Loading...
Minutes-PC 2003/02/24r CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2003 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California • C~ C~H,fi RPERSO ~PR~ ~EMPO ~MES VANDERBILT COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: ~,j~H L~IS ~~~DS 1~~1~~~~Pl-~EI~l: RI;~T~OL, GAIL EASTMAN, 4 ~~ .~~~iN~K~S; DA~~~~ROMERO ~ ~~ , ~,~ ~~ ~~.:~ ° ` COMMISSIONERS ABSE(VT..., ~. P ~~~T'~~NIC{~~~~~'' " u ~ ~>~ ~ , ~~ ~~ ~ ~ a ~„ ~ ~ ~~ ~. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ,.,~ ~ ~,,, ~ y ~ STAFF PRESENT: ~ ~ ~ ~ Selma Mann, Assist n~ ~~#t rne ~ And No al Pr ect- ~ rt~a~g~r ~ ~ ~ ~~'~ ~ ~ ~ Y 9 . J .. ~~~~~, , ~ Greg Hastings, Zor~tr~~Divis~o~ N~~~i ger Elly Morris, Senior S creta'ry,~~ °3, ~ Greg McCafferiy, Prar1~C;~~I~Flantt~r Pat Chandler, Senio~~Secr~t~r~~ ~~ Cheryl Flores, SeC~idr Plann~-' ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ , ,~,~` v .~_~.~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ti ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~~~ r ~ °`~~~ `~~ ~~,° ~ ~,a ~ ~ ~ ~~,.- 4 ~ AGENDA POSTI "G:~ A-°.co~ple~te~~opy~of the FST~n~ir~g~om~rr~i~s~or~~g ~ as,~p s~e~l~~t ~:~0 p.m. on Thursday, Februa ; 2t?~QQ~ irisarl~ tk~~ isp,~y ca~°se locate e,.#o `~~t ~C~u~i~il~harii6ers, and also in y~ , the outside displa ~iosk. ~ ~ ~~~~° ; ~~ ~ ~s ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ < ~ `~~ °A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~, di ~,.w~. `" f ~ :' a ~ ~ ~S '~ ~ ~ .~ '~ fi~ E` r"~ ,~ ~~ ` b ,~ PUBLISHED: Ana~eim Bi~f~~in~ew~~pap~~h~ur`~~~~~ebr~aar~~~,~~~~ ~ $~:` ~ /, ~ .u. ~,~ ~ ~ ~~ ,~~ ~:,~«~ ~~ ~~' ~ ~ i ~~ CALL TO ORDER '% ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~"`" a ~Y ~~ ~ , ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ , ~~~`~ <~ y ~ ~~ ~ ~' ~ 1 ~ % . ~ ~„ ~ ~ PLANNING COMIVIi a~0 MOR~ING~~,E~~10"1V 11:00 A~,III~~ ~ • STAF~~J-~D~~~ TC~~C~OMIV~IS, ~~ON ~F"~VARIOtJ~GI"~"af ~~ , ~,~~" DEVELOF~~ EN~S~A~IV~f ~ES (AS R~Q~JEST~ B"Y~,~~ ,F ,~~ PLANNIN~~O, - ~~-.._ ~~,,, ~,. y ~ f~IM~S~IQI~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~' • PRELIMINAR LAI~~E F~~IV~OR~LT~EMS ON TH~ FEBR~ARY 24, 2003 AGENDA ~~ _.,~ ~ :,~~ ~ ~i ~~~~- RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC H~?~F3! ` SESSION ,~ `"` y~^~ .... ~, „5S "«~::~ ~ 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, p/ease complete a speaker card and submit it to fhe secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Romero PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJ OU RN M ENT H:\DOCS\CLERICAUMINUTESWC022403.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net FEBRUARY 24, 2003 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 Bostwick absent), for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-B through 1-E) as recommended by staff. Consent Calendar Item (1-A) was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a) CEQA 15061 (b)(31 GENERAL RULE AND • ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00011 (TRACKING NO. ZCA2002-00020): City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests Planning Commission review and approval of a draft Ordinance regarding parking requirements for single-family residences. (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) Concurred with staff Recommended to City Council approvat of the amended draft Ordinance CEQA (Vote: 5-1, Commissioner Vanderbilt voted no and Commissioner Bostwick absent) ZCA (Vote: 4-2, Commissioner Koos and Vanderbilt voted no and Commissioner Bostwick absent) sr8559cf.doc Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, states Item No. 1-A pertains to an amendment to the parking code for single-family parking. Commission, on February 10, 2003, with the exception of Section 10 exemptions, approved the draft Ordinance. It was not clarified at the Planning Commission Meeting on February 10, 2003, whether or not the Commissior- wanted the exemptions to be included in the draft Ordinance. The exemptions require any residence, where they add bedrooms or remodel that results in the addition of bedrooms, to comply with the new draft Ordinance, which lowers the parking from what it currently is for single-family residences. Commissioner Koos states he voted no at the Planning Commission Meeting on February 10, 2003, • based on the definition of "bedroom". While he agrees this is a step in the right direction overall, he is still not comfortable with the definition of bedrooms, and therefore will vote consistent with his last vote. Commissioner Bristol asked Commissioner Koos if he cared to delve on his statement. 02-24-03 Page 2 FEBRUARY 24, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . Commissioner Koos responded that he feels the definition of bedrooms is too open for interpretation. It would constrain people who wanted to potentially add onto a house, based on its shape that was maybe developed at a time that did not foresee a need to add a room. It would be hard to comply with the requirement of the wall being only 50% of the total length of any wall, adjacent to a possible bonus room at the end of a hall of an addition that legitimately is not a bedroom. He does not want a situation to arise where someone would be prevented by the code, from doing something that is a bona fide entertainment room or bonus room, thereby penalizing people who would want to improve their home for legitimate purposes. Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt concurs and states he most often thinks of situations where there are children who have grown up and moved away, but the bedrooms still have beds in them and are used as sewing rooms, etc. On some cases, such as holidays, the rooms may still be used as bedrooms, but at other times they return to a non-bedroom use. He feels it is hard to legislate and would be difficult to enforce. And, although it is probably in the right direction, given the nature of the ruling, it seems restrictive. Commissioner Bristol asked if they were to take all rooms other than the living room, family room, dining room, bathroom, hall, lobby, closet, pantry or bonus room, and have the exception include a bonus room, would that work. Commissioner Romero feels the reason they did not call it a bonus room is because every room then could be referred to as "a bonus room". Ms. Flores states it significantly lowers the parking requirement from what it is now, and staff very rarely sees the request for six (6) or seven (7) bedrooms. Usually, the homes with the bonus rooms in them would not have more than six (6) bedrooms anyway, and they would only need the two (2) car garage . with two (2) open spaces. Commissioner Koos concurs from general terms, the way the definition is written, does lower the parking requirements, but he would hate to think of a situation where someone has a fairly large home with six (6) bedrooms and proposed to add a media room or library, and would have to comply to the requirement that it is open and therefore, another parking space is required. He would not want to deprive someone of the use of his property by semantics or design definition. Commissioner Romero states the only people that would be penalized would be the people who did have six (6) bedrooms and wished an additional room. Ms. Flores concurs it would be just a matter of one more open space. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states it would occur mostly on larger lots in West Anaheim where the seventh bedroom should not be a problem to accommodate the open space. He feels it would not result in the restrictions that some may have concerns about. Commissioner Boydstun states she lives in an area where everyone has finro car garages and are not permitted driveways. There are numerous two (2) bedrooms in the project, but some residents have added a third bedroom, especially those with young families. She wished to know how that would affect them because they have no place for street parking, no driveways, and only a two-car garage for each house. Ms. Flores responded there would be no change in nonconforming residences, but if a bedroom were added, the two open spaces would have to be provided. • Commissioner Boydstun states there is no place to add two open spaces and they cannot have driveways. 02-24-03 Page 3 FEBRUARY 24, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Ms. Flores states staff would have to look at it to determine if there is a wide enough setback to allow a driveway from the street. Commissioner Boydstun asked if staff would allow a driveway in the middle since there is a tract of close to 100 homes without a driveway. Ms. Flores asked if there is an alley in the back. Commissioner Boydstun responded there is an alley but the garages are not set in far enough that parking is possible behind them. Ms. Flores asked if there is room next to the garages to create parking from the alley. Commissioner Boydstun responded not unless the residents gave up their backyards. Power poles located in some of the lots inhibit an additional parking space. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, states residents could obtain a variance. The zoning code makes general rules. The Planning Commission Staff working with the City Attorney's Office tries to strike a balance between trying to foresee as many situations as possible and having objective standards. Having something that is actually being used as a bedroom would truly be impossible to enforce. So, in looking at the surrounding jurisdictions, they try to see what other cities are doing as well to try to get a sense of it, and then draft one that fits a particular community. Commissioner Boydstun states to apply for a variance each time would cost residents money and time. Mr. McCafferty states regarding the scenario presented, the current code amendment would not change ~ the previous requirement. In the cases where there is hardship; not having the area or it is being constrained by other unique circumstances like a telephone pole, the Zoning Administrator could weigh and approve it. It would not be as costly to go through that process, as it is to come before the Commission for minor variances of the code, that are understandable based on the constraints. Commissioner Koos states people adding bedrooms should go with the variance process. But, if the definition of bedrooms could be expanded to include a den and entertainment room, so that if someone wanted to add a non-bedroom without having to provide more parking, he could support that. Commissioner Romero states the more the definition is broadened, the Commission has not really accomplished anything. Commissioner Koos states he does not want to penalize people who are honest in the addition of a new bedroom. Commissioner Bristol asked other than the living room, dining room, family room, bathroom, hall, lobby, closet, or pantry if that was the common room. Ms. Flores states those are the common rooms seen in other cities, and they had something like a bonus room or media room, but there are so many different types of rooms. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if a builder comes to the Planning and Zoning window, and starts to process, would those be the terms he or she would use on their floor plans. Ms. Flores responded that is correct, and when staff sees something on the plans that might be a media room, etc., and see that it is not listed, they would have to check to see if it were open to another room. • Commissioner Bristol asked if he applied for six (6) bedrooms in the last 24 months, how many parking spaces would he have to provide. Ms. Flores responded he would need a three-car garage for six (6) bedrooms and three open spaces. 02-24-03 Page 4 FEBRUARY 24, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bristol concurs if he had six (6) bedrooms and applied for one, he would go down in use and would actually be better off. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. ~ ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt voted no and Commissioner Bostwick 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 Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Koos and Vanderbi{t voted no and Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the amended draft Ordinance pertaining to amendment of parking requirements in single-family residential zones resulting in the following: 1. Re-defines "bedroom" to facilitate interpretation of the code. 2. Decreases parking requirements for homes with up to 6 total bedrooms, by amending the code to require a total of 4 spaces [2 garage spaces and 2 open spaces] instead of the current requirement for 6 total spaces [3 garage spaces and 3 open spaces] for 5 or more bedrooms. 3. Clarifies requirements for homes with 7 or more bedrooms. • 4. Continues existing exemptions requiring non-conforming dwellings to comply with parking Code requirements if remodeling or additions result in additional bedrooms. DISCUSSION: 28 minutes (1:40-2:08) u 02-24-03 Page 5 FEBRUARY 24, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • B. a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 AND Concurred with staff CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4177 (TRACKING NO. CUP2002- Determined to be in 04659 : Erik Marcussen, Ground Floor Design, 17845 Sky Park Circle, substantial conformance Suite F, Irvine, CA 92614, requests determination of substantial conformance to permit the expansion of the showroom area for a (Vote: 6-0, previously-approved automotive dealership. Property is located at Commissioner Bostwick 1303-1371 North Euclid Street, North County Toyota. absent) ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick 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 Cafifornia Environmental Quality Act CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the revised plans are in substantial conformance with the previously-approved full service automotive sr8561av.doc dealership. u • 02-24-03 Page 6 FEBRUARY 24, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • ~ C. a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 432 AND 490 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-046721: Bipin D. Gala, 24525 Paseo De Toronto, Yorba Linda, CA 92887, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 432 and Conditional Use Permit No. 490. Property is located at 1250- 1332 S. Magnolia Avenue. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-32 Terminated (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Bostwick absent) sr3004ey.doc 02-24-03 Page 7 FEBRUARY 24, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • • D. a) VARIANCE NO. 2812 (TRACKING NO. VAR2003-04553): Bob Veriato, Havadija Holdings, Inc., 3452 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501, requests termination of Variance No. 2812. Property is located at 2800 W. Lincoln Avenue, Farmer Boys. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-33 Terminated (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Bostwick absent) sr3003ey.doc 02-24-03 Page 8 FEBRUARY 24, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • • E. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meetings of February 10, 2003. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of February 10, 2003. Approved (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Bostwick absent) 02-24-03 Page 9 FEBRUARY 24, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISED) 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04656 OWNER: Min Ling Lee, 1600 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Susan Secoy, 112 East Chapman Avenue, Suite E, Orange, CA 92866 LOCATION: 1600 East Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 1.75 acres having a frontage of 372 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, located 330 feet east of the centerline of Larch Street (Lincoln Palms Motel). To permit the conversion of an 80-unit motel into a 63-unit "affordable" senior citizen's apartment complex with waivers of: (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) minimum structural setback, (c) minimum landscape setback adjacent to a single-family residential zone, (d) maximum structural height within 150 feet of a single-family residential zone and (e) minimum width of pedestrian accessways.* *Waiver (e) has been deleted. ~ Continued from the February 10, 2003, Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-34 Approved Approved, in part Granted sr1111 cw.doc Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 2 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04656, 1600 East Lincoln Avenue - Lincoln Palms Motel, to permit the conversion of an 80-unit motel into a 63- unit "affordable" senior citizen's apartment complex with waivers of: a) minimum number of parking spaces, b) minimum structural setback, c) minimum landscape setback adjacent to a single-family residential zone, and d) maximum structural height within 150 feet of a single-family residential zone. It is a continued public hearing for the conversion of the Lincoln Palms Motel into a 63-unit senior citizen's complex in order to: 1) to increase the number of two bedroom units within the proposed complex, and 2) try to make the architectural blend in with some of the more recent construction along Lincoln Avenue. Staff continues to support the project however, both the Community Development Department, as well as the Planning Department, continues to be concerned with the architectural design of the new building and would like to work with the applicant farther through a continuance or a condition of approval that requires them to submit final elevation plans for the review, with the option to appeal to Planning Commission. ApplicanYs Testimony: Albert O'Tero, 311 Old Bridge Road, Anaheim Hills, CA, states they would like to continue to work with the recommendations of the Planning Commission as they continue to fine tune the item. Susan Secoy, architect for the project, states they are approaching it with coherent use of materials • throughout the project. It is a very simple and basic architectural. So, they are trying to downplay some of the architectura{ elements as opposed to expressing something that is non-authentic. The approach is to have an understated elevation towards Lincoln Avenue that appeals more to the vehicle versus the pedestrian, a courtyard approach. She feels landscape, and what is done with it, is extremely important. 02-24-03 Page 10 FEBRUARY 24, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol asked Ms. Secoy if she is familiar with the senior citizen's project on Tustin Avenue and La Veta Street. Ms. Secoy responded yes. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if she is saying that elevation is enticing people to look at that project versus the subject project. Ms. Secoy responded the only difference between the projects is pitched roofs. It still has a very rich color; there is shade and shadow, and there is interplay with all of the vertical planes. If Mediterranean Architectural means, pitching the roofs towards Lincoln Avenue, they would be willing to work with that, but as an architect she believes in authenticity and does not see a very strong statement there in order to do so. Commissioner Koos states a general concern brought up at the morning session is that it looks more like an office-type facility than housing. There are some recent housing projects in West Anaheim that are shaping up quite nicely and have more of the Solara Court-style (contemporary). His concern is that the subject stretch of Lincoln Avenue is a hodgepodge of land uses, but the Redevelopment Agency is acquiring properties and is doing visioning through the City's General Plan. One of his concerns is would it fit in with future projects that the City is already working towards on the housing side. The hope is that everything along the Lincoln Avenue frontage starts working towards a theme. Ms. Secoy states they are relating to the retail center on State College Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue. It is a very clean, crisp architectural statement and to her it is about authenticity as opposed to pfant-ons, ~ and trying to create something that looks like a pedestrian is going to walk up to it from Lincoln Avenue when in essence they are not. It is an edge that can be made to be a very clean edge via the use of shadow, trellises and landscape. And, as you are embraced within the complex, you experience the architectural and the spatial qualities of the architectural. Not that it is a forbidden, fortress-like complex, but it should not say something that it is not, to the street. Commissioner Koos asked if she is saying that land uses should not, necessarily, fit into the contexts of a Boulevard because that would be artificial to her. Ms. Secoy responded no, she believes the context of Lincoln Avenue that they are working with is al1 over the place. Commissioner Koos states yes, but they are trying to get away from that. Ms. Secoy states if he is referencing the retail center at State College Boulevard, which is what was discussed at the last meeting, then perhaps it all does come into play. Commissioner Koos states only if she had to stay with the proposed design, but Commission does not fully endorse the style. Commissioner Eastman feels she made reference to the center. She was referencing more in the light that it has received a total face-lift, and that has improved that particular commercial area, but not necessarily meaning that residential should reflect the commercial center more than it would reflect the more recent residential area that Commission has been putting along Lincoln Avenue. Going the same distance west, there are residential developments, which again goes into different styles. Her concern is the fact that it is plain faced, and the first thing that came to her mind was a prison or • fortress kind of look. Landscaping gives a nice picture, but seems to change a lot in Southern California because it matures and has to be replaced, etc. However, the building is going to be long standing, something the City of Anaheim would have to live with. 02-24-03 Page 11 FEBRUARY 24, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Staff recommended and Commission concurred that it is not a good thing to instal{ sliding glass doors as entrances for a senior complex. Mr. Secoy states the colored materials board does address the fact that they like to use split fact block on the base and then have the landscape bermed up to the base. She asked that it be added to the conditions. Commissioner Eastman states she could see having balconies on second story and up, but not necessarily having balconies and using that as an opportunity to use some kind of decorative treatment, be it understated like slate, stone, something to give a little more warmth, a little more interest to the building, and yet she understands the nice square lines. There are applied materials that can be used to soften. The two examples that came to her mind were the Disney Travel building on Center St Promenade and the City Community Center directly behind the City Hall where they have used a combination of stucco and some applied material that makes them more inviting. Mr. O'Tero states he would like to continue working with staff to fine-tune the front of the development. Commissioner Koos states he is comfortable with approving the Conditional Use Permit today and coming back with the Consent Calendar at a later date. Commissioner Romero concurs and states the petitioner has put the ten (10) two bed room units in there. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None • ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows: Approved waivers pertaining to (a) minimum number of parking spaces based on the recommendation by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager that the proposal for 72 spaces is adequate to serve the project, and (b) minimum structural setback, (c) minimum landscape setback adjacent to a single-family residential zone and (d) maximum structural height within 150 feet of a single-family residential zone based on the constraints of adaptively reusing the existing motel structures for senior citizen's apartments. Denied waiver (e) pertaining to minimum width of pedestrian accessways since it has been deleted. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04656 (to convert an existing 80-unit motel into a 63-unit "affordable" senior citizen's apartment complex) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated February 24, 2003, with the following modification: Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That no outdoor storage on the balconies facing Lincoln Avenue shall be permitted. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 19 minutes (2:09-2:28) 02-24-03 Page 12 FEBRUARY 24, 2003 PLANNING COMMiSSION MINUTES • ~ u 3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002-00407 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00087 WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04641 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF ITEMS 3c.. 3d. and Approved Recommended Adoption of Exhibit "A" to City Council Granted Approved G 3e. ranted Recommended City Council Review OWNER: Atlantic Richfield Co., P.O. Box 512485, Los Angeles, CA 90051 AGENT: Leslie Burnside, Tait & Associates, 9089 Claremont Mesa Boulevard, # 300, San Diego, CA 92123 LOCATION: 1201 South Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 1.7 acres located at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Brookhurst Street (Arco AM/PM Service Station). GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002-00407 - To amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate a portion of the property from the Low Density Residential designation to the General Commercial designation. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00087 - Request for reclassification of a portion of the property from the County C-1 (Commercial) zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) zone, or a less intense zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04641 - To establish conformity with zoning code land use requirements for an existing drive-through restaurant and to permit a service station with accessory car wash and convenience market with the sales of beer and wine for ofif-premises consumption with waivers of: a) nonconforming structures and uses - general, b) nonconforming signs and billboards - general and c) maximum structural height within 150 feet of a single-family residential zone boundary. Continued from the January 13, 2003 and January 27, 2003, Planning Commission meetings. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-35 RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-36 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-37 sr8562jr.doc Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt introduced Item No. 3 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002- 04641, 1201 South Brookhurst Street - ARCO AM/PM Service Station, a request to establish conformity with Zoning Code Land Use Requirements for an existing drive-through restaurant and to permit a service station with accessory car wash and convenience market with the sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption with waivers of: a) nonconforming structures and uses - general, b) nonconforming signs and billboards - general, and c) maximum structural height abutting a single-family residential zone boundary. 02-24-03 Page 13 FEBRUARY 24, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ApplicanYs Testimony: Leslie Burnside, 9089-300 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, San Diego, CA, representing BP Arco, states since they were last present at the Planning Commission Meeting on January 27, 2003, they have made many changes to the proposed elevations. Working closely with staff they have appreciated the patience and feedback. Some of the things added were as follows: ^ Mission Tile Elements on the building, canopy and car wash for consistency. ^ Ledge Stone Wings Coat to the car wash. ^ Increase the pitch on the roof tower elements. ^ Landscape planters along the front windows. ^ Increase the south property line planter to a total of 10 feet. They have been asked to remove three elements of signage. They are willing to remove the changeable copy billboard signs on the building, and the changeable copy billboard signs on the car wash, but would like to discuss further the building signage. They feel they only have minimum promotional signage at this point. They have removed everything on the sides of the dispensers that face the main streets and are trying to achieve a very clean and safe visibility through the storefront windows, which is part of BP's safety policy. Because of that they will not be putting up any beer banners, soda banners, etc., within the windows. She feels the changeable copy billboards really do provide their only avenue in which to provide promotional signage. In consideration of some of the other elements they have removed, and in looking at the sign matrix on Condition No. 22, basically states the signs are complying with code. They asked Commission to reconsider the recommendation. She also wished to re-address the issue about the car wash clearance bar, stating there is a concern that the bar function is more an advertisement for the car wash. To try to describe the two components, one ~ is the header that states, "Car Wash Entrance" but the other more key element, and the one they feel they need to retain is the height clearance bar. It is being positioned more towards the beginning of the entrance lane into the car wash. The reason for that is because of the constraints of the site and its size; there is not an exit lane at the car wash. The height bar being placed more towards the beginning of the entrance lane, allows a larger high profile vehicle to determine if they can safely enter the tunnel where they may still have a reasonable chance of safely backing out before they get five cars into the cue. They are willing to remove the header, "Car Wash Entrance" as long as they can have some kind of minimum signage on it that states "Car Wash Clearance". An unsafe environment for higher profile vehicles would be created if it is removed or placed a little farther into the lane. Craig Yamasaki, 4 CenterPointe Dr., La Palma, CA, Zoning/Devefopment Manager for BP Arco, states they have tried to make modifications to their elevation reflective of Commission's feedback at the