The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 2003/06/30~~ ~ ~ CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES J U N E 30, 2003 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHA„~R~RSON PAU~1~.~'$OSTWICK COMMISSIONERS PRESENT ;~1L`~A~TM~aI, J~MN KOQS;~'~ RY O'CONNELL, ;~aAUTA~~I~~NfERC7, JAIVt~S ~/~N`DER~1~LT AND ONE VACANT SEAT , ~~ , ~ ~ " a ~..: ~. ~~ COMMISSIONERS ABSE~IT~ '~'°1~IC~f~~~` : ;~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~, ~~" ~ ' ~~ ~ ~; -~~, ~ ~{ ~ STAFF PRESENT: ,` ~~ ~''.~ ~ , `,~ ~ °~,,- ,,,~~~~ `~ ~~. ~ ~ ~~~ ~~.:.<~ .. ~ ~ ~ a~ Selma Mann, Assista,~~ C~~y, Attotn~y ~~ David See, Ser~io~ ~t~nr~er~ ~ Greg Hastings, Zoni~~°Divisio M~n~~q'er Susan Kim, Asso~~ate~~'~an~~r~, Greg McCafferty, Pr~~c~~Za~~~R~~r~~~~~,b Elly Morris, Senia,~Sec~~~ary°~~ ~~ Linda Johnson, Prir~cipal Planner .~~ , H~=,, Pat Chandler, Senior~Sec~e~a~jr ;~ ~~ ~„" ~ ~ ~ ""~ _ "~,, ~ ~ r. CALL TO ORDER~ ~, s ~ ~'? ~~~~ ,.~k...,~ _<: ~° ~ ~ ~~ , ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ f ~ f.. ~ ~ _, ,.:; ~.,. ~*~'~ »,.- .~ ~ ,~ ~, ~ W~ ~ PLqTIN1NG~COI~f~V11$~~~ON MORN:ING SE~~I'ON '~°Q~3~~k A.M. ` • S~AFF lf~l~%fi~°E T~~C{JMMISSION 4N VARIOUS CfTY~,~~~, ,~ D~YELOPIV~EN~~S A1~tC?nlS~~ES (1k~~R~Qk~~;~~~~~~,Y q',~., ~'.` y PL~IVNING COM~/tl~ SJ~~N) ._ ~~~~ ~ ° ~ ~ -~' ~ ~ ~: • PR~LIM~VARY PLA~I~~V~~V1/. FOR IT~l1~'ON TI~E JU~V:~30;~20~3 AGENDA ~ ~ ~~: ~a,. & ` . ;~ ~ 9 f AGENDA POSTING: A~~~mplete~c py~f the~~far isg;~mmission Age~~a was pbsted at 3:00 p.m. on June 26, 2003, inside the displ~y'scase,J"ocated in t~:f~oyer c~f th~, Cout~ei~ Cti~rri~ersx d also in the outside dispiay ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ,~~ :. kiosk. ~ ' ~< { - ~`~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, .. -~ ~- ` ~ ,~ .. ~ ~ ..,~ , ~. ~ ~ ~~~~M ~ , PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletin~w~paper br~'T1~u~s~ay, June 5, 20f~3"3 p ~ ~ ,~ ~~ .. ~, ~ ~ ~. ~ ~'~'~,~~,,v,~ ~;~a~'~"" ~.,~~- RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Koos PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT H:\DOCS\CLERICAL\MINUTES/AC063003.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net 06-30-03 Page 1 JUNE 30, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Presentation of a plaque to John Koos in acknowledgement of his 5 years of service on the Planning Commission Commissioner Koos was presented with a plaque and resolution in appreciation of his service to the Anaheim City Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMtSSION APPOINTMENTS: Appointment of a Planning Commission Chairperson (Motion) Appointment of a Planning Commission Chairperson Pro-Tempore (Motion) ACTION; Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby elect Commissioner Vanderbilt as Commission Chairperson for 2003/2004. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby elect Commissioner Eastman as Commission Chairperson Pro-Tempore for 2003/2004. PUBLtC COMMENTS: • 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. Sheri McCracken submitted a Speaker's Card indicating her appeal of all items on the June 30, 2003 agenda. She states she has vast experience as a commissioner, and wonders if any one of the commissioners on today's panel would be able to evaluate properties without a car as she has. CONSENT CALENDAR: Items 1-A and 1-B on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-A and 1-B) as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED ~ 06-30-03 Page 2 JUNE 30, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1. ~ • REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. (a) (b) CEQA EIR NO. 313 (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED) FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2003-00006 Edward Chuchla, 1401 Fiower Street, Glendale, CA 91221, requests review and approval of a Final Site Plan to provide for the construction of a new parking area for the Radisson Notel and the conversion of a portion of the existing Radisson Hotel parking lot area to agricultural uses. Property is located at 1850 and 1870 S. Harbor Boulevard (Radisson Hotel and adjacent agricultural farm land). ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified EIR No. 313 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Site Plan (identified as Exhibit Nos. 1 through 9 on file in the Planning Department) based upon a finding that the Final Site Plan is in conformance with the Anaheim Resort Specific P(an No. 92-2 as noted in paragraphs six through nine of the staff report dated June 30, 2003. Approved Approved Final Site Plan (Vote: 6-0, with one Commission vacancy) sr8615sk1.doc 06-30-03 Page 3 JUNE 30, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . B. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Approved Meeting of June 16, 2003. (Motion) (Vote: 6-0, with one ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Commission vacancy) Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of June 16, 2003. ~ • 06-30-03 Page 4 JUNE 30, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DEClARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4187 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04704) OWNER: Islamic Institute of Orange County, P.O. Box 1236, Brea, CA 92822 AGENT: Gamal E. Nour, 1221 North Placentia Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1220 -1230 North State Colleqe Boulevard. Property is approximately 1.93 acres, located north and east of the northeast corner of Placentia Avenue and State College Boulevard (Islamic Institute of Orange County). Request to amend exhibits for a previously-approved church to permit phased construction of the main building and parking lot. Continued from the June 2 and June 16, 2003, Planning Commission Meetings. CONDITtONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to July 14, 2003 sr5018jr.doc ~ • • ~ ~~ • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request fo the July 14, 2003, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow more time to address site design and coordination issues with staff. VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. u 06-30-03 Page 5 JUNE 30, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 • 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04435 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04712) OWNER: Palmall Properties Inc., 1428 West Bay Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92661 AGENT: Louis Garret, Fat Daddy's Auto Spa, 900 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 900 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 0.58-acre, located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Ohio Street (Fat Daddys Hand Auto Spa & Chicago Eatery). Request to amend or delete conditions of approval for a previously- approved carwash with accessory take-out fast food service and to permit a modular office trailer with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the June 16, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ~ OPPOSITION: None Continued to July 14, 2003. sr5019jr.doc ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to the July 14, 2003, Planning Commission meeting in order to alfow more time to comply with conditions of approval and address code enforcement violations pertaining to the car wash property. VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 06-30-03 Page 6 JUNE 30, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04660 OWNER: Tran Thomas, The Vision Community Church, 1655 West Broadway, Suite 6, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Francis Yoon, 1655 West Broadway, Suite 6, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1655 West Broadwav. Property is approximately 0.83- acre having a frontage of 130 feet on the north side of Broadway, located 525 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Street. To permit and retain a church within an existing office building. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None Continued to July 14, 2003. sr8620vn.doc ~ ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to the July 14, 2003, Planning Commission meeting in order to advertise a waiver of setback for institutional uses adjacent to residential zones. VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 06-30-03 Page 7 JUNE 30, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1801 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04713) OWNER: Ignacio E. Arroyo, 632 North East Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Alfonso A. Chu, 632 North East Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 632 North East Street. Property is approximately 0.27- acre, located at the northeast corner of Eastwood Drive and East Street. Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on June 4, 2001 to expire June 04, 2003) to retain a board and care facility for adults. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-93 Concurred with staff Approved reinstatement with deletion of time limitation sr1119cw.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 5 as Conditional Use Permit No. 1801, 632 North East Street, as a request for reinstatement of the permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limifation (approved on June 4, 2001 to expire June 4, 2003) to retain a board and care facility for aduits. Commissioner Vanderbilt states the staff report refers to 14 individuals, and the Department of Social Services refers to 12 as the capacity. Ne asked should Commission approve it on 14, in order to accommodate the caretakers on board as well or if there is a difference in what the state approves and what Commission has been ~ given today for approval. Applicant's Testimony: Ignacio E. Arroyo, 632 North East Street, Anaheim, CA, states they were licensed for 12 residents through Community Care Licensing, which is the number of beds they can have for residents. The number of beds used to be 14, but two beds were allocated for the onsite 24-hour staff to make sure all supervision was met for the residents. Commissioner Vanderbilt states the staff report calls for 14 because of the two caretakers in addition to the residents. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states it was based on the applicant's previous request, but if the applicant stipulates they only have 12 board'rng care residents, Condition No. 3 could be modified accordingly. Mr. Arroyo states his only concern is they need to have 12 residents that they take care of. The boarding of 14 beds would be misleading because it would give them two extra beds, and that is not permitted under the Social Services ruling per Title 22. I FOLLOWING IS A 5l1MMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMIS510N AGTION_ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act • (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. 06-30-03 Page 8 JUNE 30, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Approved the request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 1801 (Tracking No. ~ CUP2003-04713) to retain a board and care facility for up to f^~~,~^~~ twelve (12) adult (ages 18-59 years) mentally disabled ambulatory residents, who have been screened to successfully integrate into a residential setting, without a time fimitation. Amended Resolution No. PC2001-72 in its entirety and replaced it with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition No. 3 was modified at today's meeting): 1. That all services, including meals provided by this facility, shall be for the residents at this address (632 North East Street) only. 2. That a valid business license shall be maintained for this facility from the Business License Division of the City of Anaheim Finance Department. 3. That the maximum number of adult residents shall be #~~'"~°°~ twelve (12), and two (2) on-site management staff. Residents of said board and care shall be mentally disabled ambulatory adults (ages 18-59) who have been screened to successfully integrate into a residential setting. 4. That the number of resident vehicles shall at no time exceed the number of available parking spaces on the premises, which spaces are open and accessible. 5. (a) That the petitioner shall provide a twenty-four (24) hour per day, on site manager who will be responsible for responding to any neighbor's concerns regarding the facility. (b) That the name and telephone number of the on-site manager shall be kept on file with the Code Enforcement Division. ~ 6. That the trash storage areas shall be maintained in a manner satisfactory to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. 7. That no signs shall be visible off-site identifying this use as a board and care facility. 8. That subject property shall be maintained in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file in the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1(Conditional Use Permit No. 1801) and as conditioned herein. 9. 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 (with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (1:50-1:55) • 06-30-03 Page 9 JUNE 30, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04715 OWNER: Tom Stuil, Aspen La Loma Circie Properties, 2951 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Bryan Myrick, Brian's Auto Service, 4420 Avenida De Los Arboles, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 LOCATION: 1258 North La Loma Circle. Property is approximately 1.4 acres, having a frontage of 385 feet on the south side of La Loma Circle, located 500 feet south of the centerline of Miraloma Avenue (Brian's Auto Service). To permit an automotive repair business within an existing industrial building. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-94 Concurred with staff Granted sr8622av.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 6 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04715, 1258 North La Loma Circle - Brian's Auto Service, a request to permit an automotive repair business within an existing industrial building, Applicant's Testimony: ~ Brian Myrick, 4420 Avenida De Los Arboles, Yorba Linda, CA, proposes to open a one-man shop auto service and do general automotive repair and scheduled maintenance. Commissioner Vanderbilt states he had the opportunity to visit the site from the street due to street repair, and at that time he noticed there were a number of vehicles parked there. He asked if the applicant understood the vehicles consisted of a racecar trailer with a big hauler. Mr. Myrick responded the tenant in the unit next to him owns the racecar trailer with big hauler, and the tenant would be leaving on the 1 St of the month. • • ~ - ~ ~iiie: • . _-- - •ii~i •- _ •- OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04715 (to permit an automotive repair facility in an existing industrial building) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated June 30, 2003. VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) ~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (1:56-2:00) 06-30-03 Page 10 JUNE 30, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. CEQA NEGATNE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3843 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04717) OWNER: Shakour & Cyrus, 120 North La Reina Circle # 1, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Shakour Cyrus, 2600 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 2600 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 0.29-acre, located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Magnolia Avenue (Wheel Service Texaco). Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on June 19, 2000 to expire June 19, 2003) to retain retail tire sales and installation, automobile repair with accessory sales of parts, and used automobile sales in a former gasoline service station. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-95 Approved Approved reinstatement for 5 years (to expire on June 19, 2008) sr3031 ey.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 7 as Conditional Use Permit No. 3843, 2600 West Lincoln Avenue - Wheel Service Texaco, a request for reinstatement of the permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on June 19, 2000 to expire June 19, 2003) to retain retail tire sales and installation, automobile repair with accessory sales of parts, and used automobile sales in a former ~ gasoline service station. ApplicanYs Testimony: Shakour Cyrus, 2600 West Lincoln Avenue, owner of Wheel Service Texaco, states if his time limitation could be extended fo nine years it would enable him to establish longevity. The CUP (Conditional Use Permit) has been approved for five years, prior to that it was three years, and prior to that it was 1 year. Therefore, psychologically it was not good establishment for the morale of the business. Chairperson Bostwick stated in the morning session Commission discussed whether the time limitation was too long rather than not long enough. The property needs tender loving care, the landscaping needs to be installed and maintained, because being right on the corner of Lincoln and Magnolia Avenue it stands out. Additionally, it does not seem to matter when Commission comes by, cars are still being worked on outside of the base. Mr. Cyrus states he does not have control of customers coming in, and sometimes has to ask customers to move their cars to the street. He is not disputing what Commission is trying to do, but he is asking for the time limitation to be extended to nine years. Commissioner Eastman asked why nine years and why a shorter time period would no# work for him. Mr. Cyrus responded it seems within nine years he would just be establishing longevity of a good solid plan to do what is best for the business. Commissioner Eastman states on the justification report he mentioned being able to sell or lease the business. She asked if that is a part of his long-term plan. Mr. Cyrus responded no, the business is his living. He cannot sell the business and he cannot buy anything, even ~ as small as it may seem. He is trying to survive there. 06-30-03 Page 11 JUNE 30, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Romero stated if seems Commission has used the time limit as a mechanism to make sure the • property stays nice and within code. His concern is in giving the nine years, Commission would lose that mechanism. Therefore, he would be more supportive of three years. Commissioner Eastman states she has concerns with the fact that he is stating one thing, but Commission has something else. It makes her unsure of what his real intent is. All along Lincoln Avenue the City has put a lot of investment into upgrading the street to make it look nice and his property needs to be maintained up to a certain standard. Mr. Cyrus responded he is doing his best, and whatever he takes against his basic living he spends on fhe property. He does not even own a house, he is renting. So, it is not that he is making money and not spending it on the property. On a more personal note, his 18-year-old son has leukemia and is undergoing a blood transplant as he speaks. It is not only the property he is living for, but he also has other obligations. He understands the property needs to be maintained according to Commission's recommendations, but asks Commission understand if given a longer time limitation, he could gradually make the required improvements. Commissioner O'Connell asked what is the significance of nine years versus the three years Commission suggests. Mr. Cyrus responded he is improving each year, and if he were to go to a bank and apply for a loan to improve his property with a three-year permit, he would not get it. But, if he could present a nine-year permit, he would be in a better position to receive a loan. Commissioner O'Connell asked how long he has owned the property. Mr. Cyrus responded less than 10 years. Commissioner O'Connell asked if he has had the same business on the property the entire time. ~ Mr. Cyrus responded yes, they have had the property for 10 years and prior to that it was gas. He believes they have been operating on the property since 1983. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved the request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3843 (Tracking No. CUP2003-04717) to retain retail tire sales and installation, automobile repair with accessory sales of parts, and used automobile sales for a period of five (5) years, to expire on June 19, 2008. Amended Resolution No. PC2000-83 in its entirety and replaced it with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: 1. That this permit shall expire on June 19, 2008. 2. That the parking lot shall be maintained and repaired when necessary to prevent potholes and uneven surfaces and to ensure that parking spaces are properly marked. 3. That no outdoor storage of, display of, or work on vehicles or vehicular parts shall be ~ permitted, and that all work on vehicles shall be conducted wholly inside the building. 4. That no banners, pennants or balloons shall be permitted unless a Special Event Permit is first obtained. 06-30-03 Page 12 JUNE 30, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 5. That no banners or other advertising shall be displayed within the service bays facing the public rights-of-way unless a Speciai Event Permit has first been issued. 6. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dies. 7. That no inoperable vehicles or parts shall be stored on the premises outside the building. 8. That a maximum of four (4) cars available for sale shall be displayed at any one time. 9. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1. 10. That the existing wrought-iron fence shall be continuously maintained in good condition. 11. 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. 12. That signage for this business shall be limited to the existing permitted wall sign. 13. 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: 4-2 (Commissioners Koos and Romero voted no; with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (2:01-2:11) u 06-30-03 Page 13 JUNE 30, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04711 OWNER: Robert D. Zantos, 1832 North Glassell Street, Orange, CA 92865 AGENT: Roger Padilla, Royal Coach By Victor, 1742 North Case Street, Orange, CA 92856 LOCA710N: 1190 North Kraemer Boulevard. Property is approximately 1.9 acres, located at the southeast corner of Coronado Street and Kraemer Boulevard (Royal Coach by Victor). To permit conversion of new automobiles into limousines. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-96 Concurred with staff Granted sr1120cw.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 8 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04711, 1190 North Kraemer Boulevard, a request to permit conversion of new automobiles into limousines. Applicant's Testimony: Rodger Padilla, 1742 N. Case St., Orange, CA, representing Royal Coach by Victor, states they propose to convert automobiles into limousines. ~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Bostwick stated Condition No. 1 states there will be no outdoor vehicle sales display area. He wished to clarify if the applicant did not want to display vehicles outside, the same as other automobile services. Mr. Padilla responded no, everything would be inside the building. All maintenance, wash, etc., would be behind the gates and there would not be anything visible from the street. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states site inspection revealed unpermitted chain link fencing with barbed wire visible to Kraemer Boulevard. Therefore, the barbed wire would have to be removed where visible from the public right-of-way. Also, anywhere there is accessory outdoor storage, they would need to make sure if using chain link, there be screening in the chain link slats to make sure it is not visible to the right-of-way or surrounding properties. Additionally, site inspection revealed an existing freestanding sign on Kraemer Boulevard that does not have permits. The planners indicated the business operator does not intend to use the freestanding signs, so they request the sign be removed. Mr. Padilla wished clarification on an existing back gate, located just off the entrance of Coronado Street and Kraemer Boulevard. The gate does not have barbed wire, but does have spikes on the top of it. Mr. McCafferty responded if it is a wrought iron gate that has a Shepard hook on it, there is no requirement that it be removed. Mr. Padilla concurred it is a wrought iron gate with a Shepard's hook. Also, their sign on Coronado Street would be mounted onto the building, and there would not be a freestanding sign. He asked if the freestanding sign located at the site, which is the property of the landlord of the building, relevant to him since his landlord is still staying in the building. • Mr. McCafferty responded the sign does not have permits and if the decision is to retain it, there would need to be a plan brought in that indicates compliance with City Codes. 06-30-03 Page 14 JUNE 30, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Padilla states the sign does not have anything to do with his company. ~ Chairperson Bostwick clarified the requirements would state that the sign has to be removed. Therefore, if the landlord would like to have the sign there, he would need to come down to the City and get his own permits to make it lega4. Mr. Padilla responded okay. Commissioner Koos states he would not want to agree with anything that he is not sure the owner would be okay with. Mr. Padilla responded he would cali him and tell him the sign needed to go. Commissioner Koos states the item could be continued for two weeks, giving him time to discuss it with his landlord. Mr. Padilla responded he needed it done as soon as possible, so if the sign needed to go he would have the sign removed tomorrow. Commissioner O'Connell states Condition No. 5 states, "no other automobile repair and/or auto bodywork shall be permitted on the premises". He asked if he does repair to the limos when they are returned for light warranty work, etc. Mr. Padilla responded warranty work is all subdivided out. So, whether it goes to the dealer or somebody else is unknown to him, but they only work on new vehicles. ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04711 (to permit the conversion of new vehicles into limousines) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated June 30, 2003, with the following modifications: Added the following conditions of approval to read as follows: That the barbed wire shall be removed from the chain link fencing visible from the public right-of- way and that PVC slats shall be installed in chain link fencing intended to screen any permitted outdoor storage. That the unpermitted freestanding sign on Kraemer Boulevard shall be removed. That the permit shall be subject to finalization of Specific Plan Adjustment No. 2003-00022 as approved by City Council ordinance. VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (2:12-2:18) 06-30-03 Page 15 JUNE 30, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00104 9c. REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF "GRANDFATHER" PROVISIONS CITY-INITIATED: City of Anaheim, Planning Department, ~200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 804, 808, 809, 812, 815. 816. 817. 825. 900. 902. 903 904, 907, 911, 915, 919, 923, 924, 928, 930, 936, 940, 1000, 1001, 1004, 1007, 1011, 1015, 1018, 1021, 1022, 1024 and 1025 West Broadwav and contiquous parcels 216 South West Street and 217 South Illinois Street and 315 South Citron Street. Study Area 3- This area consists of 36 properties with a combined area of approximately 6.5 acres. Thirty- five (35) properties are located on the north and south sides of Broadway between West Street to the west and Citron Street to the east. One additional property is located on the west side of Citron Street approximately 192 feet south of the centerline of Broadway. City-initiated request for reclassification of the subject properties from the RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) zone to the RS-5000 and RS- 7200 (Residential, Single-Family) zones or a less intense zone. ~ ~ RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-97 Approved Granted, unconditionally Requested City Attorney's Office to prepare a draft Ordinance for City Council review and approval. sr2130ds.doc Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 9 as a City-initiated request for reclassification within Study Area No. 3 of the Anaheim Colony Historic District from the RM-2400 Residential Multiple-Family Zone to the RS- 5000 in the 7200 Zone. The reclassification is based on extensive community input within the Colony, and essentially for the most part, an effort by the community to self-determine what they would like their neighborhood to be. Staff is supportive in bringing the mechanics forward to the Commission. Commissioner Eastman abstained from Item No. 9. Public Testimony: Julio Giraldo, 930 W. Broadway, states he is not in favor of the request because he has noticed an increase in traffic and noise. Alarms from the cars go two to three days without the knowledge of the owner because their apartment is located on Illinois Street, the street between Broadway and Lincoln Avenue. Traffic has increased so bad that sometimes they cannot find parking in front of their own houses. He can understand building something small onto houses, like a granny unit, but when they are big apartments and damaging structures in front of the houses, he cannot understand. When he bought his home he was trying to be part of the Anaheim Colony. They like the Colony area, enjoy the way the houses look and try to keep it the same way without damaging the structure. Phyllis Mueller, 734 N. Clementine, states she is a resident of the Anaheim Colony Historic District, and also works for the City in the Neighborhood Preservation Office as the Neighborhood Development Coordinator. She is in favor of Item No. 9. She read an e-mail she submitted to staff, which she feels, gives perspective on what is currently before Commission: 06-30-03 Page 16 JUNE 30, 2003 PLANN.ING COMMISSION MINUTES u Hi Greg, A contractor was directed from Planning to the Neighborhood Preservation Office to discuss the owner's desire to demolish a bungalow court of three craftsman units, which are listed as qualified historic structures in the preservation plan and build multi-family units as many as possible. I told him about the demolition process and the preservation plan, but then he told me that he was told by Planning that while once building multi-family would have been possible, the property had been down zoned in the late 1980's and the existing units were grandfathered in. In order to build multi- family now he would need a zoning change, and he was told that probably would not be approved because it would be spot zoning. He understood and would take this information back to the owner. So, congratulations on all of your work so long ago to down