The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 2003/04/21• CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 21, 2003 ~ • Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California C kKP~'S~L)N P/~UL BUSTWICK COMMISSIONERS PRESENT ~~S ~EPFiEN, BRT~~O ~ GAIL E~1"STMAN, JOHN KOOS, ~ DAV~D RQM~F20; .~~MES VANDERBI,LT ~~~ . ~ ~ . ~, ~ ~~,w ~ ~ COMMISSIONERS ABSEI~t7 ~~ ...~~PHI'~~-IS BdYI~STU ~~ ~~``~.. ~ ~~ ~N~'_ ~ ~,~""~',' ~ ~ `~. `°` ~; ~-. ~'~ STAFF PRESENT: j ~ " ` ~ ~~ ,~'~ R~ ~~"'~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~` ~. u ~, ~ ~~ a ~. Selma Mann, Assis ant City /k~:cney Melanie Ac~~t~is, ~i ~ipal~ivi~ ngineer Greg McCafferty,~,r~mc~pal,P~an~er ; Judy Dadant, "Se~~p~~~a~~er~ ~ Mark Asturias, R~d~velop~ent~l~ll~r~ager Ted White, AssoCiate"Plann~~' s" Damien Delany~Seni~E F~r~}~~f Manager Alfred Yalda, PnnGipal T~~r~sportation Planner Linda Eaves, Sr C de ~~~ircertiertt Officer Elly Morris, Senit~r SearE;tary ~ Stephen Stoew~r, ~'ro~ ~~~ar~ag~r I I °°~ P~t~E;f~and,ler, Sera~~r S~~~ret~ry ~~ ~ e~ ; r, r~ .W m.~ , , ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~' ~, °~„ „,~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ y ~ ,~ AGENDA POSTI~V~: ~q i Thursday, April ~ ~, ~L~{~0~, outside display kiosk. ~~ ~ ``. ~ PUBLISHED: /~naheim +',i;; ~~ ~_„ CALL TO ORDER'~~~ 3:00 p.m. on rs, and also in the PLAN~NING COMA~iiSSION M~RNING.,SESSION 11 Q~ A M. ~~~ • STA~~UPE~`A7'E~t'~~COM~SSIQN ~~~F VARIf~~lS;~C(TY°, ~ DEVEL~PMENTS AND ISSUE~A~FtE ~ ESTED~BY ' ,~ ' PLANNIN~;~~M~1SSI~QN)\ ~~'.,,......~..,,~°~""" ~. ~ ~,~',~ • REVIEW OFy4~RAFT' Oft~1N,ANCE~P~R~fpINI~G ~OAS~OND UNITS • PRELIMINARY~P 1~I4. E~/IE~l1l FOFZ, ITEMS fJN~`TH~APRIL 21, 2003 AGENDA ~b... ~ ~~~~ .~. ,.., RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING ~~~ION RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record kee in ur oses if ou wish to make a statement re ardin an item on the a enda lease p 5p p > Y 9' J Y 9 ,P complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Eastman PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT H:\DOCS\CLERICAL\MINUTESWC042103.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLfC COMMENTS: NONE This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 1-A through 1-E on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent), for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-B, 1-D and 1-E) as recommended by staff. Consent Calendar Items (1-A and 1-C) were removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED • 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. CEQA EXEMPTION - PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21080.17; CEQA GUIDELINES, SECTIONS 15282(i) AND 15061(b)(3), ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2003-00021 AND REVIEW OF A DEFICIENCIES AREA MAP: City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests Planning Commission review and approval of a draft ordinance pertaining to second units and related sections of the zoning code and a deficiencies area map. RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-56 (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) Concurred with staff Recommended City Council approval of the draft ordinance, with modifications made at the public hearing. Recommended City Council approval of the "Deficiencies Area" map. sr1176jd.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced item No. 1-A, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA, a request by the Planning Department to Planning Commission for review and approval of a draft ordinance pertaining to second units and related sections of the zoning code and a deficiencies area map. ApplicanYs Testimony: ~ Judy Dadant, Principal Planner, states Item 1-A is a City-initiated Code Amendment pertaining to second units and refated code sections. On September 29, 2002, the State of California Legislature approved Assembly Bill No. 1866 which among other things, amended Government Code Section 65852.2 requiring cities to permit second units in single-family and multiple-family zones ministerally. The State Law identified criteria under which a second unit is to be permitted, and limits the requirements cities may impose on the construction of those second units. If a city chooses not to adopt an ordinance by July 1, 2003, only the provisions identified in state law may be used to evaluate second units. Absent an ordinance adopted by the City, any requests submitted on or after July 1, 2003, must be approved without discretionary action if the request complies with state law. 04-21-03 Page 2 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Staff prepared a draft ordinance for review and approval that include provisions permitted under state law while incorporating specifications that permit the characteristics of second units and granny units previously approved by the City. In addition, portions of the Anaheim Municipal Code have been modified to maximize opportunities for creation of second units, while maintaining the integrity of residential neighborhoods. Consistent with state law, the ordinance also includes a provision prohibiting second units in areas of the city negatively impacted by deficient infrastructure and lack of parking. A map depicting these areas is included as a part of today's request for Commission consideration. A few inconsistencies within the code are also included in the request to cfarify the existing code for clear implementation of the second unit ordinance. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, read into the record the changes, which were made at the morning session as such: On page 8 of the ordinance, the provision relating to approval. Since the decision would be final, language has been added to make it clear that there will be no waiver for construction of second units although under the ordinance there is an opportunity for senior second units, also known as a granny unit, p~rsuant to a CUP. Before the second units, the ones that are approved ministerially, at the very end of .170 approval, the following language has been added: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this code to the contrary, no waiver of or variance from any requirement of section 18.04.135 shall be approved nor shall any application for such a waiver or variance be accepted for processing". During the morning discussion there was some concern of state law permitting a requirement that one of the two units be owner occupied. In order to formalize that, they have provisions on deed restrictions. With regard to one of the provisions that must be in there, suggestions were made to state, "The second units shall not be sold or owned separately. That there be some kind of discussion with regard to the Subdivision Map Act". Commission offers proposed language on page 7, section .1402, which now states, "The second unit shall not be sold or owned separately, and the parcel upon which the unit is located shall not be subdivided in any manner which would authorize such sell or ownership". Section .0403 was revised as such, "The second unit shall be a legal unit and may be used as habitable space • only so long as either the main dwelling unit or the second is occupied by the owner of record of the propert~'. Previously the statement stated, "The second unit shall be considered legal". The feeling of the Commission and its discussion in the morning session was that "legal" would be considered ambiguous and might create issues with regards to brokers that would be reviewing it in the future. Commissioner Koos states he has serious issues with the occupancy requirement. He feels it is going to be tough to enforce and would have undue restraint on private property rights down the road. The state provides the "abilit~' for the City to have an occupancy requirement, but they do not require it. During the morning session he asked staff whether or not the units would be counted towards their housing element and their housing stock. Staff said yes. He feels it would be confusing down the line if the units were counted in their housing element and the owner moved out of the front house and the back unit could no longer be rented out. It would be a false characterization of housing element that the units were available for occupancy. It would be very obscure and hard to enforce. On the flipside, he has issues with the variance. He feels there are very few instances where the City does not allow a property owner who has an odd shaped parcel or a bona fide hardship on their property the opportunity to go before a public decision making body such as the Planning Commission, City Council or even Zoning Administrator and attempt to make a case for the reason they should be allowed to deviate from the development standards. Regarding the development standards with respect to design, the state does not want the City to have discretionary power over some of the issues. There might be a gray area in Anaheim that has not been tested, but feels Commission can afford some language that allows at least a staff level review as part of the ministerial approval to require some conformity beyond mere suggestion that the secondary unit be consistent of the architectural of the primary unit. Ms. Mann responded the statue is very specific on the types of things that a public entity may require. • The public entity may be more lenient than what state law provides. The local agency may make it easier to get a second unit, but not go beyond the standards that are in the state law. With regard to the type of standards, the statue indicates that the ordinance may impose standards on second units that include but 04-21-03 Page 3 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • are not limited to parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, maximum size of a unit and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed in the California register of historic places. In the future, as some of the requirements of the City are more mandatory with regard to some of the historic areas of the city, the ordinance can certainly be amended to include the review as part of the approval of the second unit process to the extent that it still could be a ministerial approval. Commissioner Koos asked if the state prohibits the City from a designer view component. Ms. Mann responded, "The state says that you can `architectural review'. It is somewhat ambiguous with regard to what it can be, but what is clear is that it has to be some kind of a ministerial approval. So even if you have a designed review, you would have specific standards so that whoever is doing the evaluating can look at a particular proposed design and say, `yes, it meets the design standard or no, it does not meet the design standard'." Commissioner Koos asked if she could create language that would not have to be amended later. Ms. Mann responded, "We could include the language in there that would be very much like what we did with the impacted areas, like the sewer deficiency and parking area, where we include the authority in the language. That would not be a difficult addition to indicate that there would be ministerial design standards to protect the integrity of historical districts that were