Loading...
Minutes-PC 2003/09/08• . • CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 Council Chambers, City Haii 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRPE ~~1~-~l,4M:~~ ANDERBILT COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: PA~l~B ~ Cl~, GM I;~' ~AIJ~~N, CECILIA FLORES, k,13~rf1~Zf~' ~. 0~(~E Vl4CAN~SEAT) ~ ~~~, § ~ ~ ~ ~-~ ~ ~~~ COMMISSIONERS ABSEN ,~~J~~2. ~3~'~ ~NN~~~~ ~ ~e - ~ , ~R ~ ~;~ ,K~x ~` ~d ~'~ ~A'i ~~ ~;~ ~~ ~~''~'. ~,~ ~~,~, STAFF PRESENT: ~~ ~,~F K ~ ~ ~ ~, ~~~ ~ ~ Selma Mann, Assistan ~itji~4 o~ie~'~ ~ James Ling, Ass~~i~te~vi) ~ngiif~eer x. Greg Hastings, Zornn~D~yisior~i~`lt~la~~ r Tammy Governal€. ~~~'~~~a1~~2esearch Specialist Greg McCafferty, Pri~c~p~Pl n~~ ': y ty ~~ ~~ ~ W~~ Taher Jalai Princi a ~f`'r ~ ic ~ i~ ~ "~ ~~ ~"~tl ~l~orris Senior S~ ~ re~a ~ ~~ ~ ~ , p ~ ~ ~ ~ «~t9. ~ ~' ~ ~« <R,w~, Pat ~taan~ler, Ser~~qr~S` cr,~ta~r„° ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ „~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~~ ~ ,A, ~~ ~ - ~ ~ "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ AGENDA POSTING.~A com~~~~~~op~~i~f~Ehe Plannm~ Commissi A~~nd~~as poste ~~"t 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, Septembe ~, 2003~msid~~ e& ~~ay case lo~ted~n~ ° o~r o ~,th`~;ounc~~hambers, and also in the outside display~ci~sk ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ °~` `~~ ~ ~ ~ ~"~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~,~ ~ ~ ~„~_~ ~~~~ ~~'~ ~r' ~~~` ~` . ~'' ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~.,~ , ~~~~~~ , x ~~ ~;~ ~ ~ PUBLISHED: Anahei ~; ~Bulleti ~~lews~p~r~'I Thur"sd~ri.~A~uc°~s~~14.~00~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ & ~~ CALL TO ORDER ~ ~` ~ ~ ~ E~~j~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~'~ ~ ~ ~ ru ~~~ ~ ~ ~E~~'~ ~ _~.~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~y ~"~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~"~ ~'.~. ~~,~ PLANNING ~f~MM(S~S;~ C1R~INCr ~SI('~N '(~^~~A~`l~l~ • PRESENTATIO(~ ~ '~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~8~' T3HE ~~,t~1~R~Ca,~: 04,~NTY 1~fA~l~~1STRICT ON THE GROUNDWATER REP~I~II~~ NtEIV 1~~~f~M ~~ ~ • STAFF UPDATE TO COM~'fS~l~~`~~1~US CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 AGENDA 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, p/ease complete a speaker card and submit if fo the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chairperson Vanderbilt PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARtNG iTEMS ADJOURNMENT H:\DOCS\CLERICAUMI N UTESWC090803.DOC SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. PLANNING COMMISSlON QPPOINTMENTS: Chairperson Vanderbilt indicated a few Commissioners have expressed an interest in the appointments to the Boards and Committees, therefore he proceeded with the appointments. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES AND ALTERNATES FOR THE FOLLOWlNG • ANAHEIM TRANSPORTATION NETWORK BOARD OF DIRECTORS (Current Representative: Commissioner Bosfinrick) ACTION: Commissioner Vanderbilt offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby reappoint Commissioner Bostwick to continue to serve as the Representative for the Anaheim Transportation Network Board of Directors. ~ • PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (Current Representative: Vacant) ACTION: Commissioner Vanderbilt offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby appoint Chairperson Vanderbilt as the Representative for the Parks and Recreation Commission. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD (CDAB) FOR THE BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (Current Representative: Vacant) (Current Alternate: Commissioner Eastman) ACTION: Commissioner Vanderbilt offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy}, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby appoint Commissioner Eastman as the Representative for the Community Development Advisory Board (CDAB) for the Block Grant Program. (The appointment for the Community Development Advisory Board (CDAB) for the Block Grant Program was continued to the PC meeting of September 22, 2003.) • UTILITIES UNDERGROUND CONVERSION SUBCOMMITTEE (Current Representative: Commissioner Bostwick) • (Current Alternate: Vacant) 09-08-03 Page 2 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ACTION: Commissioner Vanderbilt offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTtON CARRIED (Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby reappoint Commissioner Bostwick to continue to serve as Representative and Commissioner Romero as the alternate for the Utilities Underground Conversion Subcommittee. • GENERAL PLAN ADVlSORY COMMITTEE (GPAC) (Current Representative: Commissioner Bostwick) (Current Alternate: Vacant) ACTION: Commissioner Vanderbilt offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby reappoint Commissioner Bostwick to continue to serve as the Representative and Commissioner Romero as the alternate for the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). • HISTORIC PRESERVATION AD HOC COMMITTEE (Current Representative: Commissioner Eastman) (Current Alternate: Vacant) ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby reappoint Commissioner Eastman as the Representative for the Historic Preservation Ad Hoc Committee. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy), that the • Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby appoint Commissioner Flores as the Alternate for the Historic Preservation Ad Hoc Committee. • COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT WORKING GROUP (Current Representative: Vacant) Appointment for the Community Design Element Working Group was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 22, 2003. Following appointments made, Chairperson Vanderbilt stated two (2) appointments would be tabled to the next Planning Commission meeting since Commissioner O'Connell was absent and due to the existing Planning Commission vacant seat. Therefore, the Community Development Advisory Board (CDAB) for the Bfock Grant Program - Alternate, and Gommunity Design Element Working Group - Representative appointments were continued to the September 22, 2003, Planning Commission meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR: Items 1-A through 1-D 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 Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick abstained on Item 1-D; Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy), for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-B through 1-D, including the abstention of Commissioner Bosfinrick on Item No. 1-D) as recommended by staff. Consent Calendar Item (1-A) was • removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED 09-08-03 Page 3 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) (b) VARIANCE NO. 2853 (TRACKING NO. VAR2003-04573) Phil Bennet, Phillip Bennet Architect, 12361 Baja Paronama, Santa Ana, CA 92705, request for substantial conformance to modify a previously approved exhibit to construct two single family dwellings. Property is located at 809 and 813 South Western Avenue. (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) IN OPPOSITION: 4 people spoke in opposition to the subject request. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Approved Approved VAR2003-04573 (Vote: 4-1 Commissioner Eastman voted no, Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy) sr1125cw.doc Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated the subject item is a request for a substantial conformance for property located at 809 and 813 South Western Avenue. The request is to consfruct two (2) single-family homes for a subdivision that was previously approved and a variance that was previously approved for lots, homes that front on an arterial highway. He stated staff has reviewed the site plan and believes it is in conformance with the previously-approved plan, therefore recommends Commission to find it in substantia! conformance subject to the stipulation in paragraph 14(b) of the staff report, regarding the Lot Line Adjustment. • Chairperson Vanderbilt asked that the applicant or representative to come forward to speak. ApplicanYs Statement: Phil Bennet, Architect, 12361 Baja Paronama, Santa Ana. He is present to answer any questions. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if he had a chance to review the staff report. Mr. Bennet stated he received the staff report in the mail this past Friday, and hasn't reviewed it other than conversations that he has had with Charity Wagner, Planner and informed they are addressing the palm tree issue. Public Testimony: Gordon Walker, 3100 W. Rome Avenue, Anaheim. Stated he has lived on Rome Avenue for 47 years. The Martin home is part of the history of West Anaheim, he was instrumental in getting the City limits pushed west so that his home would be in Anaheim, not in Stanton or Buena Park. He informed that Teranimar Street was named after their four boys, Terry, Randy, Nick and Mark. He stated the home is as beautiful inside as outside, his kids grew up and went to school with the Martin boys and he has been in the home several times. It is a gorgeous symbol of life in the late 1800s' and early 1900s'. For 47 years as I drive down Rome Avenue towards Western, I marvel at the beauty and grace of this old, fine home. I strongly recommend that the City take over this beautiful old home and the finro lots in front of it and preserve it for prosperity. Just because it is not between North Street, South Street, East Street and West Street does not mean it is not an important part of Anaheim's history. He feels it must be preserved and the two lots in front must remain undeveloped so that the home can be viewed from the street. ~ Rodney and Lidia Gatchalian, 815 S. Western Avenue, Anaheim. Stated they live directly next door to the two subject properties that are proposed to being developed. They are presently in opposition, they do not want to see the property line adjusted, as it would take away the view from the historical 09-08-03 Page 4 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • monument. We feel the same way as Mr. Walker and would rather see them undeveloped, but understands they are already zoned for residential development. !n opposition, we don't want to see the family homes be finro stories. Mr. Gatchalian stated they rather have it be built as single story as the rest of the houses are on Western Avenue, in order for it not to obstruct the view from the street of seeing the old Martin's house. Chairperson Vanderbilt clarified their basic reason for opposition is similar to Mr. Walker regarding the aesthetics that they are most concerned with. Mr. & Mrs. Gatchalian was in agreement. Mrs. Gatchalian also stated since they are the next door neighbors they don't want a two-story home built right next to them, viewing into their property. Mr. Gatchalian stated they have a spa in the backyard and explained they want to keep their privacy for their family. Richard Parrish, 93721 Erin Street, Garden Grove. Stated he grew up in West Anaheim on Rome Avenue (since 1956) and was also unofficially adopted by the Martin Family and grew up and spent most of his days up there. He was very close to the Martin boys and Mr. & Mrs. Martin. He indicated Mr. Martin was extremely instrumental in Anaheim civics and the Anaheim Union High School District. He stated not only because he has a bias towards the home, but believes this is a good opportunity for the Cify of Anaheim to annex or purchase the home as a legacy as part of Anaheim. As Mr. Walker stated, it is not downtown, but it is period and registered in the Historical Landmark for Anaheim. He feels building structures in front of it will obstruct the view and the flow of the property. He can understand the need for dwellings but believes that the home at 811 S. Western Avenue would be obstructed by dwellings, would ~ be obfuscated by the proposed homes. He feels for the integrity of West Anaheim that it would be a good opportunity to seize the property, and hopefully if not taken by Anaheim, preserved in some way. There is already a 2-story structure to the north of the property, which is a blemish, however, that is a done deal. He feels Anaheim and concerned citizens should take some action to prevent the proposed dwellings. Charles Bradley, 3208 W. Faircrest Drive, Anaheim. Indicated he has been at his property for 39 years. He received a notification of the proposed request and asked who is the owner of the property because only the architect was listed for the item. The properties at 809, 811, and 813 S. Western Avenue were all sold recently and when you sell everything the property owner could do anything he wants to do with it. He asked is the builder going to tear down the old house and just put two (2) lots on 809 and 813 properties and eliminate 811. Mr. Bennet clarified they are not tearing down the existing house, it is staying as it is and is going to be refurbished on the inside, there has not been any intentions of doing anything with the house. The area where they are requesting a Lot Line Adjustment was at one time a 15-foot or 12-foot wide access easement from Western Avenue, which to his knowledge has never been used. The property in it's state currently has been overgrown and hasn't been taken care of and the only thing they are really asking for is the Lot Line Adjustment so that the two houses that they are proposing on Western Avenue would have wider yards and more open space. As far as being too close to the neighbor's property lines, if they review the site plan I believe the houses are setback 15 feet from the side property lines on those sides. The houses are two stories, but the windows have been limited in facing the adjacent properties. They have complied with all Anaheim zoning setbacks, height restrictions, density requirements, parking requirements and he feels every zoning issue that has been addressed, they have complied with. They understand the neighbor's liking of the existing two-story house since it does have some historical significance and they have not intended to do anything to that house. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • Commissioner Flores asked if the applicant would be willing to change the exterior to match the existing house, wooden instead of stucco. 09-08-03 Page 5 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Bennett indicated it is something they can entertain if Commission wishes to have wood siding for the exterior of the homes. He explained to match the existing Victorian theme is quite expensive to do and they are trying to market the houses in a price range that would be affordable. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated the request today is for a Lot Line Adjustment, and as the applicant has stated all of the conditions of development are being met per City Code and therefore wouldn't require any Planning Commission oversight. He explained having lived in Anaheim all of his life he has seen parts of town change a lot, and wished they haven't but understands that progress and property rights are inherent. It is important to realize today's request is limited to the request of the properly owner while keeping into consideration adjacent neighbor's concerns the Commission has to balance that against the nature of the proposal and the scope of that is very narrow. Commissioner Eastman referred to the palm tree issue and clarified with the applicant if he is working with the planner. Mr. Bennett responded if they are in the way of where the homes are planned to be, they would then remove those trees because it is impossible to transplant something that large, as they usually don't survive. Commissioner Eastman stated she feels that City staff would be able to assist him, and feels the City has moved some substantial palm trees around recentfy. Mr. Sennett responded he is certain that the owners would be open to someone coming in and taking the trees if they wanted them. Commissioner Eastman stated there are four (4) trees and asked how many trees would remain. ~ Mr. Bennett explained there are four (4) trees on the site, but two (2) trees are in question. If he recalls correctly when speaking with the owner, the ones in the way of the house would be removed, but the other ones would remain. Commissioner Eastman stated she feels along with some of City staff and Commissioners, that it would help if the applicant would be able to move the palm trees to another location on the property maybe back towards the existing house in order to keep the feeling that has been there on the property. Mr. Bennett responded it may be something to entertain, but those trees don't do well when they are relocated, and it is a tremendous expense. Commissioner Eastman asks the applicant if he represents the owner for a!I three parcels. Mr. Bennett responded yes. Commissioner Eastman referred to the "back" historic house and asked if there are plans to market the home. Mr. Bennett responded yes. Commissioner Eastman asked if it would be offered as a"for sale" property once it has been refurbished. Mr. Bennett responded yes. Commissioner Eastman stated having been involved in some of the historic preservation efforts in the City, she would suggest that the owner consider keeping the trees and move them closer to the old house • in order to further reinforce the history of that property. Mr. Bennett responded it is something we could look into and entertain. 09-08-03 Page 6 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Eastman stated she feels someone who is interested in a historic house may also be interested in the historic trees, it might help in marketing the property. Mr. Walker asked if he could have a short rebuttal. Chairperson Vanderbilt indicated the public hearing is closed, but asked Mr. Walker to come forward and asked what is the nature of his comment. Mr. Walker stated moving the lot lines so there is no access to the old home from Western Avenue would completely block the view of the house from Western Avenue. Access from Western Avenue has been traditionally a way into the house, he has used it many times himself and feels there should be space between the two houses in order for people to view the old house from Western Avenue. Chairperson Vanderbilt informed that if you're interested in knowing a property owner in Orange County, you may contact the County Clerk Recorder's Office, but does not believe the City provides such information. He explained Reports and Recommendation items are not as significant as a conditional use permit, which, by its very nature, would usually have a more extensive public hearing process, and also today's action would have an appeal option. Commissioner Flores informed there are two different diagrams regarding the location of the parcels. One shows that 811 S. Western Avenue would be visible from Western Avenue and the other diagram shows that it would not be visible. Commissioner Bostwick stated the one in the staff report is the original and the other is the proposed • which the Commission would be voting on today being a Lot Line Adjustment. He informed the residents that there are other properties in West Anaheim similar to this and suggested if they're really interested in the historical preservation in that area, to go to City Council with those properties well in advance of someone buying and dividing them. The subject request was before the Commission prior to this meeting and came through with all the appropriate plans and specifications all they are dealing with today is the Lot Line Adjustment for the two properties out in front. Therefore, he suggested to all concerned that in the future, if they're really interested in the historic properties, that now would be the time to go to City Council and talk with them about creating any of those as historic and purchasing them if they have the funds. Commissioner Eastman stated as far as she is aware the house is not on any city, state or national historic registry (she indicated some people in the audience are showing a disagreement). She noted that unfortunately, none of those things give total protection to anything, just because it is on the list doesn't give it protection, as it is still owned by someone and they have a right to do with it by whatever is allowed by code and the law. She concurred with Commissioner Bostwick and stated it is important to invofve yourself with the rest of the historic preservation. You may have lost in this one, but it is not too late for a lot of other properties. The City has a historic preservation position and you may contact that person for assistance. She also stated she is not in favor of a Lot Line Adjustment for the subject request today because she feels it is a lovely home and you should be able to see the property, it would be sad to lose the home. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved CEQA Negative Declaration is ~ adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. 