Loading...
Minutes-PC 2003/03/10• • i CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 10, 2003 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California .<>~~~~~ ;~; ~.:~ _ < ~HAIRPE P U B~S . ~ K COMMISSIONERS PRESENT PHI~LLIS a~S~T~~~ST~`HE~t~1STOL, GAIL EASTMAN, ,10HIJ KO(~<~.lANI~~S~VA~I~L3E~Ei~LT~ ~ ~/ ~ ~~`~~ ~:.. , ~ `' > a . ~ ~ ~ COMMISSIONERS A~ENT , `~~i~VID RC~ME~R~"''' ~,~ ° ~Z: ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ i ~~ ~ :: ,~ ~~ ^~ ,~y ~ ~'' ~ ~~°_, ~ . ~ STAFF PRESENT _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ,. ~ ~° ~ Selma Mann, Ass~s#~ani~~i~y P~tto°r~r~ey~ AI Brady, Sr Code Enfor~ementaOfficer Greg Hastings, Z'°o~r~~g Difvi~io~lVl~a~nager Linda Johnson P,rincipal Planne ~ Greg McCafferty,aP;~rr~~~palKF~lan e`r~ Scott Koehm, Assistan'~ Planner~ ~ Alfred Yalda, Prir~c'~~al T'r~nspo~a~tion Planne~r Ossie Edmundsan, P~ ~up'port ~~apervisor Melanie Adams, ~Associa~e Erigrrieer.:~ ,~° P,atuCh~ndler, Sen-~r Se~retary ~ ~ ~« ~ z. ~ ~~ ~ x ~ ~,~.,,. ~,-~ ~ ~ ~~.., ~~„~, ": ~ ~ € ~ ,~ ~ ' ~.. „~ ~. ~° -~"~, `,,., ~ `~~~ r~ ~i t ~ t ~ ~» ~ °~ ~ AGENDA POST~I~I~': A~omp et copy~f #he Planwaqg~~or~~issio genda v~va~ postec~ dt 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, Marc~i 6, 2003,~i~-~s~de tl~e display case located in f1~e foy of ~h~~C~u~tcil Chambers, and also in the ~ ~R ~ ~~ ~ outside display I~~~k. t ~ ~ ° ~ "~ ~~~' i,k ~~~ ~, ~ ~~ .~ / ~r ~ ~ ~.~ ~~~ ",~~`~ ~~~'; ~~ a ..~ PUBLISHFD: Anahei ~@ullefin New~~aper ort`"Thut~sd~~; ~~br~ary 13 2QQ3 ~ T 'y~ l, ,. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CALL TO ORDER ~ ;~ 5 ~~` ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ s~ ..a~,~ ~ ~° , , ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ti ~ h. ..~ ,, ~,~~ q.. PLANNING,C~MMI&SIQN III~Q~IaIlNGJS~SSION~11~0~ A M:a ~ ~~ • STAF~~UPDP~'~~TC~ ~`tlf#l~~~SS~ON~fl~, \laR1,0US GI~Y ~ ~' DEVEL0~~1`IIE~ITS AI~D.ISSl1 ~~4l~E~ST~~3 B'Y ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ : PLANNING`CQMIVti~SION ~" ~ • PRELIMINARY P~N #~EVIEW FOR ITEIVIS C?Rl T~1''~ MARCH 10, 2003 AGENDA ~~,:<~ ~ ~ ~ ~;,:; . ~~~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 statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Vanderbilt PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT H:\DOCS\CLERICAL\MINUTES/AC031003.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLtC 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-B 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 MOT(ON CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick abstained on Item 1-B and Commissioner Romero absent) for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-A through 1-B) as recommended by staff (with modifications to Item 1-B). UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • A. Receiving and approving revised Minutes from the Planning Approved Commission Meeting of February 10, 2003. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent), that the Romero absent) Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the revised minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of February 10, 2003, with the following modifications: Corrected Item No. 7, pages 21-22, The discussion portion of this item was inadvertently left out in the minutes approved at the Planning Commission Meeting of February 24, 2003. • B. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Approved, with correction Commission Meeting of February 24, 2003. (Motion) fo page 17 ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner (Vote: 5-0, Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick abstained and Bostwick abstained and Commissioner Romero absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission Commissioner Romero does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission absent) meeting of February 24, 2003, with the following modifications: Corrected page 17, paragraph 10 as follows: "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 desisie~ deviation:' 03-10-03 Page 2 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3 Concurred with staff 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04631 Granted, in part OWNER: The Salvation Army 900 West 9~h Street, Los Angeles, CA 90015 AGENT: The Saivation Army, attn: Lee Lescano, 10200 Pioneer Road, Tustin, CA 92680. LOCATION: 314 North Claudina Street. Property is approximately 1.0 acre located on the northeast corner of Cypress Street and Claudina Street (Salvation Army). To permit an accessory muiti-use sports court in conjunction with an existing church with waivers of a) required setback for institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone and b) maximum fence height.* *Waiver (b) has been deleted. Continued from the December 16, 2002, January 27 and February 10, 2003, Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-39 sr8571vn.doc • Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 2 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04631, 314 North Claudina Street - Salvation Army, a request to permit an accessory multi-use sports court in conjunction with an existing church with waivers of: a) setback for institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone, and b) maximum fence height. Commissioner Eastman abstained from this item. Applicant's Testimony: Richard Davenport, 10200 Pioneer Rd., Tustin, CA, Property Manager for the Salvation Army of Orange County, states after the February 10, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting they got together with the neighbors, and went to the drawing board and came up with a whole new design for the court. It is no longer a multi-purpose sports court, it has been made into a half-size basketball court just for the children to play on. That eliminated some of the concerns of the neighbors who were worried about games with whistles, etc. The balance of the property would be grass and would give at least a 15 foot buffer zone on the north and east sides of the property. His only question referred to the staff report Item No. 5 which states all the trees will be 24 inches and planted 20 foot on center. That included the Cypress trees as well as the Camphor trees, but if the Cypress trees are planted 20 feet on center they would not serve the purpose that they had designed them for, and that was to be another noise deterrent. So, they put them a lot closer together and agreed with the neighbors to use 15-gallon size on the Cypress trees. In addition, Camphor trees will be installed down the side of their existing property, as well as vines to dress up that part of their existing property. Public Testimony: • Andrew Bartef, 206 E. Adele St., Anaheim, CA, states on February 22, 2003 he met with the Salvation Army and feels they came forward with a much-improved plan that resolved many of their concerns. But, there were a couple of things that further needed to be addressed, and one of them was the size of the trees which they had verbally confirmed would be finished at the 15-gallon plus size. However, there 03-10-03 Page 3 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • have been a couple of incidences that have happened since that meeting. For instance, at the meeting Salvador Gonzalez stated he would ask the children to come inside after 8 p.m. and they would move their outdoor activities inside. Since then the following Friday, they had basketbail going on until 10:30 p.m. and he could not get in touch with Mr. Gonzalez or Mr. Les Cono. The following day on March 1, Mr. Lescono called back that he was going to take care of it. He spoke with Mr. Gonzalez who asked to be trusted that it would not happen again. On March 3, 2003, Mr. Salvador was phoned to ask questions of him but he never returned a call back. March 5, 2003, Mr. Lescono was phoned to ask about plans that had been promised by mail. Mr. Davenport returned the call about them the next day. He stated he was sorry about everyone not getting the plans and personally dropped them off. I aiso left another message for him with some concerns, which he promptly returned my call. However, on March 7, 2003, the outdoor activities were going on and Mr. Gonzalez was phoned at 9:15 p.m. He was rather upset that he was being phoned. He felt that he was doing what he had promised even though it was well past 8 p.m., and did not feel that anyone needed to call him to let him know that there was a problem. He did not think that there was a problem and that the children were currently leaving, and they were closing down their activities since he said they closed at 9 p.m. even though it was 9:15 p.m. Mr. Bartel states he was a little upset by Mr. Gonzalez's cavalier attitude that he was being harassed by any means since it was noise that they could clearly hear reverberating inside their house with the television on. A message was left for Mr. Lescano as well but did not receive a call back. There is a question about trust. The Salvation Army has come forward with much-improved plans but have not shown that they can be trusted on statements; whether it is on hours of operation or receiving a return call, and just the attitude that he feels he is being harassed even though it was past the time that he personally had said they would move their activities indoors. Mr. Bartel states he is a little concerned because this is what he would think of as the nice period when they are going to be a little nicer since it is coming before Planning and they had such a positive meeting with them. He requested that their current activities at their current facility be tied to the new area, that the hours of operation for outdoor activities be carried over onto the current facility, and that there be restrictions on ~ outdoor music at the current facility in addition to the play area. Bill Taormina, 128 W. Sycamore, Anaheim, CA, states his property is on the west side of Claudina Street adjoining the Salvation Army property along Claudina Street, and while he speaks for himself he is trying to summarize the feelings of the neighbors that were at the meeting. He feels it is very important that Commission knows the efforts that were put forth by the Salvation Army. In all of his experience as a property owner, he has never seen such an open arms approach to a neighbor as he has seen with the Salvation Army, and they are pleased with that. However, he wanted to clarify a couple of very brief things: 1. The issue of the 8 p.m. close down wherein after 8 p.m. because sometimes it is hard to define what dusk is. So, they are trying to be specific with 8 p.m. because they are sensitive with respect to people who are trying to sleep. 2. The issue of trash patrol. It would be some proactive every so many hour walk around the block scenario or someone from the Salvation Army would monitor the trash enclosure. There is a trash enclosure and a grassy strip that people seem to drop couches and chairs there thinking it is a drop off center, which is a confusing thing. He requests a sign posted in Spanish and English that indicates it is not a drop off location. 3. The Salvation Army has committed to a single point of contact so that whenever there is a neighborhood concern believed to have been generated from them, a single individual can be called, and today that is Salvador. 4. Regarding the review cycle, because of the interface between residential and commercial they would like to have the opportunity to potentially, twice a year, have a chance to sit down with the Salvation Army on a regularly stipulated meeting or have some form that they can send them if • there are any issues, just to make sure the credibility stays there, and if there are any personnel changes those issues would be addressed in the conditions. 