created by the City". Chairperson Bosfinrick states he has a problem with the state wanting Commission to do a general plan and to plan for certain types of housing throughout the community, but then come along and say that they have to allow those type of things in the area. He wished to clarify if Ms. Mann is now saying that everybody can build a second unit on their property, and it is no longer a single-family residential neighborhood but a multi-family residential neighborhood without having ever changed the general plan and the zoning. He feels to deal with it he would rather have some type of restrictions that Commission • could control within the City of Anaheim that not every property could have a second house on it. Ms. Mann states under section 65852.1 a Conditional Use Permit is still permitted for a granny unit. The Conditional Use Permit process was left in place so that a property owner that could not build a second unit and meet those standards could still apply for a Conditional Use Permit for a senior second unit. Chairperson Bostwick states he likes the occupancy requirement for the fact that they would still maintain someone who has an ownership interest in the property that would maintain it so that in the end there would not be small "apartment" units all over the city. Commissioner Vanderbilt concurs with Chairperson Bostwick and states given the gravity it seems like it might make sense to spend a little more time to review the issue. Ms. Dadant states the ordinance has to be in place by July 1, 2003. That means with the referendum of period of Code Amendment it would need to be adopted by the City Council no later than .fune 1, 2003. Commissioner Romero states he is in favor of the design review and the owner occupancy for the same reason they both try to preserve the integrity of the neighborhoods. If something could be added but keep the owner/occupancy as is he would be in support of it. Commissioner Bristol states it is going to be a nightmare with real estate vendors because there is a lot of uncertainty. Regarding the deed restriction he agrees with the changes that were made, and asked if a template could be made of the covenant. Ms. Mann responded yes. Chairperson Bostwick suggested a two-week continuance. • 04-21-03 Page 4 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMIS,SION MINUTES • ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as set forth in the Environmental Impact Analysis set forth in Paragraph No. 11 of the staff report dated April 21, 2003. (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Boydstun absent) Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the attached draft ordinance pertaining to second units in accordance with state law. The ordinance proposes the following changes: • Adds provisions in accordance with state law to allow second units ministerially. • Adds a definition for senior second units (granny units) and adds a provision in the single-family residential zones allowing them by conditional use permit. • Modifies provisions for accessory living quarters for consistency, and removes the provision allowing kitchens. • Creates a lot coverage limitation in the RS-10,000 zone to be consistent with the RS-HS-10,000 zone. Modifications were made to the proposed ordinance at today's public hearing, as follows: ! ".140 Deed Restrictions. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a second unit, the property owner shall provide written proof to the Planning Department that an unsubordinated covenant setting forth the following requirements, in a form satisfactory to the Planning Department and City Attorney's Office, has been recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder: .1401 A reference to the deed under which the property was acquired by the owner; .1402 The second unit shall not be sold or owned separately, and the parcel upon which the unit is located shall not be subdivided in any manner which would authorize such sale or ownership; .1403 The second unit shall be a lega/ unit, and may be used as habitable space, only so long as either the main dwelling unit, or the second unit, is occupied by the owner of record of the property; and .1404 The restrictions shall be binding upon any successorship in ownership of the property." .170 Approval. The application for a second unit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director or his or her designee ("Planning Director") for compliance with the provisions of this section. If the Planning Director determines that the application and evidence submitted show that the second unit will comply with the requirements of this Section 18.04.135, the application shall be approved; • otherwise the application shall be denied. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a unit on a lot which is less than 5,000 square feet which otherwise meets the requirements of this section shafl be approved. Notwifhstanding any other provision of fhis Code to the contrary, no waiver of or variance from any 04-21-03 Page 5 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMtSSION MINUTES • reguirement of this Section 98.04.135 shall be approved nor shall any application for such a waiver or variance be accepted for processing. The Commission requested that staff create a sample occupancy covenant and provide a copy to them. Commission also requested that a provision be added to Section 18.04.135.110 allowing for mandatory design standards in the Anaheim Colony for second units if the City Council chooses to establish such requirements in the future. In response to this request, following the meeting, staff further modified the proposed ordinance, as follows: ".110 Historic Suildings. .1101 A second unit proposed for any lot that includes a building listed in the California Register of Historic Places shall conform to the requirements of the State Historical Building Code. .1102 A second unit proposed for any lot that includes a building listed in the California Register of Historic Places, or identified as a "Contributor" in the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan and other historic preservation plans as may be approved by the City Council are encouraged to comply with the design guidelines of such plan. .1103 Notwifhstanding the foregoing, if fhe City Council acfs to • establish mandatory design standards for Contributor buildings pursuant to a historic preservation plan, the second unit shall conform to fhe mandatory standards." (Vote on ZCA: 5-1, Commissioner Koos voted no and Commissioner Boydstun absent) Recommended City Council approval of the existing conditions "Deficiencies Area" map, including any input provided by the Commission, based on the discussion outlined in Paragraph No. 6(g) of staff report dated April 21, 2003. (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Boydstun absent) DISCUSSION: 1:36-2:05 (29 minutes) i 04-21-03 Page 6 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • B. a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 660 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003- Terminated 04689 : Mr. Abdel Jabbar Hamdan, 1717 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA 92804, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner No. 660. Property is located at 1717 South Brookhurst Street. Boydstun absent) TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-55 sr3015ey.doc ~ u 04-21-03 Page 7 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • C. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04537 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04687). William Wilkens, Anaheim Hills Racquet Club, 415 South Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim, CA 92807, requests determination of substantial conformance to construct a pool and spa in conjunction with a tennis and racquet club. Property is located at 415 South Anaheim Hills Road. A letter was received in opposition to the subject request prior to the meeting. (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) Approved Determined to be in substantial conformance (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Boydstun absent) sr5003jr.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 1-C as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04537 (Tracking No. CUP2003-04687), 415 South Anaheim Hill Road, Anaheim, CA, a request for determination of substantial conformance to construct a pool and spa in conjunction with a tennis and racquet club. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states the tennis club exists at the location and consists of a clubhouse and eleven tennis courts. The applicant proposes to add a pool and spa as part of the existing amenities of the club. Staff believes that it substantially conforms to the intent of the tennis court, which is to have recreation available to its club members and therefore recommend approval of the substantial conformance. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • Commissioner Bristol states he visited the site on Saturday and feels the pool would be no impact whatsoever since the nearest house is approximately 150 feet away. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the amended exhibits for the construction of a pool and spa in conjunction with an existing tennis and racquet club are in substantial conformance with the original approval based on Commission's concurrence with staff that the modifications to previously-approved exhibits comply with code and are minor modifications to the existing approved land use. DISCUSSION: 2:06-2:08 (2 minutes) • 04-21-03 Page 8 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • • D. a) GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 2003-00025 - REQUEST Determined to be in TO DETERMINE SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE conformance with the ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION Anaheim General Plan OF REAL PROPERTY: Gordon Itow, Anaheim City School District, 1411 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests (Vote: 6-0, determination of conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the Commissioner proposed acquisition of real property for the construction of an Boydstun absent) elementary school, within a portion of, and adjacent to, Ponderosa Park. Property is located at 2100 South Haster Street, 105-147 East Wilken Way, 2103-2155 South Mountain View Avenue, and 330 East Orangewood Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the Anaheim City School District's proposal to acquire real property located at 2100 South Haster Street, 105-147 East Wilken Way, 2103-2155 South Mountain View Avenue, and 330 East Orangewood Avenue for the proposed construction of an elementary school, within a portion of, and adjacent to, Ponderosa Park is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. Further, subject to the Commission's action determining this request to be in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan, that this report serve to acknowledge receipt of notice and investigation of ACSD's request to acquire real properry for the construction of an elementary school, pursuant to Section 21151.2 of the Public Resources Code. General Plan Conformity items have a statutory guideline limitation of 40-days from the date the application is submitted, therefore it is given accelerated processing and provided to the City Council at an early time. (7he 40-day time limitation as required by Section 65402(b) of the Government Code requires the City to act on this item by May 3, 2003, as the application was submitted on March 24, 2003, for the subject request.) sr1142tw.doc 04-21-03 Page 9 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • • E. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of April 7, 2003. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of April 7, 2003. Approved (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Boydstun absent) 04-21-03 Page 10 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04665 Denied 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. Continued from the March 10, 2003 and April 7, 2003, Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-57 sr8587vn.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced item No. 2 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04665, 302 South Benwood Drive, 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, continued from the March 10, 2003 meeting. Douglas Plazak from Goldstein and Ward, 440 E. Lahabra Blvd., La Habra, CA, representing Kenneth and Karen Isenhart, states the staff report issued is misleading because it amiss the ongoing negotiations and discussions that he personally and the Isenhart's have had with various members of City Planning and City Zoning that laid out a timetable for various things to happen at the said residence. It is his understanding, based on listening to the tape of the last Commission hearing which took place in March, is that there were primarily two concerns the Commission had with respect to the subject Conditional Use Permit. One being that the property itself as a whole was in compliance with various zoning issues, and two being that the structure itself complied with the UVC requirements. With respect to the overall zoning, he put forth, as an exhibit, a letter that he wrote to Teresa Oliver, the City Attorney, which laid out a meeting which took place in early December which set forth various items that the City had concerns about relating to the Isenhart's residence. The letter memorialized an agreement as of December 9, 2002 for various action items to occur at a specific point and time. Pursuant to the meeting on December 9, 2002, the Isenhart's had complied with everything that was requested up to that point and time. Various portions of the April 21, 2003 Planning Commission report mentions that there are still outstanding zoning items. However, all of the items were previously addressed and accounted for in the letter of December 9, 2002. They were completed, agreed to or basically held up pending the approval of the secondary unit. With respect to the UVC issues, there is a memo from Julie Seay to Greg McCafferty regarding code violations that they believe the secondary unit has. The declarations state that the structure itself, with minor exceptions, is structurally sound and is up to code. Therefore, he suggests that at a minimum, the City meet with the people that have issues with the declarations to determine if their various positions can be reconciled. • Kenneth B. Isenhart, 302 South Benwood Drive, Anaheim, CA states they have tried to comply with Code Enforcement to the fuffest extent. It seems like every time they correct one thing, Code Enforcement comes up with another list for them to do. It is getting to be a very long, drawn-out process. He has had three different inspectors out to his property at three different times. One said he did not want to have 04-21-03 Page 11 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • anything to do with it and another said he would not get involved. The last crew that came out poked around knowing that they only had an hour to look at the house, and were only supposed to look at the granny unit, but they wanted to see everything on the list that Code Enforcement had done. His wife did not have time to wait for them. So in Code Enforcement's report, they wrote that he and his wife refused and were being obstinate with the inspectors. However, they had made three different appointments with them and kept all three, and Code Enforcement still would not help. The one inspector that did come out and talk to him stated that unless they gutted the apartment, cut up the floor and pull all the plumbing out they could not do a proper inspection. Code Enforcement found that they have had pictures of the unit since 1964. He has only owned it since 1988. There is a secondary electrical panel put in by somebody else. He states they have done everything that they could possibly do and they would like to get their lives back and stop being harassed. They have lost a lot of equipment and a lot of things that he does as a hobby. Mr. Isenhart states they are trying to comply with whatever is being asked of them. The problem is that everything is becoming piecemeal, and once one set of requests are corrected enough time has not been allowed for the first set of requests to be completed before a second set has been put forth. Sometimes he feels the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. For example, there is an issue with the gate that is on the side of the property, which was agreed to in the December 9, 2002 meeting that it was okay as of that time. A point in the letter states it is still a requested action item. They are requesting clear coherent instructions and requests of what needs to be done in order to put the property into acceptable form. With regard to the secondary unit, they ask some understanding that the unit has been there since 1972. Regarding the property setbacks, the property is facing the street, and therefore it does not have the normal concerns if in fact a 5-foot setback is not met. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states the directions from Commission were quite clear during the meeting of March 10, 2003. Building Division was to go out and inspect the unit to see if it could comply with code. The applicant has an attached memo indicating several problems with the unit. The only thing • before Planning Commission is the same thing that was before the Planning Commission the last time; is there justification for the waiver that is being requested and can the findings for the Conditional Use Permit for the granny unit be made. Mr. Plasak states if the City is dispensing of the UVC issue then the only concern would be the 5-foot setback. Mr. McCafferty states the City is not dispensing of the UVC issue, but it is not the prerogative of the Planning Commission. Chairperson Bostwick states Planning Commission would like to know if it is a viable building in its present state. In the letter of April 3, 2003 the finished floor level for the useable space is not 6 inches above grade; there is no evidence of a moisture barrier; and there is no evidence of the footing. So in reality those three things would require that it be torn down and restarted from scratch. Mr. Plasak states from the declaration they have, Gary Craig addresses that, and it is his opinion that there are no major structure issues. It sounds like staff feels it is a viable structure and something that can be worked with the applicant. Therefore, he respectfully requests a continuance in order for the various licensed contractors to get together and determine if in fact they are major concerns. He presumes that people who sign off on the declarations would not have said they were structurally sound if in fact there was anything significant. Commissioner Koos concurs with staff that the issue before Commission really is not any of the aforementioned issues, but primarily it is the use of the property; the setback and Conditional Use Permit. He asked the applicant if today he could speak to how Commission could justify, through its findings, a variance of the setback. If the project was continued simply for building issues, then maybe they should never have continued it. The thought was that if the building was not structurally sound, then it would • have to go anyway and hence the entitlements requested would not be necessary. But, maybe now Commission should deal with the entitlement issues. He asks, irrespective of all of the building issues, how can Commission approve the project? 04-21-03 Page 12 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Plasak responded the simplest answer to that is that it has been an existing structure since at least the early 70's. Commissioner Bristol asked if it was a granny unit in 1970. Mr. Plasak asked Mr. Isenhart if he had made any substantial improvements since he bought the property. Mr. Isenhart responded no. Mr. Plasak states that at least since the time Mr. Isenhart purchased it, it is in substantially the same condition that it was in. Commissioner Bristol asked if people have lived in the unit. Mr. Isenhart responded as far as he knows they have. Mr. Plasak states certainly to the best of their knowledge. It is difficult to trace back exactly how the unit was used from 1972 without having the owners present to testify. But, if he has not made any substantial modifications to it; plumbing, electrical, etc., then it is reasonable to infer that in fact it was used as a livable space for at least 15-20 years. In this case, it is reasonable to allow, especially since they are talking about a 5-foot setback, in this instance is a small amount, and also it is a property that is adjacent to an open area and therefore a lot of concerns that might not otherwise be present with wanting to make sure a setback is in place. Also, since the unit has been around for 25-30 years speaks to the fact that there have not been any problems with that in the past. That nobody has complained of it. The real problem is given the way the property is currently set up it would be a tremendous hardship for Mr. • Isenhart to move it back 5 feet because all of the plumbing and a bedroom would be eliminated which would really defeat the purpose of the entire structure. Commissioner Koos asked Code Enforcement if the investigation was the result of a complaint or how it came on the radar screen. Linda Eaves, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, responded they received a complaint for incompliance of an ordinance. Mr. Plasak states it is his understanding that the complaint had nothing to do with the secondary unit, but to do with concerns that Mr. Isenhart was operating an auto repair shop, which was not true. The issues of the initial complaint have long since been remedied. Commissioner Bristol states a memo from the City of Anaheim instructed them to remove the unpermitted room labeled workshop. The automobile repair workshop is commercial land use not permitted in a residential zone or a workshop outside the required 5-foot yard setback area, etc. And also, there is the playroom property that Mr. Isenhart brought to Commission's attention the last time. Mr. Isenhart responded it is the granny unit. Commissioner Bristol asked if he was saying the workshop and the granny unit is not the same thing. Mr. Isenhart responded no it is not. Commissioner Bristol asked if it were not within 5-foot of the setback. Mr. Isenhart responded it is not even there. ~ 04-21-03 Page 13 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr, Plasak states there have been substantial changes to the residence since the December 9, 2002 meeting. Basically, all of the action items laid out in the letter dated December 16, 2002, have been performed except the things that are pending the resolution of the CUP application. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None IN GENERAL: Correspondence was submitted by the applicant. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Denied Waiver of Code Requirement pertaining to minimum side yard setback since there is no justification for granting the waiver based on the characteristics of the property nor have there been similar waivers granted in the vicinity. Moreover, the hardship is self-created due to the construction of the second unit without permits. Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04665 (to permit and retain an existing second unit in conjunction with an existing single-family residence) based on the testimony presented at today's meeting and as follows: (i) That the existing second unit, as sited on the property, is not properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code and under California Code Section 65852.1, since it does not meet the minimum standards of the State Code pertaining to size or the Zoning Code pertaining to setbacks. (ii) That the size and shape of the property on which the second unit is built is • adequate to aAow the fu{I development of a second unit without the need for waivers and in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 29 minutes (2:09-2:38) rl~ u 04-21-03 Page 14 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Continued to 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04669 May 5, 2003 3c. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2003-00010 OWNER: Yong Sub Kim, Thomas Liquor, 1015 West Orangethorpe Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92833 AGENT: Leon Alexander, Briggs and Alexander, 558 South Harbor Boulevard, Suite 100, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1000 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 0.35-acre, located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Illinois Street (Thomas Liquor). Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04669 - To permit the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption in conjunction with an existing legal non-conforming convenience market. Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2003-00010 - To upgrade an existing Type 20 (Off-Sale Beer and Wine) to a Type 21 (Off-Sale General Alcohol) alcoholic beverage license to permit the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption within an existing legaV non-conforming convenience market. Continued from the March 24, 2003 and April 7, 2003, Planning • Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY sr8586av.doc RESOLUTION NO. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent), to continue the subject request to the May 5, 2003, Planning Commission meeting as requested by petitioner in order to allow the business owner more time to consider the recommended conditions of approval. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 04-21-03 Page 15 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MlNUTES ~ 4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Concurred with staff 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4020 Approved reinstatement (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04675) with deletion of time limitation. OWNER: Orange County Water District, 10500 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 LOCATION: 4060 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 125 acres, having a frontage of 5,617 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, located 347 feet east of the centerline of Tustin Avenue (Santa Ana River Lakes). Request for reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on April 27, 1998 to expire April 27, 2003) to retain a 450 square foot, mobile office trailer in conjunction with an existing fishing concession operation. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-58 sr5002jr.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 4 as Conditional Use Permit No. 4020 (Tracking No. CUP2003-04675), 4060 East La Palma Avenue, a request for reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on April 27, 1998 to expire April 27, 2003) to retain a 450 square foot, mobile office trailer in conjunction with an existing fishing concession operation. ~ Commissioner Koos indicated he would be abstaining on the item. That while he has previously conferred with the City Attorney and determined that he does not have any financial conflict of interest; he abstains to avoid any poter~tial perceived conflict. Applicant's Testimony: Douglas Elliott, 4060 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA, the lessee of the property owned by the Orange County Water District, and the operator of the fishing concession at the 91 Freeway and Tustin Off-ramp, requests the Conditional Use Permit be reinstated and the time limitation be eliminated. The trailer is his office trailer for the operation of the facility and is obscured by many trees and painted a dark forest green as all of the modular units are, to obscure their visibility from the road and are basically camouflaged until on fhe property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Koos abstained and Commissioner Boydstun 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. ~ Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4020 (Tracking No. CUP2003- 04675) to retain a 450 square-foot mobile office trailer in conjunction with an existing fishing concession operation, without a time limitation. 04-21-03 Page 16 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Amended Resolution No. PC98-68 in its entirety and replaced it with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition Nos. 1 and 2 were deleted at today's meeting): 1. , . 2. e~h~~~ ~ hs .:c.Chle ~.. 1.. D..Iw... Av....~~e .~~~w i~oc.__ '•~'.~•~'_ _~.. ~.....~.'.......~.~. 3. That the existing trees planted to screen the approved modular office trailer from La Palma Avenue shall be professionally maintained to provide a continuous visual buffer from the street. 4. That the subject property shaH be developed and maintained 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 and 2; and as conditioned herein. 5. 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. 6. That all existing mature landscaping shall be maintained and immediately replaced in the event that it becomes diseased or dies. 7. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and • any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained and Commissioner Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (2:39-2:41) ~ 04-21-03 Page 17 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04681 Granted, in part 5d. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16477 Approved OWNER: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 1003, Anaheim, CA 92805, Attn: Elisa Stipkovich AGENT: John O'Brien, Brookfield Homes, 3090 Bristol Street, Suite 200, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 LOCATION: 2300-2340 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 8.8 acres, having a frontage of 660 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, located 650 feet east of the centerline of Gilbert Street. Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04681 - To construct 32 attached and 50 detached "affordable" residential condominium units with a density bonus, with waivers of: (a) minimum front yard setback, (b) minimum number of parking spaces, (c) maximum structural height adjacent to a single-family residential zone, (d) minimum landscape setback adjacent to a single-family residential zone, (e) minimum interior setback, and (~ minimum distance between buildings*. • "Waiver (b) has been deleted. Tentative Tract Map No. 16477 - To establish a 94-lot, 82-unit attached and detached residential condominium subdivision. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-59 sr2126ds.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 5 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04681, 2300 - 2340 West Lincoln Avenue, a request to construct 32 attached and 50 detached "affordable" residential condominium units with a density bonus, with waivers of: (a) minimum front yard setback, (b) maximum structural height adjacent to a single-family residential zone, (c) minimum landscape setback adjacent to a single-family residential zone, (d) minimum interior setback, (e) minimum setback of buildings abutting single-family developments, and (f) minimum distance between buildings. Applicant's Testimony: Mark Asturias, Redevelopment Manager, states it is a project that is being sponsored jointly by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and its developer of Brookfield Homes. It is an affordable housing project and as part of that it is requesting incentives pursuant to the state law that will allow certain discretionary action by Commission. John O'Brien of Brookfield Homes, the developer, 3090 Bristol Street, Suite 200, Costa Mesa, CA, presented an overview and summary of the project components as follows: ^ Historic Overview - The vision for West Anaheim Redevelopment Plan included taking under utilized commercial sites along mid-block corridors and trying to localize the commercial activity • in its specific nodes. In so doing, the project site was designated as a target site to be redevefoped. Existing surrounding uses to the west of the project is a Sav-on and Pizza Parlor. There are three existing single-family residents and the recreation field for Cornelia Connelly 04-21-03 Page 18 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ School to the south of the project: To the east of the project are apartments and apartment carport use and professional offices are to the north on Lincoln Avenue. ^ The community outreach plan was established by working with Redevelopment and other City officials. There was a meeting with surrounding residents; Cornelia Connelly School and West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council (WAND) Land Use in the West Anaheim District has been supportive. It was a pretty thorough process to achieve community support. ^ The project is an infield neighborhood. On the reuse of the prior Home Depot and Daniels Furniture site, 82 residential dwellings are being proposed that is comprised of 32 town homes and 50 single-family detached homes. • The project has private streets and a Central Park Plaza area that will also be private and maintained by the HOA (Homeowner's Association). ^ Proposed improvements at some of the edge conditions - A landscape setback from Lincoln Avenue. There is a request for a minor waiver; incorporate screen trees at Lot Nos. 20, 21, 22 and 23 at the rear of the project. Other edge conditions where needed will be implemented; and a perimeter block wall will be installed. ^ Community