previous Planning Commission Meeting. When British Petroleum (BP) purchased Arco, one of the things they wanted to do as a new company was to make a design statement reflecting BP, and differentiating itself from the old Arco Style, which was a typical Spanish Style of heavy architecture. He has been with Arco for approximately 20 years and feels the project and the type of facilities they are building now are the nicest facilities Arco has ever done. When the project is finished it will have an aggregate cost of close to $3,000,000. The components of design are curvilinear, a modernization of the gas dispensers. The design is contemporary, leaning towards an art deco contemporary style. But, if the Commission wishes to put something more of a Mission Tile, and feels that more closely reflects the neighborhood design, etc., that is what he wants Commission to have. Sut, he submits that as he travels in different cities and makes presentations, the trend is going away from Mission Tile. They are willing to adhere to every one of the bullet points on the summary provided by staff with exception of the last one, which is the incorporation of additional architectural features to define the main entry. British Petroleum and Arco are very concerned, because of the design of the store, the way the new building is set forth, the policy they have for safety, and insuring their personnel that they do not have ~ a blockage of visibility from the street or from their site through the store to the cash register areas where their personnel is. They have grave concerns about adhering to something that would provide sight blockage and in the view of their safety team would create an impediment. 02-24-03 Page 14 FEBRUARY 24, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Public Testimony: Mohamed Khouraki, 1217 S. Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA, representing Altayebat Market, Inc., states he is present for two reasons: ^ To object the alcoholic beverage license request, because at this time there are too many stores in the area, and too many beers and cans, bottles from the bar next door disposed in their parking lot. ^ Regarding the wall. The applicants indicated it would be buffered zoned. It is a parking lot with no noise whatsoever, but he worries about the graffiti. There is graffiti on Brookhurst Street, and it has not been taken care of by Code Enforcement for the past two weeks. Their store will close every night at 7 o'clock, but the Arco station will be opened 24 hours. It will become hectic for them to clean graffiti every day, since the wall will be facing their area. He asked consideration of the Commission on these matters. Sue Ann Ibrahim, 558 S. Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA, of Anaheim Convenience Store, states she is an attorney in Anaheim and also a resident with a home quite close to the proposed Arco site. She is present on behalf of several convenience store owners and gas station owners in Anaheim and in and around the Brookhurst Corridor area. They are very concerned about the beer and wine permit being granted for the proposed site. They are concerned because of the unfair competition that it is going to spur between the convenience store owners who have not been granted beer and wine permits in the past, and who have been denied when they have applied. As it is, they feel there is already enough competition. They are struggling to make it without a beer and wine permit, and yet they feel that the new proposed Arco site is going to get the beer and wine permit because they are a bigger company and not the small businessman. If Commission grants the alcohol permit they would be circumventing the current ~ Anaheim Municipal Code under Title 18, specifically section 18.55.031, which discusses Conditional Use Permits shall not be granted for specifically off premise sales of alcoholic beverages. She feels in the interest of fairness, and not creating a big uproar in the small business community in and around that area, the Commission needs to take a good look at the effects of what granting a beer and wine permit will do to the local business community, and how it is going to open the flood gates to everybody wanting more beer and wine permits. Commissioner Koos asked Ms. Ibrahim how many convenience store owners were there, who they were, and where they were located. Ms. Ibrahim responded they have asked her not to give their names because they plan on applying for a beer and wine permit and do not want that affected. Commissioner Koos states it is odd to have an agency stand before Commission and state it represents anonymous people. Ms. Ibrahim responded she has no problem disclosing their names once she checks with her clients and they state they wish her to do so. Commissioner Boydstun asked if they were in the Overlay zone. Ms. Ibrahim responded yes, but the proposed project is also within the Overlay zone, so that is where they see the unfairness. Mahmoud Itani, 2860 W. Ball Rd., Apt., G-3, states he has been living on Ball Road for the past 3 years. He and his wife have three children. Lately, they have seen a lot of changes around the area, and it is getting worse daily. He would not like to see any more stores who sell beer and wine. He and his wife ~ drive at least 4-5 times around the area daily, taking the children to school, attending church, etc. The area is condensed with shopping places. He asked Commission for the sake of their children and others to please look at the issue. 02-24-03 Page 15 FEBRUARY 24, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Leon Alexander, from the Law Offices of Briggs and Alexander, 558 S. Harbor Blvd., Anaheim, CA, states he wrote a letter to the Commission on January 24, 2003. He represenis Mobil, a competitor of Arco, which is also located in the Overlay zone, 700 N. Brookhurst Street, Anaheim CA. The purpose of his appearing is that his client, the Mobil Station, operates without selling alcoholic beverages. He feels it is understanding that Arco intends to, on a loophole, try to use unincorporated property in order to put a beer and wine convenience market on the site. Arco is within the BCC Zone, and the City of Anaheim would foster an unfair advantage to Arco over other businesses. Therefore, if Commission allows Arco to have beer and wine sales, then the Mobil Station should have the right also. He asks that it be kept uniform, as the law requires. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Mr. Yamasaki states they are always interested when their competition takes a great interest in helping shape their projects. He finds it interesting that although the attorney, Ms. Ibrahim, lives in the area she refused to name clients. He addressed the concern of Mr. Khouraki and recalled the proposes Arco made and carried through as part of their promise to WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Devefopment): ^ He has met and made presentations to both Loara, and Anaheim High School. Arco pledged $5,000 each to sponsor every 15-minutes an anti-drinking and driving program, and he will be personally involved as a volunteer. ^ With respect to graffiti, Arco has a strict anti-loitering, anti-graffiti policy. They have learned from experience, in having located in areas far tougher and rougher than Brookhurst Street and Ball • Road, that if graffiti is left on for more than 24 hours, it becomes territory. They will not allow that to happen to their facility because it is a valuable asset and resource to them. ^ The proposed site has gone unused and of no benefit to the City of Anaheim for many years, and Arco is