03-10-03 Page 4 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos states he is real(y pleased that the neighbors and the applicant got together and reached a compromise, thereby eliminating the waivers and resulting in the half-court design. He feels it is a good suggestion to state a time rather than just stating dusk and he has concerns about the existing operation and their adherence to basically being good neighbors. The original CUP did not have hours of operation tied to it. It was a very old CUP and a lot of the issues brought up at the last hearing and the current hearing pertained more to the existing situation rather than the proposal. He has concerns about the cumulative impact of the proposal and the existing operation and concurs that one would expect the best behavior to occur at a time when there is the most scrutiny on the project to demonstrate that they are being a good neighbor. Due to activity going on that is fairly late that is an impact on the neighborhood he suggested imposing the same outdoor activity time limit on the existing property as with the proposed property. He asked Mr. Davenport to state what the plans are to address the existing situation separate from the proposal. Mr. Davenport responded that they spent 2%z years on the project and currently do not have any of the sound deterrents agreed to in place. He feels it is unfair to judge them today since they have not had the opportunity to put the sound equipment in place. The Salvation Army has a church in place and sometimes there are meetings, which go late. There are City Ordinances in place that if they become a nuisance, the City and the neighbors can take action. Their records do not indicate any instances of nuisance. He states he cannot speak directly to it because he is the Property Manager and not the operator of the church, but do not feel the Salvation Army would be interested in the project if Commission ties the church activities to it. People would be coming and going from the activities and if they are going to have to be worried about somebody in the neighborhood calling every time people are leaving tF~e facility from an indoor activity to the parking lot, then they would be setting themselves up for a big mess with the community. ~ Commissioner Koos states there was undisputed testimony of outdoor activity beyond people coming and going from their cars for example, youth playing until very late hours. Mr. Davenport asked how would he differentiate between the two. They have agreed that there would be no outside activities with the children and no music outside and the doors would be shut, and if it is not happening they are going to continue to try to be the best neighbors that they can be. But, if it is going to end up that every time somebody walks down the street and there is noise and the Salvation Army gets blamed for it or is held responsible for it then he does not feel they can control that. He feels they have agreed to far more stringent outside activities than what the City of Anaheim regulations call for and they do not want to get into a position where the other CUP is opened up or they would just drop the project. Commissioner Koos states if Commission identifies the project has an impact on the neighborhood they have the discretion to address it. He asked if they did not agree to curb the activities. Mr. Davenport responded not to have outside activities after 8 p.m. He clarified he does not live in the area and is not aware of anything that went on between Mr. Bartel and the Salvation Army staff in charge. Commissioner Koos states Commission have a lot of testimony to that effect. Mr. Davenport states he is not saying it did not happen, but that he cannot answer to what the activity was at the time, whether it was the court being used, whether it was kids activity, or whether it was adults leaving the building. But, he knows that most businesses can operate to the City Ordinance of 10:30 p.m. and if they have a church activity that runs late, he would not want to have that controlled by what their outside court is controlled by. Commissioner Koos states there are ordinances and then there are discretionary permits, which have ~ conditions of approval that deal with a variety of impacts, and one of them being adjacent to residential. If they were located in an industrial park this would not be an issue. So, talking about what is normally allowed is not that relevant. 03-10-03 Page 5 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Bostwick states one of the issues brought up is Condition No. 2, that would be changed to state, "That the court shall be limited to 12 noon to dusk or 8 p.m. whichever comes first and that the basketball net would be locked so that it could not be played with after closing". Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Davenport if he indicated Cypress trees would be 15 gallons versus the 24-inch box. Mr. Davenport responded yes, what they would like to do is make a barrier out of them so that it takes a lot more than every 20 feet to grow in thick to where they will give a sound barrier. Commissioner Koos referred to the noise and asked Mr. Davenport if he would be willing to stand before Commission and commit to no organized or recreational activity on the existing property beyond 8:00. Mr. Davenport responded yes, he would agree to existing patio for organized activity, but if talking about people walking to and from or people getting together to talk he would not know how he could regulate that. FOLLOWING 15 A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMIS5I~N ACTION. OPPOSITION: None CONCERNS: 2 people spoke with concerns pertaining to the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Eastman abstained and Commissioner Romero • absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3(New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Denied Waiver of Code Requirements pertaining to (a) required setback for institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone and (b) maximum fence height since these waivers have been deleted. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04631 (to permit an accessory half- basketball court in conjunction with an existing church) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated March 10, 2003, with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 2 and 6 to read as follows: 2. That the hours of operation of the half-basketball court shall be limited from 12 noon to 8 p.m. or dusk, whichever occurs first. Access to the court shall be controlled through the church property and monitored by church personnel and shall not be used for adult sports activities. That during the hours when the basketball court is not in operation, the basketball hoop shatl be secured such that court play is not possible. 6. That a landscape plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. The plans shall incorporate Italian Cypress trees along the north and east property lines and Camphor trees on the west property line. The Italian Cypress • trees shall be 15-gallon in size and spaced 4 feet on-center and the Camphor trees shall be minimum 24-inch box in size and planted 20 feet on-center. 03-10-03 Page 6 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Eastman abstained and Commissioner Romero absenf) Seima Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 33 minutes (1:35-2:08) • ~ 03-10-03 Page 7 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 11 3b. VARIANCE NO. 2003-04551 Concurred with staff Granted OWNER: Tushar Patel, Krishan LLC., 650 Town Center Drive #1720, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 AGENT: Mark Vasquez, Anaheim Marriot, 700 West Convention Way, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATlON; 700 West Convention Wav. Property is approximately 15.06 acres, having a frontage of 995 feet on the south side of Convention Way, located 480 feet west of the centeriine of Harbor Boulevard (Anaheim Marriott Hotel). Requests waiver of Hotel Sign Standard Matrix requirements pertaining to maximum sign area and permitted sign location to retain two existing wall signs on adjacent building elevations at the Anaheim Marriott Hotel. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-40 \ J sr8560gk.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 3 as Variance No. 2003-04551, 700 West Convention Way- Anaheim Marriot Hotel, a reguest for a waiver of hotel sign standard matrix requirements pertaining to maximum sign area and permitted sign location to retain two existing wall signs on adjacent building elevations at the Anaheim Marriott Hotel. Applicant's Testimony: Linda Johnson, Principal Planner, states the applicant is requesting a waiver of hotel sign standards pertaining to maximum sign area and permitted sign locations to retain two existing wall signs for the Anaheim Marriott Hotel. Staff has reviewed the requested actions and recommends approval of the waivers to retain the existing signs as there are special circumstances relating to the property and design of the hotel, as the hotel is the second tallest hotel in the Anaheim Resort and reduction of the sign area and relocation of the signs to conform with code would reduce the visibility and legibility of the signs as well as make the signs disproportionate to the size of the hotel as indicated in the staff report. The applicant is here today and staff is available to respond to any question you may have. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11 (construction or replacement of minor structures accessory to existing commercial, industrial or institutional facilities, including, but not limited to, on-premise signs), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. ~ Granted Variance No. 2003-04551, subject to staff's recommended conditions of approval included in the staff report dated March 10, 2003, waiving the Hotel Sign Standards Matrix requirements pertaining to maximum sign area and permitted sign location to retain two hotel identification wall signs located on adjacent building elevations 03-10-03 Page 8 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • inasmuch as the submitted evidence does identify speciai circumstances with regard to the location and surroundings of the property which do not apply to other identically- zoned properties in the vicinity, and, that the strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Zone as described in paragraph (6) of the staff report dated March 10, 2003. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Romero absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (2:09-2:11) • ~ 03-10-03 Page 9 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4156 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04666) OWNER: Connecticut Generaf Life, 5445 East La Palma Ave #11, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: John Townsend, Land Rover, 5425 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 5445 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 12.2 acres, having a frontage of 501 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue, located 270 feet east of the centerline of Brasher Street (Land Rover Auto Dealership). To expand an existing automotive dealership and modify previously approved exhibits and conditions of approval pertaining to signage and a time limitation with waiver of maximum number of wall signs. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-41 Approved Denied Approved, in part, modification sr8572av.