zone. It worked to preserve this historic property at 504 and 506 E. Sycamore. Many thanks. Share this with the other planners if you wish, and on Monday, the Planning Commission, more neighborhoods to consider saving. lis Mueller Alan Jeffrey, 2160 Waverly Dr., 940 W. Broadway, Anaheim, CA, states the house he owns was built in 1921 and is a part of Study Area No. 3. He purchased the house as an investment property two years ago, and in the short time that he owned it, several neighbors within close proximity to him have historically restored or improved their homes. He supports the resolution to down zone his property and others in his area. The Colony is just starting to become known as a desirable place to live. If someone were to build a multi-family dwelling or apartment complex in his neighborhood, it would make his property less desirable to live in and lower the value of his investment. Not ~ only does he support down zoning in the recommended areas, but also feels Redevelopment should be discussing ways to eliminate some of the existing apartments, and replace them with move-on historic homes. That would be a welcome use of a bulldozer. Frank J. Razo, 549 S. Resh St., Anaheim, CA, states there is so much traffic on his street that it looks like Harbor Boulevard. There is hardly any place to park. He has a son who is in a wheel chair that comes to visit him sometimes on Saturdays or Sundays, and there are so many apartments that there is no place for him to park. There are too many apartments there. The area could be a beautiful place if they would stop building apartments. He and his neighbors try to clean up the whole street, and make it look beautiful because they love Anaheim and they love the street where they live. Steve White, 115 S. Ohio St., Apt. D, Anaheim, CA, states he is in opposition. He owns the home at 809 W. Broadway, which was his family's home and he grew up there. It is a 14,000 square foot double lot with a 3,000 square foot single-family home on it. The history of Broadway and probably the zoning as well, is that during the Second World War a lot of the larger homes on Broadway were used by multi-families while the soldiers were away in service. He believes that is where the multi-family zoning came from. He is in the process of restoring the interior and doing a lot of work to it, and would like to retain the RM-2400 zoning. They have been there for over 50 years and would like to retain the higher use. He understands people's feelings that somehow it benefits the single-family homes to eliminate the larger use, but feels that is an imposition, every time someone wins, someone loses. His concern is that Commission might be preventing what might be an allowable use when there is really no demand for it. If he desired to build units there he would come to the Commission to get permits. There is plenty of opportunity to oppose the use. Gail Kramer, 331 S. Ohio St., Anaheim, CA, states she speaks to them not only as a property owner in the Colony District, but also as a mortgage broker. She purchased her home in Anaheim two and'/Z years ago and was a little reluctant to move her family here simply because she was unsure about Anaheim and where it was going. She has grown to believe in the Colony District incredibly. Over the last 2%2 years she has purchased three other properties ~ in the Colony for other members of her family to reside in, and also as an investment for herself. In the last 2%2 years she has done upwards of 70 mortgages in the neighborhood. Property values have risen close to 40% in that period of time, largely because they have an incredible excitement going on in the neighborhood and a revival of 06-30-03 Page 17 JUNE 30, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES the love of history. She has the opportunity to see real estate appraisais on a daily basis, and it is very clear to her • that when a single-family residence is located within an area that is impacted by apartments, there is no doubt the value of the single-family residences are negatively impacted. She read an excerpt from a real estate appraisal on a property that is located within the Kroger/Melrose District, which has approximately 60% single-family and approximately 40% multi-family: "The neighborhood in which the subject property is located consists of a mix of single- family and multiple-family residences. The multiple-family residences in the neighborhood are apartments with a high rental factor, which has a negative impact on the value of nearby single-family residences and thus the subject property'. The interesting thing to note is that when the refinance was done on the property, and the appraisal received, it was for a first mortgage. The appraiser went to the home and surveyed the home in the neighborhood. About six months thereafter, a second mortgage was taken out on the property. A mortgage company that did an online appraisal where they did not have to actually come to the neighborhood to do a survey did it. Therefore, they were simply looking at the property, the size, the bedroom count, the bathroom count, etc., relative to the neighborhood in general. The second appraisal came in $40,000 higher than the appraisal that was done by an appraiser who actually went to the property. All over the neighborhood sounds of saws, hammers, new roofs going up and new lawns being put in are heard, and it is because of what is happening in our single-families. She implored Commission to do whatever they could to prevent multi-families going into the neighborhoods. Jack Marston, 214 S. Melrose St., Anaheim, CA, states he is in favor of Items 9, 10, and 11. He bought his home in 1989 and it is historically registered in Anaheim and nationally. The house has a very colorful history, being one of only six or seven houses that were built out of the wood that was salvaged from the Hotel Del Campo, which is a very famous hotel that was in Anaheim around the turn of the century. When he purchased his home, it had been rental property for approximately 15 years, and it was in grave disrepair. He and his wife used to refer to it, not as their "historical home" but as their "hysterical home", and the neighborhood was also bad. What made them buy the house is that they saw the plans that the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency had for the neighborhood. The ~ plans were to put in new streets, sidewalks, camphor trees, and old-fashion lamps, all in which they did over the years. Within the first six months he spent $20,000 of his own money to fix up the inside of the house, and then with the help of an Anaheim Redevelopment Agency Loan he spent another $40,000 over the next year to rehabilitate the outside of the house to make it historically accurate. It turned from the armpit of their dreams to "Marston Manor" and they are very proud of it. The City did their part and the neighborhood has really come up. The reason he was able to buy the house is because it fell out of escrow after somebody had been in escrow for over a month on it. The reason it fell out of escrow is because the man who bought the house wanted to tear it down and build a quadroplex, because at the time it was zoned for such. The Commission did a great job by downzoning the neighborhood and not allowing that to happen. Because of that, a great historic home still exists, and it is his home and he loves it. He feels Ms. Kramer was probably talking about his neighborhood or one of his neighbors when she was talking about her appraisal report, because that is similar to what happened to his house. If it were not for some of the homes that were already bulldozed down and turned into quadro-plexes, he knows his neighborhood would be nicer, and freer of crime and