Benefits - affordable homes, removal of a less than best site along Lincoln Avenue, new street lights, improved drainage, side attributes; single loop street through the project, and also achieving density and affordability, garages to the rear of the lot in single-family homes, homes and porches front the street scene, achieved a Central Park and Plaza area - helped achieve our vista from Lincoln Avenue, tree line paseos to help direct pedestrians from different parts of the neighborhood to the Central Park and Plaza area. ~ ^ Brookfield is excited about pledging $5000 to the Homeowners Association to implement a sculpture or other community element for which the Homeowners Association can have pride and participation for within their own neighborhood. ^ Primary turf areas located in the middle and sides and a secondary turf area towards the front of the project. ^ Distinctive architecturaf character of Spanish Colonial and Spanish Monterey and a traditional architectural component for the town homes of urban boulevard characteristic with a private front patio for each home. ^ Condominiums - 1300 -1500 sq. ft. and sales prices -$279 -309. ^ Single family detached homes -1780 - 2600 sq. ft. and price $375 - 489. ^ Attainable housing - 41 of the 82 homes will be affordable to both low and moderate income families and a 60 day exclusive right to purchase for persons who reside and/or work within the City of Anaheim. Public Testimony: Chuck Burnes, 2341 W. Transit Avenue, Anaheim, CA, states he approves 100% of the project and feels it will be tremendous for the neighborhood. However, there are some properties right against the southwest corner of the property, as stated in the staff report on page 11, Evaluation No. 33, they are having trouble talking to the owner of the property. Mr. Burnes states he is concerned about the things that go on there and feels if Commission believes his complaint is strong he would imagine that the three homes touching the dead lot, after they get there and get into the homes, are going to hit the ceiling. He • called the police as recently as 10:30 yesterday morning to get them to clear out whatever was going on in the lot. People use it for all kinds of things, they sleep there at night, they have sex, and used condoms are found all over the place. He feels once the wall goes up they are lost. It is going to be there forever. 04-21-03 Page 19 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ It is behind Sav-on Drug and is not used by anybody except the people who are not supposed to be there. Damien Delaney, Senior Project Manager, states Redevelopment has been attempting to meet with the property owner and has had limited success. The Executive Director of Redevelopment is now meeting directly with the representative that she has had past dealings with of the ownership of the property to see if they would be willing to work with the City in terms of selling the property on a negotiated basis. If they were willing to do that, Redevelopment would, at a future date, come back with an amendment to incorporate the property into the subject property. They welcome Mr. Burnes to attend and participate in the meetings. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos states that he met with the applicant outside the Council Chambers to look over the project and he is glad to see the applicant has resolved his issues since that time. He asked if the front yard landscaping is a part of the initial bill and paid for by the developer. Mr. O'Brien responded yes, Brookfield would be installing front yard landscaping for all of the homes. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states staff could have the applicant stipulate to the installation of front yard landscaping for all of the homes. Staff would incorporate it into the final landscape approval. Chairperson Bosfinrick states he met with the developer last Friday. Commissioner Romero states he also met with the developer and is very pleased with the project. He asked for an explanation of the design of the units facing Lincoln Avenue having two tower-type finials out front. He did not see how it would fit in with the neighborhood. ~ Art Alvarado of Robert Heidi Architects states they use the finials a lot in terms of the subject architecture. A lot of times finials will be used when they have a complicated issue with the roof areas because it makes it easier to design. It is used purely for aesthetics not for functional use, and looks really nice when it is done right. Commissioner Eastman, states she also met with the applicant and is very pleased with the project. Her only concern is with the architecture with the rounded front window on the bottom and a very plain window on top. It did not seem to be as nice as most others shown. Mr. Alvarado states they try to simplify the details and the overall shape of the building rather than doing a lot of ins and outs. The buildings tend to be longer. Commissioner Eastman asked if he were using a deeper inset would those particular details not be seen on a one-dimensional and if that style lends itself to a very smooth, old fashion, plastered detail rather than the sprayed on finish. Mr. Alvarado responded they intend to use a material that goes along with the Spanish Colonial to make it look really nice and they are considering using more recess on the windows. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RE-OPENED. Donald F. Ralston, 138 S. Gilbert Street, Anaheim, Ca, states he has lived in the area for over 50 years and noticed when Home Depot was located on the site there was a lot of traffic going out of the shopping area and turning right to get back into the shopping center. It would save a lot of confusion if arrangements were made to go from the subject area into the shopping center. There is a school on the north side of the street so he does not know how complicated it would be, but it would be very convenient • for the residents wanting to go into the shopping center not to have to go out on Lincoln Avenue and then turn and come back. 04-21-03 Page 20 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. McCafferty clarified Paragraph No. 32 of the staff report, which indicated the difference between the requested incentives and the density bonus. The value of the density bonus is greater than the value of the requested incentives, and therefore provides justification for approval of the waivers. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos asked staff to consider in their discussions with the Sav-on owner that maybe there would be a mitigating measure that staff could imply, short of buying it, if there is lack of funding and maybe looking at fencing it off as well. Mr. Asturias responded they would look at as many issues as possible with the owner. • • ~ ~- • • ~ ~ • ~ • OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke with a concern/suggestion. IN SUPPORT: 1 person spoke in favor of the subject request, but expressed concern pertaining to a vacant lot at the southwest corner of the subject site. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows: Denied waiver (b) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces since it has been deleted subsequent to advertisement. w~ Approved waivers pertaining to (a) minimum front yard setback, (c) maximum structural height within 150 feet of a single-family zone boundary (d) minimum landscaped setback abutting a single-family residential zone, (e) minimum interior setback, and (f) minimum distance between buildings based on the following: (i) That the petitioner has submitted a detailed financial analysis prepared by an independent economic consultant specializing in real estate valuation and redevelopment to justify additional incentives in lieu of a density bonus as permitted under Anaheim Municipal Code Section No. 18.99.030.020 and Section 65915 of the California Government Code. Said study concludes that the equivalent financial value of the density bonus exceeds the value of all five incentives being requested. (ii) That the RM-3000 Zone standards were intended for attached townhouse- style development and not "small-lot single-family" development being proposed on a majority of the subject property; and further that these waivers have been granted for similar small lot single-family developments. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04681 (to construct 32 attached and 50 detached "affordable" condominium residential units with a density bonus) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated April 21, 2003, with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 1 and 13 to read as follows: 1. That final landscape (including front yard landscaping) and fencing plans for the subject property shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and ~ approval. Said plans shall show minimum 24-inch box size trees in the front yard of each home, screening trees at 20 feet on-center along the south property line adjacent to the single-family residential properties and 1 tree for 04-21-03 Page 21 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • every 20 feet of street frontage on Lincoln Avenue planted in the landscape setback adjacent to Lincoln Avenue. Any decision made by the Zoning Division regarding said plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission and/or City Council. All trees shall be properly and professionally maintained by the homeowners association to ensure mature, healthy growth. 13. That a comprehensive trash management program shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. Said program shall include information on the following: a detailed, scaled site plan showing the storage and collection areas for automated trash barrels for each unit, the location of any trash enclosure with enclosure details drawings, and truck access through the alley and private streets; the placement of an access "Knox" box at both automatic entrance gates; and disclosures in the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) describing the location and storage of automated containers for each unit. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and City Attorney's Office. Deleted Condition No. 10 Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 16477 to establish a 94-lot, 82-unit attached and detached condominium subdivision, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated April 21, 2003. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent) ~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Tract Map and the 22-day appeal rights for the Conditional Use Permit. DISCUSSION TIME: 32 minutes (2:42-3:14) • 04-21-03 Page 22 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04674 Denied OWNER: Carlos D. Vargas, 816 North Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Benjamin Zecua, 816 North Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 816 North Anaheim Boulevard. Property is 0.16-acre, having a frontage of 50 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, located 90 feet south of the centerline of Mills Drive (Babies "R" Us Nutritional). To permit a W.I.C. convenience store within a finro-unit office building with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-61 sr3012ey.