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 4 as Conditional Use Permit No. 4156, 5445 East La Palma ~ Avenue - Land Rover, to expand an existing automotive dealership and modify previously-approved exhibits and conditions of approval pertaining to signage and a time limitation with waiver of maximum number of wall signs. Applicant's Testimony: John DeFrenza, 20301 SW Birch St., the architect for the project, requested a Conditional Use Permit for a Land Rover dealership and stood present to answer any questions. Public Testimony: John McNaughton, 2633 Medford PL., Fullerton, CA, states he is employed at H. Koch & Sons Co., across from the Land Rover Dealership of Anaheim Hills, and want to be good neighbors. However, there is a situation, which currently occurs, and they are very concerned that if the dealership is expanded the situation may become worse than it currently is. There is an ongoing problem with the operation of Land Rover of Anaheim Hills with the defivery of vehicles that are being delivered to the dealership for sale. They have no accommodation at present for offloading the vehicles anywhere other than the center of La Palma Avenue. His facility has a drive that is just about even with Land Rover's drive, and their delivery services generally park auto carriers directly in front of his driveway so that when his employees are coming from the east, westbound on La Palma Avenue, they are forced to pull behind the carrier vehicle. Their view of oncoming traffic coming from the west of La Palma Avenue is completely obscured. There have been several near misses. His company has also reported this to the Anaheim Police Department, which has been out on site several times. The only problem is the response time from the Police Department has been anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour and by that time the defending vehicle is gone. The Police have spoken with the people at Land Rover and his company has not been privy to what their response has been. H. Koch & Sons Co. has also sent communication to them with copies to the City of Anaheim where they have complained about the situation. He suggests, in the evaluation of • the proposal that Commission would see fit to include a loading area on their property to eliminate a dangerous situation. Oncoming traffic is forced to drive against the stream of traffic or drive pass the vehicle and make a u-turn on La Palma Avenue and then come back to the driveway. There is a similar 03-10-03 Page 10 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ situation, which occurs at the Mercedes dealer, which is just west of them. They have chosen to use a side street for offloading vehicles, which creates a problem for the people driving in that area. They have commented that their delivery people cannot pull their trucks into their drive because it would obscure the entrance to other businesses that are on the drives. But, it would only be obstructing a few parking spaces whereas allowing the delivery people to offload vehicles in the middle of a busy intersection would create a life-threatening situation. Marylyn Harris, 5410 E. La Palma Avenue, receptionist of H. Koch & Sons Co., states she observes the truck carriers at least three or four times a day, and the times of unloading of the trucks is between 7 a.m. and 12 noon. Cars come at the speed of at least 50-55 mph and the visibility of cars is very difficult when trying to make a left hand turn into the parking structure of their facility. She asks if Commission allows the Land Rover dealership to expand that they be required to have sufficient unloading of vehicles for the truck carriers. Tom Morrison, 5464 E. La Palma Avenue, a neighbor on the south side of La Palma Avenue, adjacent to H. Koch & Sons Co., states his issue is also of the concern that it is a very busy street. There are two lanes going each way with a middle buffer lane where cars are allowed to turn in to make left or right turns. He has 60 employees and they have brought concerns to him regarding a problem with visibility. Pulling out of the driveway to turn left or right on La Palma Avenue they would look at the delivery truck dead on. It is right in the middle of the driveway. Applicant's Rebuttal: Joshua Townsend, President of Land Rover of Anaheim Hills, 10580 Emerson Bend, Tustin, CA, apologized to the public and states he was not aware that their delivery trucks were that big of a problem. Approximately one year ago they spoke with the Anaheim Police and were instructed to move their trucks farther east along the parking area to solve the problem. Their delivery trucks from Select One Transport ~ were moving cars into the lower section of the easement and delivering cars there but they now have a new shipping company and things have changed. He states he will resolve the problem by having the new trucking company deliver the cars to the west side of their facility and drop them off farther back. He understands it is dangerous and does not want to see anyone get hurt and will definitely make sure nothing happens. Commissioner Koos asked if he was saying he would have all of his drop-offs on site. Mr. Townsend responded yes. Commissioner Koos asked if he would agree to a condition of approval to that effect. Mr. Townsend responded yes however, their landowner from whom they are leasing the land, might have an issue with that but he is sure to get the CUP approved he could make it so that they would agree to do it. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineer, if he could remind him what the State Traffic Law says with respect to offloading trucks in the median. Mr. Yalda responded he is not aware of any law, but Code Enforcement and the Anaheim Police Department work very diligently with businesses to make sure it does not happen. OPPOSITION: None CONCERNS: 3 people spoke with concerns pertaining to the subject property. ~ 03-10-03 Page 11 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Denied Waiver of Code Requirement pertaining to maximum number of wall signs since the waiver has been deleted. Approved, in part, the modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 4156 (Tracking No. CUP2003-04666) to expand an existing automotive dealership and modify previously approved exhibits and conditions of approval pertaining a time limitation. Incorporated conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. PC99-187 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4, 15, 16 and 17 are new conditions; and a condition of approval was added at today's meeting): 1. That the landscape planters shall be permanently maintained with live and healthy plant materials. 2. That if new or upgraded electrical service is required, the legal owner of the subject property shall provide the City of Anaheim with a public utilities easement to be determined as electrical design is completed. 3. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer's expense. Landscape and/or hardscape screening of all pad-mounted equipment shall be required and shall be shown on plans submitted for building ~ permits. 4. That the locations for future above-ground utility devices including, but not limited to, electrical transformers, water backflow devices, gas, communications and cable devices, etc., shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits. Plans shall also identify the specific screening treatments of each device (i.e. landscape screening, color of walls, materials, identifiers, access points, etc.) and shall be subject to the review and approval of the appropriate City departmenfs. 5. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public street. Installation of any gates shall conform to Engineering Standard Plan No. 609 and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage use. 7. That an on-site trash truck turn around area shall be maintained in accordance with Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 and as required by the Department of Public Works, Street Sweeping and Sanitation Division. 8. That at all times during operation of the facility, the City Traffic and Transportation Manager approved plan to prevent vehicular conflicts with auto transport trucks, shall be continuously implemented. • 9. That the on-site maintenance of vehicles shall be permitted only inside the building, and that no outdoor servicing or repair shall be permitted on the premises. 03-10-03 Page 12 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 10. That the storage or overnight parking of vehicles (other than vehicle inventory), vehicle parts, or business-related materials and all work on vehicles (including the washing of vehicles) shall be confined entirely to the interior of the building. Absolutely no vehicular body work, painting or other business-related activities, or storage of vehicle parts or materials (other than vehicle inventory) shall be allowed outdoors. 11. That a maximum of forty-nine (49) inventory vehicles, excluding the ten (10) display vehicles, may be stored outside the building. With the exception of the five (5) display vehicles permitted 10 feet from the La Palma Avenue, said outdoor storage shall only occur behind the minimum 65-foot building setback. 12. That no Special Event Permits (including inflatable balloons) shall be issued for temporary outdoor advertising or other events at this site. 13. That three (3) foot high street address numbers shall be maintained on the roof of the building in a color contrasting to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible to the nearby street or adjacent properties. 14. That any proposed elevation changes or new wall signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Division. Any decision by Zoning Division staff may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. 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 through 6; provided, however, that the monument sign shall be located between the two driveways (i.e., minimum 80 feet from the east property line) and as conditioned herein. 16. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or prior to the issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 3, 4 and 14, 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 the ~nal building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 15 above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 18. That approval of this application constitutes approval of fhe 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. Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That any off-loading of vehicles shall occur on-site and not on the public streets. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Romero absent) • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. 03-10-03 Page 13 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES , DISCUSSION TIME: 13 minutes (2:12-2:25) • • 03-10-03 Page 14 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04662 OWNER: Dolphin Partners, LLC, 17875 Von Karman, Suite 300, Irvine, CA 92614 AGENT: John Beke, Whalen & Company, Inc., 970 West 19ptn Street, Suite 300, Torrance, CA 90502 LOCATION: 8141 Kaiser Boulevard. Property is approximately 2.8 acres, having a frontage of 145 feet on the north side of Kaiser Boulevard, located 300 feet east of the centerline of Roosevelt Road. To permit a roof-mounted telecommunications antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. CONDI710NAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-42 Concurred with staff Granted sr8568vn.doc Chairperson Pro Tempore Vanderbilt announced Item No. 5 is a telecommunications tower located at 8141 Kaiser Boulevard, Anaheim, CA, to be introduced by staff. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 5 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04662, a request to permit a roof-mounted telecommunications antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment in the scenic corridor overlay zone. • Commissioner Koos abstained from Item No. 5 stating he works for the firm representing the applicant. ApplicanYs Testimony: John Beke, 970 W. 190th St., #300, Torrance, CA, representing Verizon Wireless, states he has had the opportunity to review and discuss the proposed approval with his clients and feels the conditions seem reasonable and appropriate to make the project appropriate within the Scenic Corridor. Applicant's Testimony: John Beke, 970 W. 190th St., #300, Torrance, CA, representing Verizon Wireless, states he has had the opportunity to review and discuss the proposed approval with his clients and feels the conditions seem reasonable and appropriate to make the project appropriate within the Scenic Corridor. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Bostwick asked if the west side of the building covering the ancillary equipment would be covered by the same material and screened as the front of the building where the elements would be placed. Mr. Beke responded yes, it is an architecturally integrated, seamless type of screening material that is actually textured and colored to match the existing material. \ J OPPOSITION: None 03-10-03 Page 15 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Koos abstained and Commissioner Romero absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04662 (to permit a roof-mounted telecommunications antenna with accessory roof-mounted equipment in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated March 10, 2003. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained and Commissioner Romero absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (2:26-2:30) ~ ~ 03-10-03 Page 16 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Concurred with staff 6b. CONDI710NAL USE PERMIT NO. 1397 Approved modification (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04664) Approved initiation of 6c. REQUEST FOR INITIATION OF RECLASSIFICATION reclassification NO. 2003-00096 OWNER: Robert L. Wetzler, 31722 Paseo Terraza, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 AGENT: Ole Pineda, 2514 West 12'h Street, Santa Ana, CA 92703 LOCATION: 2954 West Ball Road. Property is approximately 2.4 acres, located at the southeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Ball Road (Arroyo Grande Restaurant). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1397 - To amend conditions of approval and approved exhibits to allow public entertainment in conjunction with a previously-approved restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00096 - City-initiated (Planning Department) request to initiate reclassification proceedings for this property from the CH (Commercial, Heavy) zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUT{ON NO. PC2003-43 sr8553av.doc ~ Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 6 as Conditional Use Permit No. 1397, 2954 West Ball Road - Arroyo Grande Restaurant, a request to amend conditions of approval and approved exhibits to allow public entertainment in conjunction with a previously-approved restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption. Ole Pineda, 2954 W. Ball Rd., Anaheim, CA, states he is in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. Chairperson Bostwick asked, in reference to the entertainment, if there would be a cover charge. Mr. Pineda responded there would not be a cover charge. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states if there is no cover charge proposed, but a stipulation by the applicant, he suggests a condition of approval be added that allows him to have the public entertainment accessory to the restaurant but that no cover charge be accessed to the patrons. Chairperson Bostwick states Commission has a concern about the noise to the mobile home park directly behind the restaurant because it is a short distance and the homes sit very close to the wall. He asked Mr. Pineda what kind of entertainment would he have and what he anticipated doing about the noise. Mr. Pineda responded it is a family restaurant and the entertainment would be mariachi-type for when there is a family dinner, etc. Commissioner Koos asked if the entertainment was limited only to mariachi or if there would be a DJ (disc jockey) as well. ~ Mr. Pineda responded there would be a DJ possibly on the weekends to celebrate a birthday, etc. 03-10-03 Page 17 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION M{NUTES ~ Commissioner Koos states in terms of noise there is a difference between mariachi playing and the potential noise of a DJ, which is Commission's concern given how close the restaurant is to the mobile homes. Commissioner Bristol states Commission has had a few of these uses come up in the last year and some of the noise permeated the neighborhood therefore, they want to be careful that this is not the case. Public Testimony: Judithanne Gollette, 649 S. Roanne St., Anaheim, CA, representing WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development), states they welcome all restaurants to come into West Anaheim. There is an opportunity present to bring a shopping center that has been very blighted into some kind of control. For the last six months WAND has been inundated with numerous phone calls about the shopping center for homeless people about illegal activities, indiscreet activities, etc. It is a restaurant that has changed hands numerous times over the fast few years. Regarding the noise level, the Ritz and other restaurants around town have caused problems for the neighboring community; on site currently is a retail center that has been blighted for many years; there is an area in the Police Report where the crime rate has only been given for the trailer park and one section of Hobby City. The rest of Habby City is Stanton, CA. So, 80% is given and not the entire picture of what is going on there. WAND understands the restaurant has a beer and wine license and they are not disputing that, but the amount of hours and what the shopping center needs to have improvements on need to be taken into consideration when the CUP goes into effect. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Bostwick referred to one of the photos submitted and asked if it showed a backdoor. • Mr. Pineda responded the photograph showed the ladies room and against the wall, the kitchen. Chairperson Bostwick states it clarifies that there is a buffer between the ladies room and the back wall. Commissioner Eastman wished to clarify there would not be entertainment every night, but rather on a special occasion basis. She asked if there would be entertainment in the evenings on a regular basis. Mr. Pineda responded during the evenings and weekends. Mr. McCafferty feels it is germane the audience be informed that it was mentioned that this is an opportunity to bring the retail center into conformance with current codes. Staff would welcome that however, they are not introducing a new use on this property. So, technicalfy under City code they cannot be required to come into an established conformity for the retail center. This gives an opportunity to take an old restaurant that has an alcohol license and put all the current conditions with regard to the alcohol in there so at least the City gets a little bit of improvement with the specific tenant. A moderate crime rate was afso mentioned and that is an error. Eighty-percent above the citywide average is not a moderate rate of crime. That is especially relevant when the Commission is considering a new alcohol license or when there is a Public Convenience or Necessity, which is one of the findings Commission would have to make with regard to "above average crime rate", which is not the case today. OPPOSIT{ON: None CONCERNS: A person representing the West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council-WAND spoke with concerns pertaining to the subject request. • ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent), that the Anaheim City Planning 03-10-03 Page 18 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 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 modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 1397 (Tracking No. CUP2003- 04664) to amend conditions of approval and approved exhibits to a{{ow public entertainment in conjunction with a previously-approved restaurant with the sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption. Incorporated conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. PC73-103 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: 1. That the landscape planters shall be permanently maintained with live and healthy plant materials. 2. 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. 3. That the on-site landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained in compliance with City standards. 4. That all doors serving the restaurant shall conform to Uniform Fire Code requirements and shall be kept closed at all times during operation of the premises except for ingress/egress, deliveries and emergencies. 5. That all existing and proposed roof-mounted equipment shall be completely • screened from view in all directions by properly maintained design elements of the building. Said infiormation shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Zoning Division approval. 6. That the establishment shall be operated as a"Bona Fide Public Eating Place" as defined by Section 23038 of the California Business and Professions Code. 7. That food service with a full meal shall be available from opening time untif closing time, on each day of operation. 8. 7hat there shall be no pool tables, vending machines or arcade devices maintained upon the premises at any time. 9. 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. 10. That the gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 40 percent of 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 beer and wine and other items. These records shall be made avaifable for inspection by any City of Anaheim official during reasonable business hours. 11. 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. ~ 12. That the sales of alcohol for off-premises consumption shall be prohibited. 03-10-03 Page 19 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 13. 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 afcoholic beverages. 14. That the activities occurring in conjunction with the operation of this establishment shall not cause noise disturbance to surrounding properties. 15. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped with decorative 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 residences. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Police Department, Community Services Division approval. 16. 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 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. 17. That there shall be no public telephones on the premises located outside the building. 18. That signage shall be limited to existing and approved signs. 7hat temporary signs and other advertising devices shall not be permitted except when in connection with an approved Special Event Permit. 19. That no advertising or identification ofi any type shall be permitted on any outdoor ~ furniture or equipment including umbrellas, by illustration, text or any other means of visual communication. 20. 7hat 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. 21. That four (4) foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the flat area of the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material, provided the numbers shall not be visible from the street or adjacent properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Police Department, Community Services Division approval. 22. 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 1-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for Planning Department and Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division approval. 23. That a pfan 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. ~ 24. That the hours of operation shall be limited to 11 a.m. to midnight, daily. 03-10-03 Page 20 MARCH 1Q, 20Q3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 25. That the use of all pyrotechnicai material, special effects and fireworks shall be permitted and approved by the Anaheim Fire Department prior to their use. 26. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, Revision No. 1 and Exhibit No. 2, Revision No. 2, and as conditioned herein. 27. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution or within one year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first from the date of this resolution, Condition Nos. 4, 5, 15, 17, 21, 22, 23, and 26, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 28. 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 regu4ations. 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 conditions of approval to read as follows: That within ninety (90) days of operation, the Code Enforcement Division shall conduct noise measurements at the facility when entertainment is being provided to determine if the noise created by said entertainment is creating disturbance to the residential trailer park to the south. Zoning Division staff shall report back to the Planning Commission regarding the findings of the noise measurement as a Reports and Recommendations item. ! That there shall be no cover charge at the establishment. Approved initiation of Reclassification No. 2003-00096 (to reclassify this property from the CL and CH zone to the CL zone). VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Romero absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 14 minutes (2:31-2:45) \ J 03-10-03 Page 21 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04661 OWIVER: Song Hi Park, 3480 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 100, Torrance, CA 90503 AGENT: Dwyer Beesley, P.O. Box 17783, Anaheim, CA 92817 LOCA710N: 115 North Gilbert Street. Property is approximately 0.21- acre having a frontage of 78 feet on the west side of Gilbert street, located 240 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. To permit a 9-unit "affordable" senior citizen's apartment complex with a density bonus with waivers of (a) minimum landscape setback abutting an arterial highway, and (b) minimum structural setback. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-44 Approved Approved Granted, with a stipulation made by the applicant at today's meeting. sr1110cw.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 7 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04661, 115 North Gilbert Street, a request to permit a 9-unit, "affordable" senior citizen's apartment complex with a density bonus with waivers of: a) minimum fandscape setback abutting an arterial highway, and b) minimum building setback. \ I ApplicanYs Testimony: Dwyer Beesley, P.O. Box 17783, Anaheim, CA, states the project he brings before Commission is a mirror image of a 9-unit senior project which he built approximately 14 years ago at 125 N. Giibert. He would maintain the existing zoning of CL with the Conditional Use Permit for the senior citizen apartment. The project would have 9 one-bedroom units. Eight of those units would be 550 square feet, and one of the units would be 667 square feet. Five of the nine units (56%) would be under the affordable agreement for 30 years. Regarding Condition No. 1, he has provided additional landscaping. Screening is another great idea. Adding windows to the bathrooms is an excellent idea, which was an oversight on his part, and the reason he did not add it to the windows on the front is because he feels a bathroom window is not as appealing as far as elevations as other window treatments would be. As far as adding more wood sheeting, he has more than doubled the amount of exterior wood sheeting on the second floor, meeting Steve WrighYs conditions. He is reluctant to have enhanced paving on a senior project maybe for tripping hazard, etc., but would be willing to put it in if Commission wishes to do so. He proposes to have the trash pickup on the south side of the property in the same location where the shopping center is having their trash picked up. His only concern, as far as the stipulation, is that there be a recorded easement. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Bostwick asked where the trash is currently being picked up for the existing building. • Mr. Beesley responded on the south side of the lot. The truck would drive into the property, pickup the trash and back out onto Gilbert Street. He recommends that he could split them because he is going to own both properties. He could split them and put both trash enclosures in the same location and add two additional spaces for dumpsters because now they are adding in recycling which they did not have in the past. 03-10-03 Page 22 MAF2CH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Bostwick states for simplicity purposes it would be best to keep it on his own property and that way should the shopping center ever change it would not create a problem. He suggested putting them back-to-back. As far as the enriched and enhanced paving, he is sure staff wanted some like pavers rather than asphalt. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states staff is looking for enhanced paving upon entrance into the project and not necessarily carrying it through to all of the finishes. It does not have to be pavers but could be a different color from the concrete at that point. Commissioner Bristol asked if he planned to keep the 3-foot wall separating the two parcels in the front setback landscaped area. Mr. Beesley responded it would be his preference to eliminate it. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, states to the extent the 3-foot wall is not on the subject property, it is a stipulation of the applicant and the applicant may proceed and eliminate the wall, but it is not a condition of approval. • • 1 - ! 11 11 ! : • . ! ~ - - • 11 11 • ~ ! • ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement ~ Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04661 (to construct a 9-unit "affordable" senior citizen's apartment compfex with a density bonus), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated March 10, 2003, with a stipulation made by the applicant at today's meeting pertaining to the removal of a 3-foot block wall on the adjacent property to the north containing an identical senior citizen's apartment complex (owned by the applicant) in order to provide a continuous landscape setback. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Romero absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 11 minutes (2:46-2:57) • 03-10-03 Page 23 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 8b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT April 7, 2003 8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04665 OWNER: Kenneth B Isenhart, 302 South Benwood Drive, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Karen Isenhart, 302 South Benwood Drive, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 302 South Benwood Drive. Property is approximately 0.19-acre, located at the southeast corner of Academy Avenue and Benwood Drive. To permit and retain an attached second unit in conjunction with an existing single-family residence with waiver of minimum side yard setback. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. sr8570vn.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 8 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04665, 302 South Benwood Avenue, a request to permit and retain an attached second unit in conjunction with an existing single-family residence with waiver of minimum side yard setback. ApplicanYs Testimony: • Ken Isenhart, 302 Benwood Drive, Anaheim, CA, states he and his wife are the current owners of the property and have lived there for 14 years. He presented letters and a petition signed by his neighbors to Commission demonstrating they approve of his application. Additionally, he presented a note written by Judy Dadant concerning some of the statements submitted to the Commission by staff. He is a full time teacher for Hacienda LaPuente School District in Anaheim, teaching approximately 40 hours a week. He and his wife own a gun store in La Habra, CA, which is also a full time job. Since 1975 he has had a Mobile Marine Repair facility, which he uses to work on cabin cruisers and boats down in the mariner. Mr. Isenhart states the original complaint was commercial automotive repair, which he has never done. Since August, Code Enforcement Officers have been to his house approximately 3-4 times a week taking pictures of his house, his neighbors' house, and aerial pictures. To address the statement regarding parking, he has four covered parking spaces and six uncovered parking spaces. In working with Ms. Dadant, they decided they were fine as far as the lot coverage goes but they are still within the rear setback. Since his discussion with Ms. Dadant on March 17, 2003, they had another 6-foot slab poured to the edge of an existing one and moved both sheds out of the rear setback area, which she stated they were in compliance with the existing codes and he would be able to get them approved. Regarding the granny unit, the City of Anaheim has known about the unit since the 1960's. He presented a statement that the permit was applied for in 1972 and an aerial photograph of the property from 1986, which is two years before he bought it. Everyone that purchased the property before he did, including himself, all felt the property was legitimate and that everything was permitted. They had no idea that any of this was unpermitted. He has acquired permits for everything he has improved on his house. Originally Code Enforcement was coming after him for those items but luckily he kept his copies and his permit. His elderly mother lives with them and they bought the property because of that. That is her room. It gives her independence but yet gives them their privacy. If the City enforces them to remove 5 feet of it, they would lose a bathroom and the fourth bedroom. In paying taxes on their house it states 2%2 baths. The second full bathroom is in that unit and what they would lose if they had to remove 5 feet. It is on the street side and does not offer any safety violations of any sort. He does not understand why, after almost ~ 12 years, the City is now interested in it when they have known about it since 1972. They try to get along with all their neighbors and try to make themselves compliant and have done everything that the Code Enforcement has asked them to do. They depleted their life savings to do it. He respectfully asked 03-10-03 Page 24 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commission to approve their permit or otherwise he would have to seli his house because he cannot afford to tear it down and rebui{d it. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol asked what was the purpose of the sheds. Mr. Isenhart responded that he is an auto shop instructor for Las Altos High School and he stores his vehicles in them when they are inoperabfe and are not supposed to be outside. Commissioner Bristol asked if that was part of the problem, that people reported to Code Enforcement he was doing repair work at his house. Mr. Isenhart responded not to his knowledge, but an alleged automotive complaint. Max Wilson has been their Code Enforcement Officer since they have lived there, and to whom he has conversed many times through the years. He has never said there was a problem until July 2002. He has the two sheds and a car stacker, which is designed to go inside a garage to be loaded to drive one low car in and put another car on top of it in his backyard since 1990. Commissioner Bristol asked if he thought that was normal for residence. Mr. Isenhart responded he did not feel there was a problem and no one has had a problem with it until now. He came to the City before purchasing both sheds and the stacker and asked them if he would need permits for it. He was told since they were not permanently imbedded into the foundation or had to have a foundation and they were not electrically hardwired in, he would not need a permit. Many people in Orange County homes have stackers in their garages or outside of their garages so he did not see a problem with it. i Commissioner Bristol asked how he knew anyone had applied for a permit to retain a granny unit in 1972. Mr. Isenhart presented a copy of the application from City records, a photo from 1986 showing the granny unit in place, and a letter from Larry H. Housing and Construction Co., who built his enclosed patio. He feels Code Enforcement is going after the patio now, stating he does not have electrical permits and that he changed the structure, which he has not done. Code Enforcement is going after their rolling chain-link gate which in a conference with his lawyer and the District Attorney of Anaheim it was approved that the gate would be left along. The gate was installed before the City adopted its policy about chain link fences. However, they did remove their front chain link fence and reinstalled an approved fence. Commissioner Bristol asked if he could state that he was not doing anything commercially on his property. Mr. Isenhart responded he works on his own vehicles as a hobby. Commissioner Bristol asked if he currently has a lot of stuff in his yard. Mr. Isenhart responded no, only the two sheds. Chairperson Bostwick states there was a car in the backyard on Sunday. Mr. Isenhart responded yes, his car and boat are currently in the backyard because Code Enforcement told him he could not use his RV pad, which runs down the side of the residence. Public Testimony: ~ Carole Thorp, 2823 W. Academy Avenue, a neighbor of the IsenharYs, states her only concern is why after the granny unit has been there for so long and he bought it that way, why Code Enforcement is trying to make him take it down. 03-10-03 Page 25 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Chairperson Bostwick states Code Enforcement does not go out unless there is a complaint and at that point and time they look at all of the issues on the property. Obviously it comes up that it is not built up to code and there is no permit for it. There are a lot of issues in the neighborhood that need to be worked on. Ms. Thorp responded she has lived there since 1957 and is knowledgeable of issues, but Mr. Isenhart is getting most of the problems. She is a concerned citizen and feels if the unit had not been built before he bought the property then she would concur that he needed to take care of it. Chairperson Bostwick states Commission gets a number of people who have bought property with non- compliant buildings that were not permitted but that does not negate the problem Mr. Isenhart has, they have to be corrected and they have to be brought into code. Mr. McCafferty states staff would like to see a copy of the permit because through all the Code Enforcement investigations and in looking at staff's records there is nothing that indicates the structure in question had a final building permit from the City of Anaheim. Chairperson Bostwick states there appears to be a drawing but there is no permit attached to the drawing. It shows 12 feet from the curb but not from the property line. AI Brady, Code Enforcement Officer, states the history of the property is extensive. Code Enforcement received a citizen's concern regarding several substandard and nuisance and housing violations on the property. Code Enforcement conducted an inspection and determined that there are a variety of zoning issues, building issues, unpermitted structures, etc. A notice of violation was issued. Some of the items were complied with and some were not. The case was referred to the City Attorney. Code Enforcement had a meeting with the applicant and he has made attempts to bring the property into compliance with the ~ code, but at this point there are still outstanding issues as well as the application for the granny unit. Commissioner Boydstun asked how far the building sits in the curb line. Mr. McCafferty states it is right on the property line with Academy Avenue and there is no other space between that and the City right-of-way. Commissioner Boydstun asked if there are plans to have a sidewalk there within the 10-year plans. Melanie Adams, Principal Civil Engineer, states the City does not currently have a plan for sidewalks, but sidewalks are reviewed on an annual basis and as funding becomes available for areas, sidewalks are put in. Priority areas are areas where people need them for ADA accessibility, etc. Commissioner Boydstun asked within the 5-year plan if there were areas that would go before others. Ms. Adams responded sidewalks are reviewed on an annual basis and not typically projected out for 5 years. They are prioritized according to need, request, etc. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Isenhart for an explanation on information he submitted regarding an application for permit dated 8-21-72, and also to explain how he obtained it. Mr. Isenhart responded he took it directly from the City records. And as far as he knows he has complied with everything Code Enforcement has come after him for, except for the CPU unit, which he is trying to comply with. He is just trying to live in his house peacefully and do what he is supposed to do and be legal. Being a teacher and a Federal Fire Arms Licensed dealer he cannot afford to have a misdemeanor against his record for anything are he would lose his livelihood and his teaching credential, and this incident is threatening both. ~ Commissioner Bristol asked Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, if he was aware of the application. 03-10-03 Page 26 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Bostwick states he would really have a probiem doing anything with the granny unit as long as ali the other violations are outstanding. He feels there needs to be a clean bill by the Code Enforcement as far as the sheds and other structures before he makes a land use decision on the granny unit. Commissioner Koos asked if that was because he was inclined to support it. Chairperson Bostwick responded yes because he feels there is some hardship in it. It existed when Mr. Isenhart bought it, even though it does not conform, but he would like to see the property cleaned up of all the code violations other than the structure of the granny unit. He would like to see the Code Enforcement and City Attorney's Office be satisfied before he votes on it. Mr. Brady states in regards to the alleged application for the granny unit it states clearly on the application that it is a request for the playroom, which has been removed. It is not for the granny unit. Commissioner Koos asked if that was because he was inclined to support it. Chairperson Bostwick responded yes because he feels there is some hardship in it. It existed when the applicant bought it, even though it does not conform. But, he would like to see the property cleaned up of all the code violations other than the structure of the granny unit. The applicant has more than the required number of sheds and a lot of equipment; he is making a garage out of it. It is almost a commercial enterprise even though he says it is a hobby. Having a full-fledged garage and stacking cars is something not done in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Isenhart responds the hoists is gone and everything that could possibly be a violation is gone. The two buildings, according to Ms. Dadant, by moving them six-feet are legal and he could apply for the ~ permit. Commissioner Bostwick states he would like to see the Code Enforcement and City Attorney's Office be satisfied before he votes on it. Mr. Brady states in regards to the alleged application for the granny unit it states clearly it is a request for the playroom, which has been removed. It is not for the granny unit. It was never approved in anyway shape or form. They only requested an inspection. It states on the permit, "Owner informed to remove 5 feet", dated 1972. Commissioner Bristol states there are a lot of issues here and his stance on this has always been pretty consistent. It comes to safety first. He is worried about the dwelling in any event since it was built without permits. Mr. McCafferty states staff can have one of the Building inspectors go out to do an inspection and see if it was constructed to building codes, electrical codes, plumbing codes, etc., and report back as to the feasibility if it could in fact be permitted. Commissioner Boydstun asked if he would be happy if it were continued for 4 weeks and the inspection done, because she feels as long as there is nothing there showing it is a hazard he is grandfathered in. Mr. Isenhart states he would have no problem with that, but he would like Commission to be aware that he requested Building Department to come out since August to tell him what was legal and what was not so that he could comply with Code Enforcement. They replied they could not unless Building and Planning allowed them to. He has paid for every inspection he has including paying for the letter to tell him what was wrong. He has tried to do everything he could and Code Enforcement has refused to cooperate, but when things like this come up they say he is the one not complying. • 03-10-03 Page 27 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MIWUTES • Mr. McCafferty states there is no "grandfathering" for the unit if there is no permit for the unit. It would be ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent), to continue the subject request to the April 7, 2003, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow time for the Building ~ Division to inspect the unpermitted second unit to determine whether it would be possible for the structure to comply with current Building Codes. subject to the same findings for a variance and any other structure in terms of the two state findings that are required in order to grant a variance. Chairperson Bostwick states one of the items under the zoning code violations is the chain-link on the side yard. Mr. Isenhart responded it is a rolfing gate with privacy slats in it. It was put in before the ordinance was taken upon the City to outlaw chain link for front or side yards, and it is less than 6 feet. In a meeting with the District Attorney of Anaheim and his attorney they agreed to allow the gate to stay, but for some reason they included it in the letter to Commission. Chairperson Bostwick states he would like to clear up all the problems on the property before voting. Greg Hastings, states as long as it is on the private property and not on the public right-of-way staff is okay with it. Chairperson Bostwick states it is continued until 4-7-03. • • ~ ~- • ~ • ~ ~ ~ OPPOSITION: None VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Romero absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 37 minutes (2:58-3:35) • 03-10-03 Page 28 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04663 OWNER: Albert M. Jackson, 300 North Wilshire Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Joan Tan, 3325 Wilshire Boulevard #350, Los Angeles, CA 90010 LOCATION: 300 North Wilshire Avenue. Property is approximately 0.43-acre, having a frontage of 170 feet on the north side of Wilshire Avenue located 660 feet southeast of the centerline of Loara Street. To establish conformity with current zoning code land use requirements for an existing non-conforming commercial retail center and to establish a church with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-45 Approved Approved Granted sr8569jr.