graffiti. Currently, there is a high turnover rate in the quadroplexes and had it not been for what the Commission did during that period in 1989 his street would have turned into what Melrose is just south of Broadway. One entire side of it is all apartments and quadroplexes such that their turnover rate, low rent stucco apartments, and the people that live there are such that to his knowledge to this day the pizza man will not deliver to that street. That is how it was when he bought his house, the pizza man would not deliver because the neighborhood was so run down. Now it has been fixed up and brought up and the pizza man comes. He understands the past cannot be fixed but he is hoping Commission would pass the resolution so that no other neighborhoods are messed up in the future. Sheri McCracken wished clarification on the City budget. Chairperson Bostwick clarified knowledge of the City budget could be obtained at the Council Meetings. The Planning Commission strictly deals with land use and zoning. ~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 06-30-03 Page 18 JUNE 30, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Koos referred to staff and asked them to discuss the recent Planning Commission/City Council • action regarding the state mandated Granny Flat Resolutions, and how those are still options for anybody who could meet the development standards of the zone. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, states the California Legislature recently adopted a new law that required cities to have in place a ministerial process for approval of second units wherever there are single-family or multiple-family zoned properties in the City of Anaheim. What that means is, second units must be approved without having to have a variance or Conditional Use Permit or anything else that would require a public hearing. Standards are set, and if inet, a permit for a second unit can be obtained. Recently, the City Council with the Planning Commission's recommendation, approved an ordinance setting up such a process and having all of the standards in place for setback, parking and etc., so that-the second they are built they will be something that fits into a neighborhood and provide adequate parking for the second units, not a duplex, but rather an accessory to the main dwelling unit. This is something that happens throughout the City of Anaheim in all residentially zoned properties that are developed with a single-family dwelling, and the only exception is the areas of deficiency that have been identified by resolution at the Planning Commission's last meeting. Those are the areas where the sewers are in an existing deficient capacity that it really would not be wise to permit an additional dwelling unit or else where parking is such a serious issue that the neighborhood has elected to have permit parking only. Other than that, and in the Colony District as well, if setback requirements, etc., are met for a second unit, one could be put in. Commission Koos feels it helps people being concerned about their current rights being diminished, but for him just because something has been zoned RM-1200 or otherwise for a number of years, does not mean that when the upzoning occurred or zoning was placed when the City actually adopted the zoning code or whatever mechanism took place to zone it that way, it was the right decision. As seen in Item No. 11, there are non-residential uses that were changed to densify the City. The plan being looked at for Study Area No. 3 is sound. He would hate to see the house on the northwest corner on Broadway and Citron Street altered in anyway, regarding the exercising rights to place a number of units there. Given the size of the lot, and the lot adjacent to it, a lot of units under RM- 1200 or even RM-2400 zoning can be seen. Therefore, he is in full support of the CUP. He has lived in the Colony ~ Area for a little over 3 years now and feels that most people, despite survey returns or presence at a chamber, will tell you if they live in the neighborhood that they would rather see the homes preserved to single-family than being changed to apartments. Last year while running for City Council he talked to many people in the neighborhood, and the number one concern was overcrowding. He feels there is overwhelming support for this in the community. Chairperson Bostwick concurs with Commissioner Koos and states at the morning session he told a story of how the City got to this point. A couple of companies came in and built apartments indiscriminately around the town, and they were basically turned to slums. It is a great accomplishment that the Colony District has come together, put their back to the wheel, pushed for the reclassification, are willing to step forward to fix up the homes in their neighborhoods, and keep their neighborhoods as single-family residential neighborhoods rather than turning them into apartment areas. It is good to see it come to fruition. It has been a long time coming. OPPOSITION: One person spoke in opposition to the subject request. IN SUPPORT: 6 people spoke in favor of the subject request, and a photograph was submitted. IN GENERAL: One person spoke regarding items that were not under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. ACTION Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 2003-00104, unconditionally, to reclassify properties within Study Area 3 as follows: . (i) The property located at 315 South Citron Street, located on west side of Citron Street, approximately 199 feet south of the centerline of Broadway, from the RM-2400 zone to the RS-7200 zone. 06-30-03 Page 19 JUNE 30, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • (ii) All other properties within Study Area 3 on the north and south sides of Broadway between West Street and Citron Street from the RM-2400 zone to the RS-5000 zone. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Eastman abstained; with one Commission vacancy. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. MOTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Eastman abstained; with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby request that the City Attorney's Office prepare a draft Ordinance for City Council review and approval which contains provisions for "grandfathering" of legally-established multiple-family dwellings such as second dwelling units, senior second units, duplexes, triplexes, and apartment complexes that become non-conforming by the reclassification of the subject properties. DISCUSSION TIME: 31 minutes (2:19-2:50) ~ r 06-30-03 Page 20 JUNE 30, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00105 10c. REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF "GRANDFATHER" PROVISIONS CITY-INITIATED: City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 7~ 703. 706. 710, 711. 714, 718, 720, 721. 725, 729, 730, 731, 732, 735, 738. 741, 742, 745. 746. 747, 750. 751, 755 and 756 (2 aarcels) North Lemon Street. contiguous parcels 211 West Wilhelmina Street and 202 West North Street and 700, 703, 706, 707, 710, 711. 714, 715, 718, 719, 720, 723. 726, 727, 730, 731, 734 737 738 739 742 743 746 747 750 751 754 757, 760 and 761 North Zevn Street. Study Area 7- This area consists of 57 properties on the east and west sides of Lemon Street and the east and west sides of Zeyn Street, with a combined area of approximately 9.17 acres, located between North Street to the north and Wilhelmina Street to the south. City-initiated request for reclassification of the subject properties from the RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) zone to the RS-5000 or the RS- 7200 (Residential, Single-Family) zone or a less intense zone. ~ RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-98 Approved Granted, unconditionafly Requested City Attorney's Office to prepare a draft Ordinance for City Council review and approval. sr2131 ds.