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 6 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04674, 816 North Anaheim Boulevard, a request to permit a W.I.C. convenience store with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Applicant's Testimony: • Benjamin Zecua, 816 North Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA, states he wants to open a W.I.C. store in the City of Anaheim. He has read the staff report and agrees to all of the conditions. Public Testimony: Bill Parnell, 115 E. North St., Anaheim, CA, representing his mother who is a 39-year resident on North Street, which is approximately 100 feet from the proposed site, presented photographs to the Commission and states they strongly oppose the proposed business or any other business that cannot support parking for the employees or customers alike. In the past two years the City Planning Commission has allowed two other businesses in the area that either do not have ample parking for their employees and customers, or their property is too small to accommodate the volume of traffic and business they generate. The result of allowing businesses to operate without adequate parking is customers and employees must park in the residential area located behi~d the commercial lots or park on the properties of other businesses, which in turn causes their employees and patrons to park in the residential area. Either case, the residents of the area have become grievously impacted by the lack of parking available to their home and the increased emission caused by the influx of vehicle travel into their neighborhood. It is understandable that the impact of one business alone would not necessarily cause the issues however, by yet allowing another business into the area that does not have adequate parking would only serve to add to the detrimental impact of the commercial businesses of Anaheim Boulevard, and the residence of Mills Drive, North Street and Claudina Street. South of the proposed store, approximately 150 feet, is a bus stop and traveling farther, approximately %2 block on Anaheim Boulevard, is Northgate Market, which accepts W.I.C. customers. Applicant's Rebuttal: Mr. Zecua states he would provide transportation for his clients so parking would not be an issue. ~ Chairperson Bostwick asked if he was prepared to remove the awning on the south side of the building next to the proposed site. 04-21-03 Page 23 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Zecua responded yes. Chairperson Bostwick asked what he would do for trash storage. Mr. Zecua responded there is a trash container. Chairperson Bostwick asked where would the deliveries be made. Mr. Zecua responded delivery would be in the rear. Chairperson Bostwick asked if the merchandise would be from a commercial company. Mr. Zecua responded yes. Chairperson Bostwick asked if the delivery trucks would bring in the merchandise and unload. Mr. Zecua responded yes, "It is not a big truck but a'bob-tail' truck". Chairperson Bostwick asked what type of product mixture did he anticipate. Mr. Zecua responded cereal, milk, cheese, etc. Chairperson Bostwick asked if he would have cold cases. Mr. Zecua responded yes. ~ Commissioner Eastman asked who were the primary customers and would he pick up the clients, allow them time to shop and then return them to their homes. Mr. Zecua responded yes. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if it would not make more sense to use the vehicle to deliver the goods to the customers. Mr. Zecua responded it makes good sense but he was not allowed to do that. Commissioner Eastman asked what his information was based on that 75% of the people he would serve needed to be picked up. Mr. Zecua responded most of the customers are poor and do not have transportation. He has a W.I.C. store in Santa Ana, CA, and that is the way it is done. Commissioner Koos asked Mr. Parnell which two projects was he referencing that the Planning Commission approved that impacted the neighborhood. Mr. Parnell responded one is Berend's Brother on the southeast corner. Commissioner Koos states Planning Commission denied the project and it was approved by the City Council. Mr. Parnell states the other one is the L& L Used Car Lot between the liquor store and Rodriquez brothers. ~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked staff if there would be customer access from the rear. 04-21-03 Page 24 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states the primary access for customers is from the Anaheim Boulevard entrance. Commissioner Vanderbilt wished to clarify if they would have to walk out of the gated parking lot, down Mill Street, back down Anaheim Boulevard to the front entrance. Mr. McCafferty states the applicant indicated their standard operation would be that a lot of people from the community would walk to the business. Therefore, they could easily park on Anaheim Boulevard and offload the customers to the Anaheim Boulevard entrance. Chairperson Bostwick feels Mr. Parnell had a lot of appropriate statements and he does not understand how it would work with parking in the back, walking around to the front and unloading in the front when they could hardly find a parking place along the curb in the area. Commissioner Koos concurs with Commissioner Bostwick. He lives in the neighborhood and is not convinced by the assumption that lower income people do not drive automobiles. He is convinced that there is a need for more spaces on the parking lot. Commissioner Eastman states she lives in the area also, and sees the impact of the cars parked on the street. She is concerned for the residents who live close by. Commissioner Vanderbilt states he also lives in the area and travels up and down Anaheim Boulevard. He appreciates the parking and is in agreement with the public testimony. However, his sense is that there is a lot of pedestrian activity, many people take the buses, and he feels given the type of clientele he does not feel it is reasonable to punish the subject business for the faults of other businesses. • Commissioner Bristol concurs with Commissioner Vanderbilt and feels many people will walk. He hears a lot of impacts by a lot of the other businesses that impacts the neighbor and the applicant is being penalized. The site appears to have a tax service facility; one tenant and an immigration services facility so he cannot imagine 8 spots, when it is not tax season, being impacted all of the time that would constitute parking on the street, especially during the requested hours of operation. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: One person spoke in opposition to the subject request and submitted photographs. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Denied Waiver of Code Requirement pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces based on the testimony presented at today's meeting pertaining to existing parking impacts in the neighborhood from existing commercial businesses. Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04674 (to permit a WIC convenience store within an existing two-unit office building) based on the testimony presented at today's meeting related to existing parking problems in the area and that the site contained insufficient on-site parking. VOTE: 4-2 (Commissioner Bristol and Vanderbilt voted no and Commissioner Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. • (The subject item was trailed and Item No. 7 was heard, since the applicant did not come 04-21-03 Page 25 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • forward to speak at 3:15 p.m.) DISCUSSION TIME: 3:18-3:44 (26 minutes) (Item No 8 was heard following this item.) -~~ I ~ 04-21-03 Page 26 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4016 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04677 ) OWNER: LLC Kelto, 1422 South Allec Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: John Bitterly, 1111 Town and Country Road, Suite 38, Orange, CA 92868 LOCATION: 1422 South Allec Street. Property is 0.99-acre, having a frontage of 125 feet on the east side of Allec Street, located 539 feet north of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue. Request for reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on April 27, 1998 to expire April 27, 2003) to retain a telecommunications monopole and accessory ground-mounted equipment enclosure. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-60 Approved Approved reinstatement for 5 years (to expire on April 27, 2008) sr8579vn.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 7 as Conditional Use Permit No. 4016, 1422 South Allec Street, a request for reinstatement of the permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on April 27, 1998 to expire April 27, 2003) to retain a telecommunication monopole and accessory ground-mounted equipment enclosure. • Commissioner Koos indicated he would be abstaining on the item due to his close relationship with the wireless telecommunications industry. While he has previously conferred with the City Attorney and determined he does not have any financial conflict of interest; he abstains to avoid any potential perceived conflict. ApplicanYs Testimony: Dale Stubblefield, the owner of the tower, representing Spectrasite Communications, Verizon Wireless is the existent tenant on the tower and John Bitterly is the agent, which Spectrasite Communications hired to file the compliance report. They are present to answer any questions of the Commission. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Koos abstained and Commissioner Boydstun 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 reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4016 (Tracking No. CUP2003- 04677) to retain a telecommunications monopole and accessory ground-mounted equipment enclosure for a period of five (5) years, to expire on April 27, 2008. • 04-21-03 Page 27 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Amended Resolution No. PC98-85 in its entirety and replaced it with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are new conditions): 1. That this permit shall expire on April 27, 2008. 2. That the telecommunications facility shall be limited to 60 feet in height, with 3 sectors consisting of seven (7) panel antennas per sector with maximum dimensions of 4 feet in height by 1-foot in width, two (2) 2-foot diameter microwave dishes and one (1) 4-foot diameter microwave dish on the existing tower and accessory ground-mounted equipment. No additional antennas shall be permitted without the approval of the Planning Commission. 3. That no signage, flags, banners, or any other form of advertising shall be attached to the antennas or the transmission tower structure. 4. That the height of the monopole shall not exceed the height of the attached antenna arrays at any time. If the arrays are lowered, the monopole height must be reduced to correspond to the height of the arrays. 5. That the portion of the property being leased to the telecommunication provider shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 6. That the operator of this use (the "Operator") shall ensure that this installation and choice of frequencies will not interfere with the 800 MHz radio frequencies • required by the City of Anaheim to provide adequate spectrum capacity for public safety and related purposes. 