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 9 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04663, 300 North Wilshire Avenue, a request to establish conformity with current zoning code land use requirements for an existing non-conforming commercial retail center and to establish a church with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. • Applicant's Testimony: Joan Tan, 3325 Wilshire Boulevard #350, Los Angeles, CA, a deaconess of Trinity Chinese Mennonite Church, states they are the perspective buyer of the subject property. They are converting two of the units into church use. They have looked at all of the conditions and the only request they have is that the expiration of the Conditional Use Permit is allowed to give them one more year, until March 2006. Brian Duerksen, 300 Wilshire Avenue, Anaheim, CA, submitted a Speaker Card, representing the Church of God In Christ Mennonite, states they have been conducting services in the building but are not involved in the buying of the building. They have just been renting the room from the present tenants. Commissioner Vanderbilt wished to clarify that the Church of God in Christ Mennonite is the trinity church that is the suite next to the parking lot, next to the income tax. He asked if it would be his intention to continue operating once the business is sold. Mr. Duerksen responded that would depend on the buyer, if they would let them stay. Commissioner Vanderbilt states the reason it is pertinent is that part of the issue has to do wifh parking availability. The church wanting to move in indicates they only need so much parking. So it might be relevant if another church is there because the parking demand might be greater than proposed. Mr. Duerksen states they are just a very small group and most of the time they are only two vehicles, sometimes five. Chairperson Bostwick asked if there were going to be two churches on the property or one church. • Mr. Duerksen responded they have just been renting from the present tenants and if they were going to let them stay they wou{d like to stay but if not they would look for something else. 03-10-03 Page 29 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Vanderbilt states there is a church operating there without a CUP and it would need one even if the transaction did not go through. Chairperson Bostwick states they would need a CUP to have a church and he is trying to establish if they are going to have a church as well as the Mennonite Church. Ms. Tan states they are a separate church from them but will also hold services. Chairperson Bostwick wished to clarify if there would be two churches on the property. Ms. Tan responded she does not know if they hold services there because as far as she knows the building was not sold for a church use. The purpose of buying the property was to convert two units into church use. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked which unit the church was in because according to the staff report, Unit No. 9 is a Real Estate Investment Office. Ms. Tan responded they have been subleasing and moving tenants around, but that is the list they have. Commissioner Bristol states there must be a Conditional Use Permit to operate a church and he feels for Mr. Duerksen that may not exist. Commissioner Boydstun asked Mr. Duerksen if he was subleasing the unit from the real estate office. Mr. Duerksen responded he and his wife are missionaries and have only been here for approximately 11/2 years. Missionaries come in a two-year term and his organization has been renting the room for approximately 10 years. They rented it initially from Mr. Albert Jackson. He passed away and the Church ~ of Christ Foundation, who said they could stay, now owns it. Commissioner Boydstun states the Church of Christ Foundation are not listed as tenants on the staff report. Mr. Duerksen responded the Church of Christ Foundation is the present owner. Commissioner Boydstun asked who he paid rent to. Mr. Duerksen responded the Church of Christ Foundation. Commissioner Boydstun states it shows a real estate company in Unit No. 9. Mr. Duerksen responded he does not understand why that is on there because they have been in Room No. 9 for a long time. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states the information in the staff report was obtained both from the parking study and the letter of operation, which was furnished by the applicant. Chairperson Bostwick asked Mr. Paul Kott, of Paul Kott Realtors, Inc, to explain the situation. Paul Kott, 1225 W. Lincoln Avenue, states Mr. Albert Jackson and his son owned the property for approximately 30 years. They sold the property and carried the note on it but the buyers did not make the payments and left the condition in total disrepair. The Jackson's had no alternative but to take the property back by foreclosure. In doing so, they decided they did not want the management duties of that property. They listed the property for sale. To the best of his knowledge the operator of the Mennonite Church are there most nights of the week, but he does not believe they have many members who come ~ by car, most walk in. There are two groups and by coincidence they both are of Mennonite religion; one is the Chinese Trinity Mennonite and the other is the Existing Mennonite. The missionaries have been there for years and they have operated just one small office space. The Chinese Trinity Mennonite wants 03-10-03 Page 30 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ to operate rooms in the rear of the building. Mr. Jackson's will states it was donated to another group that Commissioner Boydstun asked who made the list up of tenants. he believes is in the staff report. It was donated to a group called the Church of Christ Foundation, which is in Covina, CA. The Church of Christ of Foundation desired to not have the property, but they accepted it as his request and put it up for sale. When they put it up for sale, the Chinese Trinity Mennonite group became interested in buying it with the other Mennonite group already in place there. The Chinese Trinity Mennonite group decided to go the legal route and pursue a Conditiona( Use Permit in connection with the acquisition. Mr. Kott responded he has no idea, he has not been a part of the Conditional Use Permit operation process, but is a listing agent and represents the Church of Christ Foundation. Mr. McCafferty responds they did obtain the information with regard to tenants both from the parking letter and the letter of operation. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked in dealing with the description of the suite in question since it is small enough and there are a handful of people that show up he wonders if it really meets the definition of the church or is there some broader reading room, meditation room, etc. Commissioner Bristol states it reminds him of the missionaries that came and assembled in a bui{ding on Lemon Street. It use to be the Triple AAA building, and their very thing was missionary; they came to study. They did not hold services and did not have a lot of cars. In fact, they had fewer cars because they usually traveled in two or threes. If they are just having meetings and really not holding services. Mr. McCafferty states if what is occurring on the property is simply an office for the missionaries, staff would not consider that a church. It would just be an office use to coordinate their missionary activities, ~ but on the other hand if they are conducting services and have their worshippers on the site, then it is a church. Chairperson Bostwick asked Mr. Duerksen to explain what activities they did on the property. Mr. Duerksen responded Sunday mornings they have a small worship service. Commissioner Soydstun asked ifi it is just missionaries or if the service is open to the public. Mr. Duerksen responded anyone is welcome to come. Chairperson Bostwick asked how many persons normally attend the service. Mr. Duerksen responded approximately 20 people. Mr. McCafferty states his understanding is that the "A" church was going to be occupying Suite A and Suite B and he asked if the other church is going to be occupying the same suite or a separate suite. Commissioner Vanderbilt states he does not know if the new owner would allow the existing church to rent. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, states Commission needs to talk to the applicant to determine if they are going to ask the tenants to leave or keep them there and also have their on church. If so, they would need a parking study, CUP, etc. Commissioner Boydstun states Commission is present for the Chinese Trinity Mennonite Conditional Use Permit and if there is an illegal use that is occurring on the property it would have to be conditioned, but ~ 03-10-03 Page 31 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ any approval has to be gone. So, Commission would need to put a condition in there that any use that is not legal they would remove. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, states what they are doing is taking a look at the application before them and based upon the information being provided, Commission does not have enough information with regard to whether a use is legally or not legally established. She does not know to what extent that would impact any analysis that would be made by the Traffic and Transportation Manager with regard to this particular use, and suggests possibly Mr. Yalda could address that but would not see any issue with proceeding. She would be a little uncomfortable with trying to condition on removal of illegal activities since that would be a completely separate issue that would need to be handled by Code Enforcement. The later comer would be the one that would have to establish there would be adequate parking. There really is no existing legally established use that has different impacts than what has been presented in the application. Mr. Yalda states Traffic and Transportation would recommend approval if there is only one church and the rest of the use is an office. If the applicant wants to go forward with the project and also keep the existing tenant as a church, then they would request that they continue the process for them to provide Traffic and Transportation with a new parking study that would include both churches and this way they can know what the amount is and make a recommendation for Commission's decision. ~ • i - '_ I111!: • . !- - - •Illl •- ! •- OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration • Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04663 (to establish conformity with current zoning code land use requirements for an existing non-conforming commercial center and to establish a church within an existing office building) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated March 10, 2003, with the following modification: Modified Condition No. 1 to read as follows: 1. That this use shall expire on March 10, ~AA~ 2006. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Koos temporarily absent and Commissioner Romero absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 24 minutes (3:36-4:00) ~ 03-10-03 Page 32 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 10b. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04524 (TRACKlNG NO. VAR2003-04552) Approved Approved modifications OWNER: Oak Ja Kim, 1365-1385 Knollwood Circle, Anaheim, CA 92801 Reeder Properties, 209 Bannock Court, P.O. Box 856, Sun Valley, ID 83353. AGENT: Richard Kim, 1365 Knollwood Circle, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 1365-1385 North Knollwood Circle and 1335 North Knoilwood Circle. Parcel 1: Property is approximateiy 3.0 acres, having a frontage of 86 feet at the terminus of Knollwood Circle Parcel 2: Property is approximately 1.2 acres, having a frontage of 224 feet on the west side of Knollwood Circle, located 1,666 feet north of the centerline of Woodland Drive. Requests waivers of (a) maximum fence height within street side setback and (b) required screening of outdoor equipment and to amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to waivers of site screening and maximum fence height. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-46 ~ sr5000jr.