trying to rectify that. His company has gone through some drastic budget cuts and he recently lost 45 friends, virtually a third of the real estate department has been eliminated, including every manager that he has ever worked with at Arco. So, they are only going to build four of the new facifities in the coming year. They want to have the full compliment of everything that they have designed to be in place, and he would like one of those four facilities to be in the City of Anaheim. He states the comments that he heard about drinking and driving, and issues other than the anti- competitive ones have been largely emotional, irrational and not professionally interpreting the facts of the situation. The one thing they differ from with the other applicants is that each gas station merchants, knowing the facts, made the decision to open their facility without the sale of beer and wine. His company does not wish to open a facility without being able to offer the full compliment of inerchandise that they sell. That is why they have been working on a project in the area for over 3 years. The facts as set forth by staff, the Police Department and the City Attorney have reviewed fully the issue, and have determined it is not an issue. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if the applicant had stated that he had support from the West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council on beer and wine licenses. Mr. Yamasaki responded he feels they have developed the beginnings of a trust relationship with WAND. Arco has p{edged to WAND that it would find two licenses for the off-sale premises and purchase them and retire them in the area. To date, they have not been able to find licenses that would satisfy them, ~ because of the geography proximity of the licenses that have become available. Subsequent to their completion of the facility, and as part of that, even though it is not going to be necessarily germane to Anaheim's Administration, they will escrow $50,000 towards the retiring of two licenses. It is a business 02-24-03 Page 16 FEBRUARY 24, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSfON MINUTES • arrangement between Arco and WAND and not necessarily germane to the CUP, but he feels it is relevant that Commission understands he is able to share with them the additional steps they are tak to work with the community to make sure they are welcome. Currently, it is a 30-plus year old gas st that is sitting empty, and they would like to turn it into something the City of Anaheim would be proud Commissioner Koos states Commission is glad to hear the explanation, but hopes it is understood th based on past experience, the Commission would not bring up the issue of buying licenses out elsew as part of the condition of approval. Mr. Yamasaki responded he hopes it demonstrates their willingness to think outside the box, and do something extra to make sure they are welcome in the community. ing ation of. at, here Commissioner Koos states Commission would not ask him to do that. He asked permission to have Esther Wallace, representative of WAND, respond to questions regarding the project. Esther Wallace, Chairman of WAND, states they have had approximately a 4-year history with the problem. It is a very blighted corner and the community feels nothing is going to happen to it. WAND felt that a gas station should be able to operate without a liquor license, but as they continued to deliberate, there was mention that if they could buy up two liquor licenses in the Brookhurst Street Corridor, WAND would be wiVling to iet them have the liquor license. WAND was sure they were not going to be able to buy them because they had tried to buy licenses two years previously and the cost was very high. Two years ago there were 46 liquor licenses in the Brookhurst Corridor, both restaurants and take out. Since that time, there have been more liquor licenses given to restaurants along that Corridor. She personally feels Arco could build the station and still make money without the liquor license, because there are a lot of other things that could go into it such as a cappuccino shop, car wash, fast food, etc. But, the majority of WAND members felt they wanted to get the corner going because it is such a blighted area. However, she is seeing a`can of worms' that is going to be opened up by other people who might decide to do the ~ same thing. None of the areas that have been mentioned, in which WAND has fought the liquor licenses, have there been an over supply of liquor licenses. However, there is an over supply to the north and the east area. Commissioner Bristol states after 5 years of this, he cannot believe what he is hearing. He feels they are doing exactly what they are accusing Mobil of doing. Ms. Wallace responded that Mobil did not buy up a liquor license. WAND felt they would be getting rid of two liquor licenses that would be selling beer and wine for take out and get one liquor license. Commissioner Bristol states when he thinks ABC and licensing and the West side he thinks of two faces that appear before Commission at all times. Commission has worked really hard and the results are a part of their work. Ms. Wallace responded, "I know, and I want to maintain that". Commissioner Eastman states it is concerning to her because Commission has something in place that gave them solid guidelines, and they have been living by those guidelines and now all of a sudden Commission is faced with a big decision. Ms. Wallace responded that she did not want to see the Brookhurst Corridor Overlay change because they think it is a very useful tool for the area. Commissioner Bristol asked staff what the zoning was for the county property. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states the zoning is C1 Commercial. A service station in combination with a convenience market requires a Public Hearing, but a convenience market by itself does not. ~ Commissioner Bristol asked if they could sell beer and wine. 02-24-03 Page 17 FEBRUARY 24, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSlON MINUTES • Mr. McCafferty responded their code makes no distinction with regard to convenience markets with off- premise sales. Commissioner Bristol asked why staff is supporting this project when they did not support the Mobil Station request for sell of beer and wine. Mr. McCafferty responded it was a very tough recommendation to come up with but there are some positives that came out of it: 1) The BCC was intending to remove blight, 2) It is a closed down service station, and 3) there is a pawnshop that has non-conforming signs and is deteriorated. So, even though some of it is outside the BCC area, staff saw an opportunity to redevelop the site with a high quality and new service station. Some of the things staff would normally look at in combination with the Police Department for example are: Question: Is there an over concentration of off-sale licenses within the census tract? Answer: No, there is only one, four are permitted. Question: Is there an above average crime rate for the reporting district? Answer: No, it is below average. Question: Is it near immediately accessible residential neighborhoods where it could create a problem with people potentially purchasing beer and driving into residential tracts? Answer: No, it is not. You cannot access the tracfs to the residential neighborhoods from the Arco Station. ~ Question: Was there an opportunity to wrap this up with conditions that would allow the City of Anaheim to go in and enforce violations of the beer and wine license? Answer; Yes; it could be done with the conditions issued. So, on the Land Use side, eliminating blight, getting something new and not having anything that really struck as problematic from the alcohol, staff came up with the recommendation for approval. Commissioner Koos states he is starting to be convinced by their point with respect to the revised plan. He feels it is more like a traditional AM/PM. At the direction of Commission the applicants tried to come up with the Spanish-style roof but he actually likes the first one better, it looks streamline. He asked Arco to differentiate what they refer to as art deco and what he calls streamline. Mr. Yamasaki responded in looking at the evolution of the AM/PM the facility is designed art deco because of the curvilinear futuristic. Streamline is perhaps a more accurate adjective for it. It is designed to be clean. As he looks at the new buildings that have come online, he seldom sees new buildings come online with the Mission tile roof. They are streamline between entities. Commissioner Eastman states Commission is looking for more of the classic kind of lines that they will not be able to look at in 5 years and state, "Oh, that was done back in 1985". Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt states with respect to discussion in the morning session regarding monument signs and treatment of the tops he asked staff to elaborate. Mr. McCafferty states they are supportive of the monument sign on the corner, but feel it needs to be finished on the top with a cornice treatment to wrap around it to give it more of a finish look as opposed to ~ just having the sign cabinet free-flowing on top of the monument base. Staff is generally supportive of most of the sign program brought forth by the applicant, with the exception of the signage being recommended in Condition No. 30 to be deleted from the final sign program. 02-24-03 Page 18 FEBRUARY 24, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • That would be consistent with how Commission has viewed signage for other stations. Most recently, the station on Broadway and also the station on Harbor Boulevard and South Street where the line was held on the amount of signage requested. Also, .there has been mention by some of the testimony that by approving the beer and wine at this location, you would essentially be opening the floodgates in that area to more requests. Staff respectively feels that is not the case. The only scenario similar to this request would be a commercial property that is in the BCC, but also has contiguous commercial property that is going to incorporate into a new development of an entire site. Staff feels if that occurs, it would be on the fringes and not within the entire BCC area. z~] ~~[~]b~l l- [H Ec~_tc~~l-~ih4/_1:~ t~l ~ ~:I ~~~_1-1 ~1 h[KK~ll~l l-~il F•'~•y[~7- I_~~ ~[~] ~ OPPOSITION: 4 people spoke in opposition to the subject request pertaining to the safes of beer & wine. IN SUPPORT: One person who represented the West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council (WAND) spoke in favor, but relayed some concerns regarding the subject request. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Recommended City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2002-00407, (to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan for the westerly portion of the property from the Low Density Residential land use designation to the General Commercial land use designation) by adopting Exhibit "A". • Granted Reclassification No. 2002-00087 (to reclassify the westerly portion of the property from County C-1 zone to the CL zone [subject to annexation]), and subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated February 24, 2003. Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04641 (to establish conformity with zoning code land use requirements for an existing drive-through restaurant and to permit a service station with accessory car wash and convenience market with the sales of beer and wine for off-premises sales and consumption), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated February 24, 2003, with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 16, 21, 38 and 65 to read as follows: 16. That at least one (1) sign to discourage driving a vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcoholic beverages shall be prominently displayed inside the building for every three (3) signs advertising beer or wine; provided, however, that at least two (2) such signs to discourage driving a vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcoholic beverages shall be prominently displayed inside the building. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 21. That no seating or table areas for the service station/convenience market shall be provided for on-site food consumption. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 38. That final elevation plans for the new construction shall be submitted to the Zoning • Division for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item showing modified architectural enhancements incorporated into the project, including the following: 02-24-03 Page 19 FEBRUARY 24, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ~~ • That the ledge stone treatment be incorporated into the trash receptacles located between the pump dispensers since it is not being applied to the pump island canopy. • Incorporation of additional architectural features to define the main entry. Any decision by the Zoning Division may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 65. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 4, 13, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 56, 57, 58, 60, 62, and 64, 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. Recommended City Council consideration of the Reclassification, Waiver of Code Requirement and Conditional Use Permit in conjunction with City Council's mandatory review of General Plan Amendment No. 2002-00407. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) . Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated this item would be set for a public hearing before the City Council. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 13 minutes (2:29-3:42) ~ 02-24-03 Page 20 FEBRUARY 24, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISED) Approved 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04653 Granted OWNER: June Noordman, Ronda Rae Pre School, 900 South Knott Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: William Tefend, Tefend Construction, 2233 Calle Leon, West Covina, CA 91792 LOCATION: 848, 90Q and 906 South Knott Avenue. Property is approximately 0.96-acre having a frontage of 198 feet on the east side of Knott Avenue, located 465 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road. To expand an existing pre-school and construct additional classroom area with waivers of: (a) setback for an institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone boundary (b) minimum number of parking spaces and (c) minimum side yard setback. Continued from the February 10, 2003, Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-38 sr8558vn.doc Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt introduced Item No. 4 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04653, • 848, 900 and 906 South Knott Avenue, a request to expand an existing pre-school and construct an additional classroom area with waivers of: a) institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone boundary, b) minimum number of parking spaces, and c) minimum sideyard setback. Applicant's Testimony: June Noordman, 900 South Knott Avenue, states they are very happy with the project plan with one exception and that is Condition No. 7. Their existing building was approved in 1978, and the addition in 1995. Their proposed building is freestanding and would not be connected to the existing building. She does not fike the parapet wall, and not only think it is ugly, but also it is very expensive. Her home is right next door to the site, and she would be looking at a wall that she does not feel is attractive. She asked Commission reconsider the recommendation. Unexpectantly, by Mr. Lee, the Plan Check Supervisor, they were asked to put a fireproof roof on the new addition, but since they were already previously- approved she does not understand why they are being asked to make changes to a building that is already there. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states staff does not want the applicant to do any additional work that is unnecessary, especially if it results in an ugly looking building. He suggests modifying Condition No. 7 to state that per the California Building Code, Table 5-A, of the 2001 California Code, and if required by the City of Anaheim Building Division. That way it gives staff the flexibility of complying with uniform codes if necessary, but not totally foreclosing it, especially since it is a change of occupancy of the building. w 02-24-03 Page 21 FEBRUARY 24, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • • ~ ~' • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04653 (to expand an existing preschool and construct additional classroom area), subject to the conditions vf approval as stated in the staff report dated February 24, 2003. Incorporated conditions of approval contained in Resolution Nos. PC79-44 and PC95-54 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition Nos. 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 are new conditions; Condition No. 7 was modified and a new condition was added at today's meeting): 1. That the hours of operation, as stipulated, by the petitioner, shall be the same as the original approval for the existing private school and day care facility (Conditional Use Permit No. 3726) and limited from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 2. That the private school and day care facility, both existing and expanded, shall not exceed 60 children on-site at any time. 3. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor ~ storage uses. u 02-24-03 Page 22 FEBRUARY 24, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4. That a minimum of 11 parking spaces (including one (1) handicapped space) shall be provided, on-site at all times, in conformance with minimum code requirements. 5. That no compact parking spaces shall be permitted. 6. That a licensed architect shall prepare plans meeting the requirement of the 2001 California Building Code for the new building intended for "E-3" (education) occupancy. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 7. That per CBC Table 5A of the 2001 California Code, and if required by the City of Anaheim, Building Division, the existing and the new addition shall be provided with one-hour exterior wall within 10 feet from the property line. In addition, all openings within 10 feet must be protected. A 30-inch high parapet shall also be required along the south side of the property. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted to the building permits. 8. That the proposed addition shall comply with the State's Title 25 handicap accessibility requirements for parking, path of travel, restrooms and etc. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 9. That the developer shall submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying the post construction best management practices that will be used on-site to control predictable pollutants from storm water runoff. The WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Work Department, Development Services Division for review and approval. • 10. That trash storage areas shall be maintained in a location acceptabfe 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 1-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. 11. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection and a plan for recycling shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division for review and approval. 12. That an unsubordinated covenant to hold the three (3) properties as one for purposes of access and parking shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval as to form by the City Attorney. Once approved, said covenant shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder and a recorded copy shall be submitted to the Zoning Division. Should Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1943 and 3726 be terminated, said covenant shall terminate by its own effect. 13. 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. 14. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the RS-A-43,000 Zone unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the Planning Commission. Any additional signage, beyond what is existing shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and • Recommendation item. 02-24-03 Page 23 FEBRUARY 24, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . 15. 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 Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and as conditioned herein. 16. 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. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 17. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, whichever occurs first, Condition No. 15, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 18. 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 app{icable 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. Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That the legal property owner shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1943 (to permit a preschool) to the Zoning Division. • VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (3:43-3:50) s 02-24-03 Page 24 FESRUARY 24, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 5b WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 5c CONDITIONAL USE PERMLT NO. 2002-04629 OWNER: David Ly, Lyman Legacy, 2841 South Croddy Way, Unit A, Santa Ana, CA 92704 AGENT: Deena Detry, Nextel Communications, 310 Commerce, Irvine, CA 92602 LOCATION: 1201 and 1211-1231 South Euclid Street, Parcel 1 is approximately 0.6-acre located at the southwest corner of Balf Road and Euclid Street. Parcel 2 is approximately 1.6 acres having a frontage of 350 feet on the west side of Euclid Street ancl located 170 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road. Request to establish land use conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing legal nonconforming commercial center and liquor store and to permit a telecommunications antenna with accessory ground-mounted equipment with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and maximum structural height adjacent to a residential zone. Continued from the December 2, 2002 and January 13, 2003, Planning Commission meetings. ~ ~J CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None Withdrawn sr8556vn.doc ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request for withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04629 VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 02-24-03 Page 25 FEBRUARY 24, 2003 PLANNING COMM1SS10N MINUTES r ~ ~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:51 P.M. TO MONDAY, MARCH 10, 2003 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Resp ctfully submitted: ~ ~~~~ Pat Chand er, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2003. ~ ~ 02-24-03 Page 26