7. That at all times, other than during the 24-hour cure period provided in Condition No. 9 below, the Operator shall not prevent the City of Anaheim from having adequate spectrum capacity on the City's 800 MHz radio frequency. 8. That the Operator shall submit to a test to confirm that the facility does not interfere with the City of Anaheim's public safety radio equipment. This test will be conducted by the Communications Division of the Orange County Sheriff's Department or a Division-approved contractor at the expense of the Operator. 9. That the Operator shall provide a"single point of contacY' including a 24-hour telephone number, fax number and e-mail address in its Engineering and Maintenance Departments to the Zoning Division (to be forwarded to the Fire and Police Departments) to which interference problems may be reported, and shall resolve all interference complaints within 24 hours. 10. That the Operator shall ensure that each of its contractors, sub-contractors or agents, or any other user of the facility, shall comply with these conditions of approval. 11. That should this telecommunication facility be sold, the City of Anaheim, Zoning Division shall be notified within 30 days of the close of escrow. 12. That all equipment, including supply cabinets and power meter, shall be installed and maintained on private property and shall be screened from public view, as • approved by the Zoning Division. 04-21-03 Page 28 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 13. That the subject property shall be developed and maintained substantially in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1 of Conditional Use Permit No. 4016, and as conditioned herein. 14. That within thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution, Condition nos. 8 and 9, above mentioned, shall be complied with. 15. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained and Commissioner Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 3:15-3:17 (2 minutes) (Following this item, Ifem No. 6 was heard.) ~ ~ 04-21-03 Page 29 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 8b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3927 (READVERTISED) (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04680) OWNER: Haydon Brothers Incorporated, 1480 North Tustin Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Haydon Brothers Automotive, 1480 North Lakeview Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 1480 North Lakeview Avenue. Property is 0.84-acre, located at the northeast corner of Lakeview Avenue and Lisenhower Circle (Haydon Brothers Automotive). To permit accessory retail automobile sales in conjunction with a previously-approved automotive repair business with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-62 Approved Approved Amended to permit sr8585av.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 8 as Conditional Use Permit No. 3927, 1480 North Lakeview Avenue, Haydon Brothers Automotive, a request to permit accessory retail automobile sales in conjunction with a previously-approved automotive repair business with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ~ ApplicanYs Testimony: Doug Haydon, 1480 North Lakeview Avenue, Anaheim, CA, states they wish to operate an accessory automobile sales retail. Commissioner Romero complimented the applicant on having a very clean operation. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Haydon if he was okay with everything in the staff report. Mr. Haydon responded he has a couple of questions with regard to some of the conditions. With regard to the trash pickup situation, he prefers to bring the trash container into the building each evening. They border the Atwood channel and Placentia. Atwood Sales is a business that sells construction equipment and there are a number of day workers that are on both sides of the street. When he is not there on Saturdays and if the trash container is not inside the building, there is a clean up issue. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states even though the applicant wishes to take his trash container inside each evening, there should have been a trash enclosure built on the site. Mr. Haydon states the site was originally designed as a park, and his trash enclosure is on Eisenhower Circle. His property line is the back of his building, and the trash enclosure is where the original tenant contains his t~ash, but it is not on his prope~ty. Therefore, one has not been built on it. He has a designated spot for the trash container inside the building. Mr. McCafferty states Public Works indicate they are okay with it as long as there is an understanding ~ with the business owner, and the disposal company that it is to be wheeled out during trash pickup. 04-21-03 Page 30 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Haydon referred to Condition No. 4, which states, "That seven (7)15-gallon size trees shall be maintained within the landscape setback area in compliance with City standards". He states he currently has eleven trees. Commissioner Bristol concurs there are a lot of trees on the property. Mr. Haydon states he purchased sycamores and during the summer when they are full, the building can barely be seen. If the object is to obstruct the business from the street, they are doing a great job. He has ten on his parkway and three pine trees in the City's planters on the sidewalk. So, in effect there are 13 trees that front his property. Commissioner Bostwick wished to clarify if the seven trees would already be qualified. Mr. McCafferty clarified if the trees are on the applicanYs private setback and not on the right-of-away they would qualify. He agreed to delete the condition as long as the trees were maintained. Mr. Haydon asked for clarification on Condition Nos. 13 and 14. Mr. McCafferty clarified Condition Nos. 13 and 14 are not applicable as long as he is not requesting additional service. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and ~ MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun 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 Requirement Approved request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 3927 (Tracking No. CUP2003-04680) to permit accessory retail automobile sales in conjunction with a previously-approved automotive repair business. Incorporated conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. PC97-47 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 13, 14 and 16 are new or modified conditions; Condition No. 3 was deleted and Condition No. 4 was modified at today's meeting): 1. That the number of employees shall be limited to 9 persons and a minimum of 32 parking spaces (including 8 interior spaces) shall be maintained on this property as indicated in the approved parking study. 2. That a maximum of three (3) retail display spaces shalf be permitted in the outdoor parking lot and a maximum of four (4) retail vehicles shall be permitted on-site at one time. 3. , i ~ 04-21-03 Page 31 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4. ' The existing trees shall be maintained within the landscape setback area in compliance with City standards. 5. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the SP94-1, DA2 Zone unless a variance allowing a sign waiver is approved by the Commission. That freestanding signage shall be limited to the existing monument sign. 6. That no banners or other advertising shall be displayed within the service bays facing the public rights-of-way. 7. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 8. That no outdoor storage of, display of, or work on vehicles or vehicular parts shall be permitted. 9. That the granting of the parking waiver is contingent upon operation of the use in conformance with the assumptions relating to the operation and intensity of use as contained in the parking demand study that formed the basis for approval of said waiver. Exceeding, violating, intensifying or otherwise deviating from any of said assumptions, as contained in the parking demand study, shall be deemed a violation of the expressed conditions imposed upon said waiver which shall subject this conditional use permit to termination or modification pursuant to the provisions of Sections 18.03.091 and 18.03.092 • of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 10. That an on-site trash truck turn-around area shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. 11. That plans shall be submitted to the City 7raffic and Transportation Manager for his review and approval showing conformance with the latest version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. That the business hours shall be limited to 6:30 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday as indicated in the letter of operation submitted by the ~ petitioner. 04-21-03 Page 32 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 16. That subject property shall be developed as conditioned and 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 Revision No. 1 of Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 and 2 and Exhibit Nos. 3 through 5. 17. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or prior to final building and zoning inspections, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 3 and 16 above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 18. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes 3:45-3:55 (The subject item was heard following Item No. 6) r ~ ~J ~ 04-21-03 Page 33 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MlNUTES • 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04678 Granted OWNER: McDonald's Corporation, 11682 Ef Camino Real, #400, San Diego, CA 92130 AGENT: Randy Kimoto, 42 Corporate Park, Suite 250, Irvine, CA 92606 LOCATION: 119 West Ball Road. Property is 0.86-acre, located north and west of the northwest corner of Ball Road and Anaheim Boulevard (McDonald's). To permit the expansion of an existing drive-through restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-63 sr3013ey.