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 10 as Variance No. 2003-04524, Parcel 1: 1365-1385 North Knollwood Circle, Parcel 2: 1335 North Knollwood Circle, a request to amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to waivers of site screening and maximum fence height within the street side setback with waivers of: a) maximum fence height within street side setback and b) required screening of outdoor equipment. Applicant's Testimony: Richard Kim, 1365 Knollwood Circle, an employee of Expo Dine, states their company has been in business for over 18 years at the current location. The current president, the owner, has purchased the property and the business in bankruptcy. Along with that came a horrific history of Code Enforcement and a lot of different issues that he was not aware of. In the meanwhile they have been trying to fix it and come up to code in every situation. They recently had a parking variance that they requested a couple of months ago and it was approved upon a couple of conditions. They concur except for approximately three major issues that came up where there is stipulation of the parking variance approval. There are two sections: 1. There is a 100-foot brick wall running north and south on the west side of the entrance that they would like to keep without any changes. Our property is located on a cul-de-sac and approximately 25 feet of the wall infringes on the 11-foot setback requirements by the City of Anaheim. The 25-foot section ranges from approximately 1-foot in the deepest part of the crescent to about 1 inch at the end of it. He asked the City to consider that it is not a serious situation and is very unnoticeable. a) The second part of the first request is that there is approximately an 8%2 foot iron-gate ~ fence to close off one of the driveways that is joining two properties. In that area, approximately 8%2 feet of that section is infringing upon the 11 foot setback required by the City of Anaheim. The most infringing part ranges from 2'h feet from the deepest 03-10-03 Page 33 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ crest all the way to 1 inch. The wall and the iron gate infringes on the setback requirements are very unnoticeable as the sections of the walls engage other sections. The wall and the gates far exceeds the requirements of the City. The walls and the gates have been there for over 10 years without being noticed until now when they applied for the parking variance. So, he asks Commission to see that it does not have a negative impact on their area and does not cause any problems. 2. The second request is the relocation of the trash compactor that was stipulated in the parking variance requirements. They have a trash compactor that is very visible and they proposed to the Planning Department that they would screen out the gate so that it would not be visible from the outside. It is very vital that the trash compactor be located there for practical reasons; the trucks are able to access it without going through a maze of their equipment, etc., that are on the property. They can just swing open the gate, offload the trash and dump it. 3. Their company is requesting additional trees and landscaping to substitute the screening of the chemical tanks of the entrance and also running parallel to their driveway and to the main building. The proposed chain link fence would obstruct the practical use of the chemical tanks, as it would make delivery and pumping very difficult and dangerous. They need to have the area cleared for practical purposes and safety reasons. They have afready planted three trees to cover most of the tanks showing in the front, and when they look at other tanks parallel to their driveway it is very unnoticeable when they are standing right in the middle of the cul-de-sac, but because they are in a cul-de-sac if you stand to the right side or the east side of the street, they are pretty visible. He asks Planning Commission to consider the practicality of daily operations at their facility, employ understanding of their irregular circumstances; located in a cul-de-sac. He states there is no excuse of ~ the unpermitted and illegal construction of a couple of things and they are doing their best. He feels staff will concur that they have done a tremendous job of cleaning the place up to come up to par with everything that staff and Code Enforcement is requiring of them. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Kim if his operation was in bankruptcy. Mr. Kim responded it was 5 years ago, but the current owner purchased it and it is a thriving business until the energy crisis hit approximately 2 years ago. Commissioner Bristol states Code Enforcement reported that the tanks and some of the other things were on the property without permits. Mr. Kim responded to his knowledge the chemical tanks and the adjacent building was permitted but aN the other tanks were there when they purchased the property. Commissioner Bristol states in reading the staff report and understanding what they went through with the zoning administrator, it seems they are far apart in opinion. He asked why he did not want to put landscaping next to the tanks or screens or chain link fences. Mr. Kim responded the trucks pull up to the driveway and they pump chemicals into the tanks and having a chain link fence there would prohibit and cause a little bit of danger because the chemicals need to be monitored as they are pumping in so they do not overflow. If someone was there or a fence was there it would be very difficult for a delivery truck to pump in chemicals. Commissioner Bristol states there are an awful lot of vafves, pipes, etc next to the landscape. ! Mr. Kim responded there are main water valves that come into the facility. The smaller trees along the wall, for some reason were planted one every 10 feet away a couple of years ago, but are not growing 03-10-03 Page 34 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • and a couple of them died. However, they are planning to make sure the trees are planted again and if the City is concerned about screening, they can once again put screening along the gate. The trees are blooming and they make a good screening as opposed to the chain link fence for practical reasons. He states they have been asked to get an official site plan approved and then they can proceed to the Building Department for permits for the tanks. Commissioner Eastman asked if they did not receive an approval at this step would they have an alternative to put the tanks. Mr. Kim responds they do not have an alternative site but what staff has recommended is that they put a chain link fence there. So, they are asking to have a practical use of their facility rather than the black and white rules that come into effect with the Planning Department Suilding Codes. Mr. McCafferty states the challenge for staff is that they are dealing with a situation where they have already been constructing without permits and trying to hide an "elephanY' and the only way they felt they could do that, if the Zoning Administrator did approve it, was to screen it with a chain link fence. That was the compromised arrived at and approved. All staff is asking is that the Planning Commission with the modifications and recommendations sustain the decision. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol states he drove the street about three times and looked at other properties but he likes the subject property. It looked clean and he concur with the applicant, putting internal fences and landscaping next to the tanks does not make a lot of sense. He does not concur with the applicant regarding landscaping. He states there is a small planter on the north side of the security guard where there would be an opportunity to put high foliage that might have some greenery. It might not completely hide the tanks that are there but it might offset a little bit. Also, he disagrees with the applicant on the fact • that he has not landscaped the front setback. He feels he should landscape it with some trees and evergreen and things that the staff had recommended so that they have coverage. He has no problem with the block wall and feels it nice looking. Chairperson Bostwick states there is a tough probfem with the fact that it is on a cul-de-sac and having the property next to it, and they have the parking area. He agrees with Mr. McCafferty, they are trying to hide an elephant and the tanks should not have been there in the first place. He feels they can approve the landscaping and do not have a problem with the fence height problem. Mr. Kim states staff has allowed them to have two shipping containers, but when he looked at the report they allowed them to have it for two years. Their company has been running so bad the last couple of years that they need more time to build upon the area where the containers are kept. They wanted to add on to the building, but it looks like it might take more time than that. They are suppose to demolish the storage area and put the containers there in the meanwhile, but if it could be extended for a couple more years they would appreciate that. It is very unnoticeable and nobody can see it there. Mr. McCafferty states as long as they are screened from view staff is fine with it. Commissioner Eastman asked if they have no other alternative for the trash compactor that would be a little more screened from public view. Mr. Kim responds it is not just a compactor, it has a machine back there that compacts all the trash. It is a fairly long and large equipment and once again, for accessibility of the trash there is a 40-foot truck that comes in and pulls the machine on the top of it and then it pulls out. So in terms of accessibility and maneuverability ofi the truck driver it is very favorable for them to have it there. Chairperson Bostwick states it could be screened. ~ 03-10-03 Page 35 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Kim states they have submitted photographs of what their screening would look like and one of the staff inembers said it was okay but when they reviewed it because that condition was based on the approval of the fence they recommended they relocate it unless it was approved. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF 7HE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved Waiver of Code Requirements Approved modification to Variance No. 2002-04524, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated March 10, 2003, with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 9, 13, 14 and 15 to read as follows: 9. That the petitioner shall locate the two (2) shipping containers at the southwest corner of the subject site as indicated on Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No. 1. There shall be no more than two (2) shipping containers located on site. ax~d-~e~k~ , • 13. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and ~ specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and as amended and approved by the Pfanning Commission on March 10, 2003, and which plans are on fife with the Planning Department marked Revision No. 1 of Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, and as conditioned herein. 14. That prior to issuance of building permits or within a period of three (3) months from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 3(b) (c) and (d) a+~d ~, 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 Municipaf Code. 15. That prior to final building and zoning inspections or within a period of six (6) months from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. ~, 4, 6, 9, 10 and 13, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Deleted Condition Nos. 2, 3(a), 12 (a) and 12 (b). VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Romero absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 24 minutes (4:01-4:25) ~ 03-10-03 Page 36 MARCH 10, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:25 P.M. TO MONDAY, MARCH 24, 2003 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. • ~ Respectfuliy submitted: ~,~~J~/`l_/ Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2003. 03-10-03 Page 37