvious location within the employee work area to serve as a reminder of the conditions of approval contained herein. 07-29-02 Page 25 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 26. That three-foot high address numbers shall be maintained and displayed on the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the view of the street or adjacent properties. 27. That the on-site landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained in compliance with City standards. 28. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 29. That all existing mature landscaping shall be maintained and immediately replaced in the event that it becomes diseased or dies. 30. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum one- gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum three-foot centers or tall shrubbery. 31. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1, and as conditioned herein. • 32. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights; and also stated that the figures on the sales of alcohol and food were provided to the Commission at today's morning session and with this a determination is made that those figures are in substantial conformance with the conditions of approval. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (2:33-2:34) r 07-29-02 Page 26 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. CLASS 1 Concurred with staff 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04570 Approved expansion OWNER: Robert G. Becker, 10857 Westminster Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92843 Five Points Liquor, Attn: Jin S. Choi, 1108 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Platt Design, Attn: Bob Platt, 2740 Associated Road, D-42, Fullerton, CA 92835 LOCATION: 1777-1779 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 0.3-acre having a frontage of 66 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue located 500 feet east of the centerline of Crescent Way (Five Points Liquor). "Originally advertised as 1777 West Lincoln Avenue. Request to permit the expansion of an existing legal non-conforming mini market with the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-115 SR8372AN.DOC ~ Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 8 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04570, 1777-1779 West Lincoln Avenue-Five Points Liquor, a request to permit the expansion of an existing legal non-conforming convenience market with the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption. Applicant's Testimony: Bob Platt, 2740 Associated, No. D-42, Fullerton, CA, representing Platt Design, states the owner of Five- Points Liquor is being displaced from 1108 West Lincoln Avenue as a result of the City of Anaheim, Department of Public Works, Lincoln Avenue Widening Project. Five-Points Liquor has secured a replacement liquor store location at 1779 West Lincoln Avenue but the site is smaller than its existing site and the owner is applying for a Conditional Use Permit to expand the existing liquor store to an adjacent space to better match what he currently occupies. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states staff wished to modify Condition No. 19 to read, "This particular location from May 2001 to May 2002, has had no police responses during that period". Consistent with the morning work session, the rear of the subject property is littered throughout; there are no trash enclosures and there are "rider signs" attached to the pole signs that are not permitted by City Code. Staff recommends Commission address those issues to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if the sign is legal non-conforming. Mr. McCafferty responded the sign is legal non-conforming and although staff would love for it to be eliminated, the applicant simply changed the copy, which under the City Sign Code is permitted. • Because they are occupying existing space there is not a nexus to require them to remove it. 07-29-02 Page 27 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Koos wished to clarify how it would be any different than the pawnshop recommendation (Planning Commission Meeting, January 14, 2002, Eastside Jewelry and Loan) where staff recommended replacing the existing sign with a monument sign. Mr. McCafferty states he appreciates the distinction because staff intends to be consistent with its recommendations. The pawnshop was different in that staff was left with the question could Commission make the findings for reinstatement of that particular use, and concluded Commission could. Even though removal was recommended, ultimately the City Attorney stated there potentially was not a nexus. In the subject location, the applicant is expanding an already existing liquor store and adjacent unit. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, states also the original sign to the pawnshop was in disrepair, there were parts of it no longer being utilized and the owners put in blank panels. In working with the applicant it was determined that the signage was not necessary for that use under the Conditional Use Permit even though it shared a center with other uses. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify the issue at large, not just specific to the current project, and states usually the language included in the staff report relates to a form of conformity as well as legal non- conforming issues on the property. Mr. Hastings clarified the use itself is already present and there is no introduction of a new use. The applicant is expanding an existing use. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify at what point would staff say the expansion is so large that it constitutes a new use. Mr. Hastings clarified there is no point; it would be if a new use were introduced to the site that does not • currently exist. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if the rules were hard and fast or more of an interpretation by the City Attorney. Mr. Hastings clarified the rule states, "When a new use is introduced to a property". The property is currently vacant and the applicant came into both spaces. Staff would bring the entire center to conformity by way of the current Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if Public Works is a party to the project because of the relocation. Mr. Hastings responded he did not know what financial aid has been given or to what extent Redevelopment is assisting, but it is a relocation. Mr. McCafferty clarified the code states, "While a non-conforming use exist on any lot, no other use shall be permitted even though such other use would be a conforming use". OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional ~ environmental documentation. Approved the request to permit the expansion of an existing non-conforming mini market with the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption, subject to the 07-29-02 Page 28 J U LY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated July 29, 2002, with the following modifications: Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That within 30 days from the date of this approval, all existing rider signs attached to the pole sign shall be removed and that a trash enclosure shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2:35-2:46 (11 minutes) ~ ~ 07-29-02 Page 29 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. CLASS 1 Continued to 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT August 12, 2002 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04569 OWNER: Tawa Anaheim Plaza, 6281 Regio Avenue, Buena Park, CA 90620 Milan Properties, LLC, 617 North Euclid Street, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: HAS, Attn: Randy Gordon, 6409 Independence, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 LOCATION: 601-697 North Euclid Street. Property is approximately 10.6 acres located at the northwest corner of Crescent Avenue and Euclid Street. Request to permit the division of tenant spaces within an existing commercial retail center to create two (2) additional retail units with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8378AN.DOC ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to the August 12, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant in order for staff to readvertise the proposal and for the petitioner to modify exhibits to include the division of additional tenant spaces. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 07-29-02 Page 30 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 10a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. CLASS 1 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04572 OWNER: Anthony Kinninger, 2040 South Santa Cruz Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: AT & T Wireless, Attn: William Bennett, 2301 Dupont Drive, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 1990 South Santa Cruz Street. Property is approximately 0.48-acre located at the northeasterly corner of Santa Cruz Street and Stanford Court. Request to establish land use conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for a non-conforming telecommunications monopole and to permit the co-location of additional telecommunication antennas and accessory ground-mounted equipment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-116 Concurred with staff Granted for 5 years (to expire on July 29, 2007) SR8371 VN.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 10 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04572, 1990 South Santa Cruz Street, Anaheim, CA, a request to establish land use conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for a non-conforming telecommunications monopole and to permit the co-location ~ of additional telecommunication antennas and accessory ground-mounted equipment. Commissioner Koos indicated he is abstaining on this item due to his close relationship with the wireless telecommunications industry. While he has previously conferred with the City Attorney and determined that he does not have any financial conflict of interest, he abstains to avoid any potential perceived conflict. Applicant's Testimony: William Bennett, Irvine, CA, representing AT&T Wireless, states he is present to request Commission's approval of a co-location on an existing wireless telecommunication tower in a ML Zone. He states concerns with Condition No. 9, which requires that the cable connecting the equipment shall be underground and not visible to the public. He clarifies that the utility cables, which goes to the proposed co-location (telephone and electricity power), are being proposed as underground. The co-ax cable, which goes from the equipment cabinets to the tower, is above ground but disguised in a cable bridge (fabricated metal which completely encloses it). None of the equipment or the cable bridge is visible to the public. It is entirely screened by a concrete masonry block wall. He asks that be acceptable to Commission. Chairperson Bostwick clarifies the tower presented to Commission earlier is an existing tower and the applicant is simply renewing. In the subject matter, the applicant is building a new cabinet and co- locating on an existing pole. Mr. Bennett responded that is correct, the cabinets are being installed within the same enclosure area. Chairperson Bostwick wished to clarify why it would be so expensive to underground when it is not that far away. ~ Mr. Bennett responded it would not be visible to the public. For purposes of maintenance, the co-ax cables are very small and if they were underground and required upsizing or servicing they would have to be excavated. 07-29-02 Page 31 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. McCafferty states the City of Anaheim owns its own public utility and any new lines being reconfigured are put underground. Therefore, staff recommends since the applicanYs utility is a new installation that it be put underground. Mr. Bennett clarifies Power and Tele-co is being proposed as underground. The issue is the co-ax cable. He asks if it is not visible to the public what would be staff's concern. Mr. McCafferty responded that it be installed underground the same as the utilities. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy), 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 additionaf environmental documentation. Approved request for Conditional Use Permit IVo. 2002-04572 (to establish land use conformity with the existing Zoning Code land use requirements for a non-conforming telecommunications monopole and to permit the co-location of additional ~ telecommunications antennas and accessory ground-mounted equipment), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated July 29, 2002, with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 15, 21 and 22 to read as follows: 3. That the proposed co-location telecommunication facility shafl be limited to #i#~y- t~ee{~3} forty-two and one-half (42.5) feet in height on the existing monopole with three (3) sectors consisting of one (1) flush-mounted antenna per sector with maximum dimensions of 6 feet in length, 6-inches in width, and 2 inches deep and accessory ground-mounted equipment. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. No additional antennas or equipment cabinets shall be permitted without the approval of the Planning Commission. 5. That all antennas shall be finished and painted to match the existing ~:~i~ise-tewe~ monopole structure. , . Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 6. That no signage, flags, banners, or any other form of advertising shall be attached to the antennas or the monopole structure. 9. That the cable connecting the equipment shall be underground and shall not be visible to the public; and that the cable run on the tewe~ monopole shall be painted to match the color of the monopole. Said ground-mounted equipment shall be painted to match the adjacent block wall and shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. • 12. That at all times, other than during the 24-hour cure period provided in Condition No. ~514 below, Operator shall not prevent the City of Anaheim from having adequate spectrum capacity on City's 800 MHz radio frequency. 07-29-02 Page 32 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 15. That the Operator will provide a"single point of contact" in its Engineering and Maintenance Departments to ensure continuity on all interference issues. The name, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address of that person shall be provided to City's designated representativ 21. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 11,14, 15, 18, 19 and 20 above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 22. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 13, ~4;1~ and 20 above-mentioned, shall be complied with. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained, Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DtSCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (2:47-2:57) ~ ~ 07-29-02 Page 33 J U LY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES w 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00078 11c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 11d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04573 OWNER: Commercial L. P., 202 North Curry Street, Suite 100, Carson City, NV 89703-4121 AGENT: Coorg Cooperation, P. O. Box 1266, Anaheim, CA 92815 LOCATION: (No address). Property is approximately 4.3 acres having a frontage of 70 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue located 255 feet east of the centerline of Pauline Avenue. RECLASSIFICATION 2002-00078 - Request reclassification of the property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone to the ML (Limited Industrial) zone, or a less intense zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04573 - Request to permit an outdoor contractor's storage yard including miscellaneous building materials, RV, boat, tractor trailer, automobile and shipping container storage with waiver of required site screening adjacent to a residential zone and railroad right-of-way. ~ RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None Continued to August 12, 2002 SR837~FVN.DOC ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to the August 12, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant in order to revise plans. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~J 07-29-02 Page 34 JULY 29, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 2:58 P.M, TO MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 2002 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW Respectfully submitted: ~- ~ -~Z,/ Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2002. ~~ ~ 07-29-02 Page 35