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 10 as Reclassification Nos. 2003-00105, a City-initiated request for reclassification of nine study areas in the Colony Historic District. Commissioner Koos abstained from Item No. 10, as he owns property within the study area. ApplicanYs Testimony: Carolyn Yellis, 619 N. Zeyn Street, Anaheim, CA, states she is in favor of the reclassification for the 700 block, and asked if the classification for the 500 and 600 block of North Zeyn is RM-2400. She requests that they be changed if they are. Ms. Yellis congratulated Commission on passing the reso4ution for the 700 block, and feels it is a step in the right direction for the families of Anaheim. Chairman Bostwick advised she could receive information regarding the classification for the 500 and 600 block of North Zeyn at the Planning and Zoning counter. Public Testimony: Sheri McCracken states due to problems with people doing things they should not be doing in the neighborhood, and due to Mr. Daly being elected County Recorder, she is disputing and appealing the reclassification. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- • ~ ~ ~ ~ • 06-30-03 Page 21 JUNE 30, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ OPPOSITION: None IN SUPPORT: 3 people were in favor of the subject request (1 spoke in favor, and 2 filled out speaker cards indicating their support). IN GENERAL: One person spoke regarding items that were not under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 2003-00105, unconditionally, to reclassify properties within Study Area 7 as follows: (i) The properties on the west side of Lemon Street between North Street and Wilhelmina Street from the RM-2400 zone to the RS-7200 zone. (ii) The remaining properties in Study Area 7 located on both sides of Zeyn Street, and on the east side of Lemon Street, between North Street and Wilhelmina Street, from the RM-2400 zone to the RS-5000 zone. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained; with one Commission vacancy} Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. MOTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Koos abstained; with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby request that the City Attorney's Office prepare a ~ draft Ordinance for City Council review and approval which contains provisions for "grandfathering" of legally-established multiple-family dwellings such as second dwelling units, granny units, duplexes, triplexes, and apartments complexes that become non-conforming by the reclassification of the subject properties. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (2:51-2:55) • 06-30-03 Page 22 JUNE 30, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00106 11c. REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF "GRANDFATHER" PROVISIONS CITY- INITIATED: City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: Study Area 1- 512, 516, 517, 520, 521. 524, 525, 526, 529. 530. 533, 534, 537, 539. 540, 542 and 543 West Chestnut Street. This area consists of 21 properties with a combined area of 3.52 acres. Seventeen (17) properties are located on the north and south sides of Chestnut Street, approximately 165 feet west of the centeriine of Harbor Boulevard. 513, 517, 521 and 527 West Broadwav. Four (4) additional properties are located on the north side of Broadway, approximately 165 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-99 Study Area 2- 502, 506, 507, 510, 511, 514, 515, 518, 519, 522, 523, 526 527 530 531 534 535 539 540 543 544 548 549 550 551 555 556 558, and 559 South Resh Street. 612 and 706 West Santa Ana Street. and 507 511 515 519 523 527 531 535 539 543 549 553 555 and 559 South Janss Street. This area consists of 45 properties on the east and west sides of Resh Street and the west side of Janss Street, with a combined area of approximately 5.72 acres, located between Santa Ana Street to the north and Water Street to the south. ~ RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-100 Study Area 4- 302. 308, 312, 318, 324, 328, 400, 404, 410, 414, 420 and 424 North Citron Street. This area consists of 12 properties on the east side of Citron Street, with a combined area of approximately 2.0 acres, located between Sycamore Street to the north and Cypress Street to the south. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-101 Study Area 5- 301, 307. 319. 331. 401, 407, 415, 417, 421, and 427 North Harbor Boulevard. This area consists of 10 properfses on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, with a combined area of approximately 1.73 acres, located between Sycamore Street to the north and Cypress Street to the south. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-102 Study Area 6- 302. 306. 308, 312. 316, 320 and 324 North Lemon Street. This area consists of 8 properties with a combined area of approximately 1.35 acres. Seven (7) properties are located on the east side of Lemon Street, between Adele Street to the north and Cypress Street to the south. 402 North Lemon Street. This property is located at the northeast corner of • Adele Street and Lemon Street. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-103 06-30-03 Page 23 Approved Granted, unconditionally Requested City Attorney's Office to prepare a draft Ordinance for City Council review and approval. JUNE 30, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Study Area 8- 206, 214 and 216 East Adele Street and 317 and 321 North Emilv Street. This area consists of 5 properties on the south side of Adele Street and the west side of Emily Street, with a combined area of approximately 0.74 acres, located between Claudina Street to the west and Emily Street to the east. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-104 Study Area 9- 202, 204, 208, 212, 218 and 224 East Broadwav. This area consists of 6 properties on the south side of Broadway, with a combined area of approximately 1.0 acre, located between Claudina Street to the west and Philadelphia Street to the east. RECLASSI~ICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-105 City-initiated request for reclassification of the subject properties from the CL (Commercial, Limited), RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family), RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family), PD-C/RM-2400 and (Parking District - Commercial/RM-2400 Zone) zones to the RS-5000 and RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) zones or a less intense zone. sr2132ds.doc Chairman Bostwick introduced Item No. 11 as Reclassification No. 2003-00106, a City-initiated request for reclassification of nine study areas in the Colony Historic District. Elizabeth Moore, 559 South Janss Street, Anaheim, CA, states she has lived in Anaheim since 1958 and watched ~ the beautiful downtown Anaheim falling apart. She asked what the Commissian planned to do about it because Janss Street is nice and very well kept. Chairman Bostwick states they are going to try to keep it a nice street. The area across from the elementary school is zoned RM-2400, which would mean apartments could be built there. Therefore, Commission would like to return it to RM-5,000, which are single-family homes. Elizabeth Moore states it has been R-2 since 1958. Chairman Bostwick states in 1958 she was probably under the County zoning, but under the City of Anaheim it is going to be RS-5,000, which is a residential single-family zone. Esther Poole resides at 324 North Citron Street, across the street from the field of the Anaheim High School. She states no one parks in front of her house or across the street at night, but during the