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item no. 9 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04678, 119 West Ball Road - McDonald's Restaurant, as a request to permit the expansion of an existing drive-through restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ApplicanYs Testimony: ~ Don Ikeler, Project Manager of McDonald's Corporation, 11682 EI Camino Rea1, #400, San Diego, CA, states, they have a new elevation and are doing a front bump out to the building. It changes the entire look of the building. The bump out is to do a couple of things: 1) add seating, 2) change the look of the building, and 3) to provide indoor access to the restrooms. The interior will be remodeled. They are in agreement with a!I of the conditions, except two items: Condition No. 2, regarding the removal of the existing road sign. The road sign is crucial to what they are doing on the site. Most of their business prospects are driving down the road at lunchtime and deciding where to eat and then they pull off. It is not a designated site; a ponderous of their customers comes from making a split decision. The sign and how it projects out is crucial to the location. A Seven-Eleven sits adjacent to them to the east. So as they are driving westbound the Seven-Eleven sign would block any chance of their business being seen on Ball Road. Currently it is starting to block their business but at least there is a good amount of distance as you come across Anaheim Boulevard to make the decision to turn in. Coming eastbound there are a group of trees that sits on the Kentucky Fried Chicken property, that block the building but visibility to the sign is still really good. Visibility and customer attraction are the main reasons. The sign was legally permitted when it was installed. Across the street the Burger King and EI Pollo Loco have a similar height sign d'srectly to the south of them. The other item is Condition No. 5. It is a minor issue; the pay phones. Currently, they have pay phones out there and the customers use them regularly, surprisingly enough even though everybody now has cell phones. It is a convenience to the customers. Many customers using the resort area use the pay phones. He understands the primary concern of Commission is that they are going to get a lot of people hanging out around there and problems will result from that. The owners are saying they have not seen that problem, and it is more of a convenience to the customers than anything else. Brian Frisbie, 1060-A Ortega Way, Placentia, CA, states they are a family run business. The restaurant has been there since 1963, and they have been in business in Anaheim since 1967. The sign is very va{uable to their business. They have seen studies in the past that attribute similar signs to 25-30% of ~ business. He appreciates the concern about the pay phones being a hangout point. They have not seen that to be true on their site, and also the pay phones are programmed so that the incoming call cannot occur. In respect to the appearance of the building, one of their sites is on Harbor Boulevard across the 04-21-03 Page 34 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • street from Disneyland, which has similar elements. Also the new location on Lemon Street at the 91- Freeway has the exact stacked stone look as seen on the elevation presented. In regards to the billboard that is on the property line between their property and the Seven-Eleven, it blocks the front of their building considerably. Without having their sign there the billboard would virtually eliminate the front end of their building. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos feels it is a great project having a contemporary look that has been brought up to the standards of the new McDonalds seen around the region. However, he considers the front element where the play place is located, has quite a bit of additional identification for the applicant and will offset any identification they may lose from removal of the sign. The existing building is approximately 17 feet tall and the new front element is double that size at 34 feet tall. That will provide quite a bit of signage. The existing sign does not go with the new building. It is a mixture of a dated McDonald's look with a brand new McDonald's look. It is a disconnect. He has seen nice new McDonald's going up that do not have the massive signs and still tend to have the big draw, especially with the play place. If the sign were consistent with the building, he would not have much trouble with it, but it seems a bit out of character with the building. Commissioner Eastman concurs it is a very pleasing project and nice to see that they are going to be updating the facility and making it look like the other facilities seen around the resort district. She is somewhat confused as to why they would want to put up such a great building and then leave an outdated sign out front. Regarding the pay phones, she feels if the concern is for the convenience of the customers, perhaps they might consider installing a phone inside to minimize the possibilities of people hanging out. ~ Commissioner Vanderbilt states for the duration of the time he has been on the Planning Commission there has been an effort on the part of the City to reduce items that draw the eye up and clutter the air space. That has been especially true with the City's efforts to reduce or remove utility lines. So he finds the efforts that the City has, as applications come up in their sign issues, is the gradual way. He feels when sign issues for Seven-Eleven, Burger King, EI Pollo Loco, etc., are brought forward for changes in their Conditional Use Permits, they will also be reduced. So, it is just a matter of timing and not so much giving them an unfair advantage while the applicant has to resolve the issue at this point because of his improvements. Chairperson Bostwick states as a neighboring business he feels there is a problem with the phone outside. The liquor store to the west by the Subway Sandwich Shop and the Seven-Eleven on the corner tend to have an unsavory group and there was an unsavory group that used to hang out every morning at McDonald's. So the phones need to be put inside away from the neighborhood. Regarding the signs, he feels with the building structure the applicant is going to overcome the sign and by mass of the building they are going to put forth a nice new front. Mr. Frisbie states regarding the signage they are appreciative of the signage they are going to get on the building and the massing of the building, but the issue is that now they are going to be looking 25 feet back. So as customers are driving down the road the visibility of the frontage would not be seen until they get much closer. Commissioner Bristol states coming from the resort area the site can be seen big time. It is a massive structure and the applicant has that advantage. The argument that you have to see it in order to go there would kind of disprove the applicant's argument for having the play area for the children because they are going to come from the community. Mr. Frisbie states if they think that everybody has been to McDonalds they would be surprised because ~ the studies they have looked at there are a number of people where it is their first time that they have ever been to a McDonald's. So, he feels it is a key component to the business. 04-21-03 Page 35 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states at any point in the land use history of the City you always try to do better and just as for convenience of the customers they are integrating the restrooms to the inside of the building, staff believes the telephones should go inside the building. There are vintage pole signs from before and today things are progressing towards more aesthetically pleasing architecturally integrated signs. Looking at the elevation from Ball Road, it is actually a sign unto itself. There is a big icon there so staff does not believe there will be any trouble of the people seeing the site. Mr. Ikeler states they have never put a pay phone inside because seating is always at a premium, but they would be willing to explore the idea. The signage is a bit of nostalgia. He and his brothers grew up in the business and it goes back in their heritage, but in order to keep the project moving forward they would be willing to move forward with the sign. They still have the same sign at one of the locations in the City of Orange. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTfON. I OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04678 (to permit the expansion of an existing drive-through restaurant) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated April 21, 2003. • ~ VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 21 minutes (3:56-4:17) 04-21-03 Page 36 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 10a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 31 10b. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16500 OWNER: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Attn: Elisa Stipkovich, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 1003, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 122-132 West Water Street and 123-133 West Stueckle Avenue. Property is 1.4 acres having a frontage of 191 feet on the south side of Water Street and 183 feet on the north side of Stueckle Avenue, located 155 feet east of the centerline of Lemon Street. City-initiated (Community Development Department) request to establish a 6-lot, 6-unit, detached RS-5000 single-family subdivision to allow for the future relocation of historically-significant homes. Concurred with staff Approved sr2127ds.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 10 as Tentative Tract Map No. 16500, 122-132 West Water Street and 123-133 West Steuckle Avenue, a City-initiated (Community Development Department) request to establish a 6-lot, 6-unit detached, RS-5000 single-family subdivision to allow for the future relocation of historically-significant homes. ApplicanYs Testimony: Stephen Stoewer, Project Manager II of the Redevelopment Agency, states the project would be Phase III ~ of the Historic Rehabilitation Restoration Project. Phase I and II fronted Lemon Street and included the relocation of six historic homes and the rehabilitation of seven historic homes. One historic home was present on the site. The tract map as proposed would give six additional locations for historic preservation and restoration. Two homes have been relocated to the site, leaving them additional spaces for rehabilitation and relocation of historic homes. Public Testimony: Lorna Moore, 560 S. Lemon Street, states she and her husband approve of the project. It is an improvement of the street to have the seven historic homes, and would also efiminate the dust that comes from the current vacant spot. Commissioner Koos asked if the interiors of the units; the design, amenities, etc., was left up to the buyer. Mr. Stoewer responded they are given choices on color. Phase I was given choices of cabinetry and as a result of one particular home choosing cabinets that were not of the time period or "any period", the Redevelopment Agency chose the cabinetry for Phase II to make sure they were historically correct. OPPOSITION: None IN SUPPORT: 1 person spoke in favor of the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Boydstun absent), that the Anaheim City Planning ~ Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 31 (Historic Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act 04-21-03 Page 37 APRIL 21, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 16500 (to establish a 6-lot, 6-unit detached RS- 5000 single-family residential subdivision to allow for the future relocation of historically-significant homes) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated April 21, 2003, with the following modification: 3. That the developer shall pay t#~e a sewer capacity mitigation fee for the Old Town Basin 8 Area. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 4:18-4:22 (4 minutes) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:23 P.M. TO MONDAY, MAY 5, 2003 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. ~ Resp fully submitted: at h er, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2003. ~ 04-21-03 Page 38