day it is a different story! The Parks and Recreation has a contract with the school, so they live across the street from a park and a high school. As far as the neighbors are concerned, people in Area No. 4, who are coming in buying homes and maintaining their property, parking is not a problem. When she purchased her home, she was told that it was an R-2 and a selling feature to be able to build a unit, if wanted, in the back of their home. She does not have a need to, and she lives alone, but it is the principle of the matter. Therefore, when she received the survey in the mail, she voted against it. She asks Commission leave it as it is, and if Commission wants to do something for them, that they help them out with traffic, which has increased on Citron Street. She teaches at Lakewood High School, and they have painted the parking areas around the school red so people are not blocked in. There is a problem in the community because of the people that come in for the park situation, and the people who park in front of the fire hydrant which is in front of her house, but on weekends and at night there is no problem. She sees no problem in Area No. 4, and feels Commission is taking away property rights. She asks that Area No. 4 be left as is. ~ Michelle Lieberman, 319 North Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA, states her home is in Study Area No. 5 and she feels the reclassification, which affects the Anaheim Colony, is one of the best things that has come before Commission, and that Commission's vote for the reclassification would only have a positive impact on the Colony for generations to come. 06-30-03 Page 24 JUNE 30, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Andrew Bartell, 206 East Dell Street states he lives in Study Area No. 8, and is wholeheartedly for the proposal. His block is predominately single-family residential, and he would like to see it preserved as such. He feels if apartments went into Study Area No. 8, it would be very detrimental to the integrity of the neighborhood. Lori Green, 513 West Broadway, Anaheim, CA, states she just recently purchased her home and hoped that the historic preservation would gradually move up the block to the location of Carl's Jr. She is in favor of the proposal and has a granny unit behind her house with all the permits. She is concerned with adjoining properties that have structures that might not be legal. She asks what she would have to do to get additional permits, and would anyone ever contact her to inform her if additional permits were needed. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, advised the proposal Planning Commission would be acting upon is that legally established, non-conforming units, including second units, may remain and may rebuild incase they are destroyed by fire. Under the existing Code, if completely destroyed by fire, they would not be able to rebuild. The proposal is to leave the right to rebuild if the owner chooses to do so, to whatever the zoning is at the time the property is down zoned. It has to have been legally established, and cannot go back after the fact to legally establish something that was not legally established in the first place. Barbara Gonzales, 330 South Ohio Street, Anaheim, CA, states 315 South Citron is two doors across the alley from her. It is an apartment that was spot rezoned several decades ago. Sadly, the residents face onto trash cans and an alley, and she feels that is not the way the City would like to have residents live. She also lives two blocks from Resh and Janss Streets, which is Study Area No. 2. In that area, the majority of the homes are single-family, however, there are several tri-plexes and four-plexes. It is also disheartening to see a single-famiiy residence with a two-story apartment building overlooking the backyard of a smaller home. She is in favor of the change and feels in general, individuals who live in any of the study areas are concerned about apartments being built and taking over the quality of life, increasing the parking and density of the area. She encourages Commission to consider the change. ~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commission Koos states he once lived on Chestnut Street and feels it is a great example of zoning gone bad in an historic area. The north side of that street was once rezoned parking in part to facilitate anticipated commercial growth along Lincoln Avenue. Coming from Harbor Boulevard, the first residential home on the north side of that street was demolished by the predecessor to Washington Mutual in an effort to supply more parking. Sadly, it is always empty and the community sees a parking lot rather than a home. Aside from that issue, current zoning leaves it open to future parking lots, if that were to ever happen, it could happen under the current zoning. There are approximately 5 or 6 lots on the street that were converted to apartments some time in the 1950's. When driving down Chestnut Street you see a contrast of Craftsman Bungalow's, Victorians, and a 1950's four-plex, which has little architectural value. It wrecks the integrity of the street. The street is a snapshot of what could happen on any number of streets if this action is not taken today. He applauds the staff's comprehensive work on the study areas, which has gone back as far as 10 years, with the most work being done in the last two years, along with the community. It is long overdue and becoming sheik to live in Anaheim. Orange saw it in the 1980's in terms of recognizing the value of keeping things old, and Anaheim is currently experiencing it. He hopes Commission goes along with the proposal, as it is sound policy. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: One person spoke in opposition to the subject request. IN SUPPORT: 7 people were in favor of the subyect request (5 spoke in favor, and 2 filfed out speaker cards indicating their support). ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration • Granted Reclassification No. 2003-00106, unconditional4y, to reclassify properties within Study Area 1 as follows: 06-30-03 Page 25 JUNE 30, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (i) The properties located on the north and south sides of Chestnut Street, ~ approximately 174 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard, from the RM- 2400 and PD-C/RM-2400 zones to the RS-5000 zone. (ii) The properties located on the north side of Broadway, approximately 176 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard, from the RM-2400 to the RS-7200 zone. And, to reclassify properties within: Study Area 2 from the RM-2400 zone to the RS-5000 zone. Study Area 4 from the RM-2400 zone to the RS-7200 zone. Study Area 5 from the RM-1200 zone to the RS-7200 zone. Study Area 6 from the RM-1200 zone to the RS-7200 zone. Study Area 8 from the PD-C / RM-2400 zone to the RS-5000 zone. Study Area 9 from the CL and RM-1200 zones to the RS-7200 zone. VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. MOTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby request that the City Attorney's Office prepare a draft Ordinance for City Council review and approval which contains provisions for "grandfathering" of legally-established multiple-family dwellings such as second dwelling units, granny units, duplexes, triplexes, and apartment complexes that become non-conforming by the reclassification of the subject properties. ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 19 minutes (2:56-3:15) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:16 P.M. TO MONDAY, JULY 14, 2003 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. u Respectfully submitted: ; ~ ~ Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2003. 06-30-03 Page 26