09-08-03 Page 7 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Bosfinrick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Eastman voted no, Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for determination of substantial conformance for modifications to exhibits for the proposed construction of two, 2-story single- family residences with a previously-approved waiver of the requirement that ail singie-famiiy structures rear on an arterial highway (Variance No. 2853) based on Commission's concurrence with staff that the modifications to previously-approved exhibits are substantially in compliance wifh previously-approved exhibits and with the following stipulation which shall be completed prior to issuance of final building permits: That a Lot Line Adjustment shall be approved to establish a common interior lot line between 809 and 813 South Western Avenue. Said adjustment shall eliminate access from Western Avenue for the existing residence at 811 South Western Avenue. DISCUSSION TIME 25 minutes (1:45-2:10) ~ u 09-08-03 Page 8 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNfNG COMMISSION MINUTES • B. (a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1943 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-047531 June Noordman, 900 South Knott Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1943 (to permit a pre-school). Property is located at 900 South Knott Avenue. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-124 • i Terminated (Vote: 5-0, Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy) sr3039ey.doc 09-08-03 Page 9 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES \ J ~ • C. (a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3745 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-047471 Servite Fathers, Attn: Fr. Gerald M. Horan, President, 1952 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801-3595, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 3745 (to permit temporary modular classrooms for a private educational facility). Property is located at 1952 West La Palma Avenue (Servite High School). TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-125 Terminated (Vote: 5-0, Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy) sr5033jr.doc 09-08-03 Page 10 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ~ • D. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of July 28, 2003. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner O'Connell absent with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of July 28, 2003. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 11, 2003. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bosfinrick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick abstained; Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of August 11, 2003. Approved (Vote: 5-0, Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy) Approved (Vote: 4-0, Commissioner Bostwick abstained; Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy) 09-08-03 Page 11 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04736 OWNER: Cal Asia Property Development Company, 1517 South Sepulveda Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90025 AGENT: TW Layman Associates, Attn: Tim Saivar, 16633 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1320, Encino, CA 91436 LOCATION: 101 South Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 0.40-acre, located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Brookhurst Street. Request to construct a 3-unit commercial retail center. Continued from the August 11, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to October 20, 2003 sr5034jr.doc Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. He stated the subject request is a continued public hearing for ~ Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04736 for property located at 101 S. Brookhurst Street. The request is to construct a 3-unit retail center. The site plan has been revised to indicate a dedicated loading and unloading area in front of the building facing Brookhurst. The trash enclosure has been relocated to the south end of the building and there have been some minor modifications to the landscaping. Staff continues to have concerns about how the retail center is designed and has precedent in the City when there are smaller properties that cannot accommodate this type of center, and what happens in terms of how those tenant spaces are accessed in terms of loading and unloading. They feel the site is too small to accommodate the development and continue to recommend denial of the retail center. Applicant's Statement: Tim Saivar, ~ 6633 Ventura Blvd. #1320, Encino. Stated he has reviewed the staff report and they agree with the conditions of approval. In light of the Redevelopment Agency's comments on the site, they have tried to coordinate with the adjacent property owners to purchase the property and because of their long- term leases on their property, they did not want to develop the site as a whole. He stated they do have access to the south, they developed their site so that access could be divided along the south property line to the adjacent property. They worked closely with staff relative to the loading and unloading and initially they developed the project without any rear access, and then they did develop with rear access, but there were comments during the pre-application meeting with the Police Department. The Police Department expressed concern providing that access which may become a security problem. Therefore, they went back and redesigned it without rear access. Based on the comments with the Planning Commission some of the concerns were the trash area being along Lincotn Avenue, also that the loading zone they initially developed was being used for the trash area, as well as loading and unloading. They have since moved that trash area to the south which is blocked by the building north and have added an additional loading zone which could be used for trash and another loading zone for distribution of deliveries to the sfores. ~ There was a comment in the staff report that they have reviewed the King's Market shopping center where trucks were being blocked by cars loading and unloading. As you know, the first condition states 09-OS-03 Page 12 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ they wouldn't be allowed a market type use without a conditional use permit. They also now have provided a separate loading zone so that the same would not occur on the subject site. If there was loading, it wouldn't be using any of the parking spaces. Initially, when they developed the project they worked closely with the Public Works Division. They met with them and took their comments relative to any street improvements that may or may not be required on the project, there weren't any. They went through the pre-application and there were no comments from Public Works relative to street improvements. They had another staff meeting just before the Conditional Use Permit and there were no comments from Public Works. He informed the subject project could go forward as a two-unit project without a conditionat use permit, they have processed plans through plan check and received a comment at the end of last week from Public Works, they wanted to move the existing curb cut an additional 3 feet along Brookhurst Street, currently it is 50 feet. In their case there are quite a few improvements along Brookhurst (street lights, traffic signals and traffic pole box). They have only been able to develop a preliminary cost of around $75,000, the particular building the evaluation is $208,000. They also have a transportation fee of $8,000 and traffic fee of $10,000. They are looking at about $85,000, plus or minus 20%, for mitigation of the property. When looking at the cost of improvements, it is roughly 45% of the building cost. He is requesting a waiver for a portion of fhe cost for the street improvements. The cost of the improvements exceeds the burden and the impact created by the development. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Eastman stated she is surprised by what the applicant is saying, and asked if the issue was discussed in the morning session, and maybe she missed it. Mr. McCafferty stated there is no additional right-of-way that is required along Brookhurst, but it is what occurs within that right-of-way that the applicant is referring to. The property line as shown on the site plan is correct, but in terms of what is parkway, sidewalk and where the curb ends up within what is afready shown on the plan has to be worked out with Public Works, therefore, it doesn't affect where the ~ property line is shown on the site plan. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he appreciates that the applicant was able to take what was proposed at the previous Planning Commission meeting and was able to address some of the issues. Commissioner Flores stated the applicant indicated he would want to build three structures for financial reasons. She referred to the three convenience stores on Rio Vista and Lincoln, the place is a"mad house" because there is no parking for deliveries. If you park there during the early morning or late at night and a delivery truck comes, there is no access into or out of it at all. She stated there is a lot of traffic in the subject area and it would be really difficult. So far, she has not been convinced that it would be safe to have three stores at the subject area due to the high volume traffic and the delivery trucks. She feels if there were finro stores there would still be a problem, but not as much traffic as if there were three stores. Mr. Saivar stated the proposed center is not proposing a market, it is retail sales. By code they were not required any loading zone, but have provided a separate loading zone for the trash area and another loading zone for deliveries that may or may not be used. He explained the size of the building is roughly around 4,300 square feet, which is the size of a large house; and if they have two or three units the size of the building maintains itself. They are simply trying to have a building that is flexible enough to subdivide it from the two units to the three. He doesn't believe there is any increase regarding traffic because it is still the same size building. Commissioner Eastman clarified that the applicant wants the flexibility of finro or three units, but if you had a big enough tenant who wanted to lease the whole building, then you would make it one building. Mr. Saivar was in agreement and explained iYs still one building, but it is subdivided. It is possible to . have a single user with a 4,300 square foot building. They are looking for flexibility so that there won't be a 2,000 square foot vacant store. Having three units allows it to be subdivided, and it is a lot easier to 09-08-03 Page 13 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • lease a space that is 1,100 square feet than 2,200 square feet. He understands there are conditions on the conditional use permit, which they would contend with. Commissioner Eastman stated she also appreciates the applicant's effort in addressing some of the concerns raised at the previous Planning Commission meeting. She feefs the applicant is proposing a better plan than before, and it would be an improvement. She suggested putting a restriction on the times of delivery in order to try to mitigate some of the concerns. Mr. Saivar stated at this time he does not know the type of retail spaces and/or the tenants, but it may be that the uses wouldn't even have deliveries. He reiterated that he is not proposing a market and it is not permitted per one of the conditions stated in the staff report. He asked staff if there are any comments regarding the 45% cost for the development, waiving a portion of the cost for traffic. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated there is a provision in the Code, 18.04.080 that sets forth the dedication and improvements in general that are required, with a development. That section has a provision for the Planning Commission to grant variances from the requirements imposed by certain provisions of that section subject to specialized findings, however it has not been advertised in conjunction with the subject request. If it is something that the applicant would like the Planning Commission to consider it would be something that needs to be readvertised in order for it to be before the Commission, since it is a separate waiver. Mr. Saivar explained he is not getting any feedback from the Planning Commission in regards to imposing a 45% (approximately $85,000) for improvements, on a$208,000 building and asked if there are any comments. Mr. McCafferty stated before Planning Commission would give any direction, staff would want to provide their recommendation with regard to Public Works and whether they would want to recommend approval • of such a variance of the public improvements. He explained if they are going to do it for a small three- unit retail center, they don't want to establish a precedent. Development has to pay their own way and there is dedication and improvements that is required, it is a function of development in the City and they wouldn't want to recommend that without looking carefully at what the consequences may be. Chairperson Vanderbilt suggested a continuance, but is not any sort of assurance. Commissioner Bostwick suggested the Commission give some comments in order for the applicant to determine if he would prefer a continuance or not. He is not in favor of three units, due to the tight space. Commissioner Romero stated based on the concerns he expressed last meeting, which still exist, therefore, he would not be in favor of the three units. Commissioner Flores stated she does not agree with the three units, based on the traffic and parking issues. Commissioner Eastman stated the subject corner is pretty bad, and the proposed plans are good looking. She feels the applicant is asking for flexibility to be able to develop the corner, which would be an improvement. There haven't been any objections from people in the neighborhood on the proposed development. She is unsure about an additional waiver and would like to know more. Commissioner Flores clarified they weren't talking about an additional waiver. Chairperson Vanderbilt responded they were just referring to the project itself. Mr. Saivar stated he would like to continue the item and work with staff closely, and Public Works regarding their request on the street improvements. ~ 09-0$-03 Page 14 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • • ~ ~' • • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to the October 20, 2003, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to readvertise the request to include a waiver of required street improvements. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME 21 minutes (2:12-2:33) u • 09-08-03 Page 15 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04719 (READVERTISED) Granted OWNER: Edward J. Brumleu Jr., 18612 Mariposa Drive, Villa Park, CA 92861 AGENT: Jerry King, 1280 North Sunshine Way, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1280 North Sunshine Wav. Property is approximately 0.46-acre, having a frontage of 65 feet on the northerly side of Sunshine Way, located at the easterly terminus of Sunshine Way. To permit and retain an automobile parts installation facility with waiver of: (a) required enclosure of outdoor uses and (b) minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the July 14, and August 25, 2003, Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-126 sr5020jr.doc Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. ~ Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. He stated the subject request is for a conditional use permit for property located at 1280 N. Sunshine Way and it is a request to permit and retain an automobile parts installation facility with two waivers, (1) required enclosure of outdoor uses, and (2) minimum number of parking spaces. Staff is recommending approval of the project subject to the recommendations in the staff report. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked that the applicant come forward to speak. Applicant's Statement: Jerry King, 1280 N. Sunshine Way, Anaheim. He received the staff report today and has reviewed it. He has been on the subject street for 22 years, and they have been at the subject building since 1995. They never had any issues with the City besides a parking and storage issue, which have been resolved. He explained when they worked on the widening of Miraloma Avenue, Caltrans tore out the pine trees and from then on, it has been quite a headache for him. They made the property visible from Miraloma Avenue. It has always been visible from the freeway, which you really can't see anything from the freeway unless you stop and look. He referred to their yard and stated they use to have a lot of storage in it, same as several people did on the street, but most have moved out because of the storage issue on the property. They brought theirs down to a minimal storage, as there are a few palette racks right along the fence that they cut down from 12 feet to 7 feet, the height of the fence. They are gradually eliminating what is on those racks, to just minimal. In time, they are only going to be about two levels, one on the ground and one about 4 feet high. He stated it takes time, and has thrown away about $30,000 of product because of having to remove the storage racks. . He explained the parking plan was approved and they have parking back there, which is not for the public. They have very little retail business, and the parking in the yard is mainly their own employees and customer vehicles once in a while. They also have a lift in the backyard mainly used for Research 09-08-03 Page 16 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • and Development. It is just about impossible to hide anything there since they took down the trees. Besides that, you can't really see anything in the yard unless you are stopping to get out of the vehicle and look down into their level. He indicated he took a lot of pictures from the freeway and you have to look through a fence. The staff report says it has wood but it doesn't, it has vinyl on the fence now. They painted over the fence several times for graffiti. Staff recommends vines on the fence, but the property where they plant the vines is not their property, it is all asphalt or cement, it would be difficult to plant vines. He explained they have to go outside their property when there is graffiti and paint over it. The years they have been there, they only had to paint it once, but the last time it happened they haven't done it yet. He feels planting vines on the fence doesn't really mean anything, but it is going to be quite an expense trying to dig up the asphalt, just to plant some vines. He is more than willing to paint it every time it happens, but it seems to be slowing down quite a bit. He referred to Condition No. 1, regarding a cover on the trash bin. He called Anaheim Disposal and they prefer not to put a cover on them. It is more of an issue for them to dump, because of the apartment complex across Miraloma Avenue, they would have everything imaginable stacked on top of the trash bin. Therefore, he doesn't understand what a cover to the trash can would do, the type of trash is not any hazard to the storm drains. He explained they never had an issue with graffiti on their building or trash bin, and it wouldn't be a problem with planting vines, but they do maintain their place and it looks nice. He stated the biggest issue, is their lift. He explained the way the parking is designed it hides the lift, because the parking is adjacent to their lift. The lift is used approximately 30% of the time, it is only used for Research and Development, special equipment. They recently had the Orange County Fire DepartmenYs truck, limousines, and things that they can't put on the lift in their building. They can't move the lift inside their building because the reason it is out there is because the building isn't tall enough to put a vehicle up in the air. There is nothing on the lift during the weekend. When a vehicle is on the lift, you can't see anything except for the top of the vehicle, if you're on Miraloma Avenue looking down. He explained he • really needs the lift and would abide by the Commission's suggestions, but no matter what he does it won't hide it any more than it is now. Chairperson Vanderbilt verified that his concerns are the three first conditions in the staff report. Mr. King was in agreement. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if Mr. McCafferty could address the trash enclosure issue. Mr. McCafferty referred to Condition No. 1 and stated when the trash enclosure is visible from the public view the Planning Commission is required that it be landscaped in front of the waH to prevent graffiti opportunities. The trash enclosure for the subject property is located right off the street and he believes there is landscaping right next to the trash enclosure, therefore, the irrigation may already be there. It is just a matter of installing the vines against the wall. He stated regarding Condition No. 2, the vines, it is only for the portion of the property that faces the freeway, east property line. They understand and concur with the applicant that Miraloma Avenue is so far above the grade of the subject property that it is not a problem provided there are slats. With regard to the piece that is next to the freeway, staff feels it is appropriate and justified to recommend slats and landscaping be installed, for the area that is visible to the freeway. Regarding Condition No. 3. The code requires that the business be conducted within a building, unless the use is inherently an outdoor use such as a contractor's storage yard. He believes there are no permits for the lift in the Building Division, and if the applicant would have come to the Zoning counter and requested an outdoor lift, it would not have been approved because it is against the Code. Even when • there are outdoor yards, they have large bays where they roll their equipment in if it needs to be repaired. Therefore, staff is not supportive of eliminating Condition No. 3. 09-08-03 Page 17 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • He referred back to Condition No. 1, regarding the roof for the trash enclosure and stated he believes it is a water quality requirement, and if further details are needed James Ling from Public Works would be able to assist. Chairperson Vanderbilt referred to the slats, and asked for which side of the property Mr. McCafferty responded it would be the north side, near the grade separation of Miraloma Avenue, and then the east, northeasterly side as you go towards the back of the property near the freeway. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if it would extend all the way back towards Sunshine Way. Mr. McCafferty responded no, because if you extend all the way back to Sunshine Way it is between finro buildings, and clarified just the portion that is visible to the freeway which is a small piece of property that almost runs parallel to the freeway. James Ling, Associate Civil Engineer. He stated regarding the roof over the trash enclosure, it is actually a County requirement that they are trying to comply with for storm water management. They are trying to eliminate potential for debris from going into the City storm drain system. Commissioner Bostwick stated usually the blue dumpster bins have lids, and asked if it has a lid would the applicant also need to put a roof over the top of the area. Mr. Ling stated he believes if the roof were enclosed, it would eliminate the potential of the storm water getting into the trash. If it is covered, that is what is required. Commissioner Bostwick stated if the dumpster has a lid, there is no need for the roof. • Mr. Ling was in agreement, and stated one concern is if the lid is actually used. Mr. King stated none of the trash bins have lids on them. Commissioner Bostwick suggested the applicant call Anaheim Disposal and request new dumpster with lids. Mr. King explained that the adjacent apartments toss their trash in their dumpster, and if there is a lid they would have to remove the items from the lid. But without the lid the trash would be thrown in the bin. Commissioner Bostwick asked Mr, McCafferty if staff is recommending both the (andscaping and slats. Mr. McCafferty responded the Code requires both. Mr. King stated the fence along the freeway currently has vinyl slats and referred to planting vines and explained it is not on their property. Mr. McCafferty referred to the location map, "shaded" area and stated the small segment which is easterly is the piece staff is recommending vines be planted. Staff is not requiring anything on the Bannerland property, but is recommending the Commission require the applicant to put it on his property. Commissioner Eastman clarified on the inside of the applicant's fence, not on the other side of the fence. Mr. McCafferty was in agreement. Commissioner Bosfinrick asked about the edge along Miraloma Avenue. • Mr. McCafferty stated staff feels the applicant may have a hardship, because there is really nothing you can do to completely screen the outdoor area from Miraloma Avenue. If you drive Miraloma Avenue it would be difficult to see, therefore staff feels if there were slats that would be fine, but for the other piece 09-08-03 Page 18 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • that is visible to the freeway staff recommends the additional protection. He stated it is going through our City and people are transitioning from the 57 to 91 Freeways, if you look over you see the backyards. In the past some of the Commissioners have commented on the area, and staff shares the same concern and wants some reassurance and protection of that area. Commissioner Bosfinrick stated he would agree if the applicant renewed the slats with new vinyl or "green scrim" type of coating in order to give it a solid look, and would hope the people driving on the 57 Freeway making the transition, are looking straight ahead at the traffic, and not at the wall. He understands there is not a permit for the lift, but asked if they have to have a variance. Mr. McCafferty responded you cannot obtain a variance, as it would be a use variance. In order to conduct the activity outside in the rear, would be conducting a use outdoors, which would be a use variance. Commissioner Romero asked how iong the lift has been there. Mr. King responded about three years. Commissioner Flores when you're dealing with auto work you need to have the automobile inside in case there is a fire or something. Mr. King stated they are very specialized in what they do, they work on differentials and drive lines. The lift is used mostly for Research and Development (R&D), as they don't work on engines, radiators. They're differential specialists and work on racecars and anything different, they don't work on big trucks. The biggest thing they worked on is a motor home, most are pick-ups, racecars, corvettes, etc. The type of vehicles outside, are usually when they are doing their Research and Development work for a new ~ project or product that they are trying to develop and they can't get that type of vehicle up high enough in the air, plus the inside lifts are used for the smaller vehicles. Chairperson Vanderbilt referred to the racecars and stated he can't imagine they have a very big profile. Mr. King explained the lifts inside are for everyday work, when they are doing a project they have the vehicle on the outside lift. When they may have to use the outside lift for two or three days for a project, and at night the lift is taken back into the building. They recently had a project that lasted about a week for the Fire Department. Commissioner Flores asked if the outside is for testing the vehicle. Mr. King was in agreement and stated they do very little general repairs on the outside lift. He indicated they were working on a motor home on the outside lift and when it was up in the air you could barely see the top of the motor home from Miraloma Avenue. He referred to viewing from the freeway and stated you would have a crash if you tried to see anything. Commissioner Bostwick asked how a variance would be obtained for the lift on the outside. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. He stated there are two ways, one would be to determine that it is indoors which means a building built, and secondly through a code amendment to change the code in order to allow it under certain type of circumstances. But, currently the code does not allow it. Commissioner Bostwick stated the applicant would then have to come back with a building plan, with some type of building structure to enclose it. Mr. Hastings responded that is one option. • Mr. King stated he feels it is safer outside, if there was a fire. 09-08-03 Page 19 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bostwick stated he feels the applicanYs choice is to not have it there, or to come up with a plan to enclose it, and suggested a steel building. Mr. Hastings stated it would be allowed under certain requirements in terms of the way it is finished. Commissioner Bostwick stated there are options. Mr. Ling referred to the roof over the trash enclosure issue and stated he confirmed with Streets and Sanitation Department and it is a County requirement. They believe that the applicant has every intention to keep the lids closed and keeping the site maintained, however, they would require an enclosed roof over the trash bin. Mr. King stated he would order a trash bin with a cover. Mr. Ling responded a lid with the trash bin is not enough, but a roof over the trash bin, full enclosure, is required. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if it's acceptable to have the roof peak because the applicant has expressed the problem with people leaving items. Mr. King stated they would have the only trash bin that has a roof on it. Mr. Ling explained it is a new requirement and will be imposed on future projects. Commissioner Bostwick suggested Streets and Sanitation come up with a design to their satisfaction in order for people to know what to expect. • • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOStTION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Flores voting no, Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy), That the Anaheim City Planning does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for this request. Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows: Approved waivers pertaining to (a) required enclosure of outdoor uses, and (b) minimum number of parking spaces. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04719 (to permit and retain an automobile parts installation facility), subject to the conditions of approval as sfated in the staff report dated September 8, 2003, with the following modifications: Deleted condition No. 2. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 36 minutes (2:34-3:10) 09-08-03 Page 20 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMtSSION MtNU'~ES • 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3921 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04723) OWNER: F.J. Hanshaw Enterprises, Inc., 10921 Westminster Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92843 AGENT: Desapriya Jinadasa, 1112 North Brookhurst Street #1, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 1112 North Brookhurst Street, Suite 1. Property is approximately 0.91-acre, located north and east of the northeast corner of Brookhurst Streef and La Palma Avenue (Cheers Market). Request reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on May 8, 2000 to expire November 28, 2002) to retain the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption within a previously-approved convenience market. Continued from the July 28, 2003, Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to September 22, 2003 sr8626av.doc . Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. He stated the subject request is a reinstatement of the permit to retain the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption in conjunction with a previously-approved convenience market. He stated because of the violations experienced on the property, including a"decoy' program where liquor was sold to a minor as well as not providing the required information in terms of the gross sales of alcohol, staff recommends denial. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant or representative come forward to speak. Mr. McCafferty stated they received a call earlier this afternoon from the applicant, indicating he was going to be faxing some material, staff wasn't aware of the contents of the fax and doesn't believe anything was received as of yet. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he would like to trail the subject item to the end. Following Item No. 9, Item No. 4 was heard: Chairperson Vanderbilt stated earlier he had trailed Item No. 4. He asked staff if the applicant has arrived and if there was anyone in the audience for item No. 4. Is the staff recommendation to continue this and if so, for how long. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner said our recommendation still stands for denial, we believe there is evidence in the record that there is not compliance with the conditions of approval. ( guess I would ask the City Attorney's advice whether it would be appropriate for the Commission to act on the item given the applicant is not here. • 09-08-03 Page 21 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Selma Mann, City Attorney stated it would be the City Attorney's office recommendation that particularly since the recommendation is denial, that the applicant be given at least one further opportunity to appear. The matter be continued for two weeks. At the end of the meeting, Mr. McCafferty stated following acfion of fhe subject ifem, staff received a fax letter which he believes went to the City Attorney's O~ce, from Cheer's Markef indicating that their representative cou/d not attend today's meeting and requested a continuance of the subject item. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTlON: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to the September 22, 2003, Planning Commission meeting since the applicant was not present at today's meeting. A faxed letter regarding the continuance request was received after the action. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (3:11-3:12) trailed (5:15-5:16) i (The subject item was trailed and was considered after Item No. 9(5:15-5:16) and was then continued since the applicant was not present.) • 09-08-03 Page 22 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 11 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4045 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04749) OWNER: Home Depot USA, 601 South Placentia Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92831 AGENT: Marlene Brown, 3916 East Miraloma Avenue, Suites B& C, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 800 North Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 9.45 acres, located at the northeast corner of Gramercy Avenue and Brookhurst Street (Nome Depot). Request reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on August 3, 1998 to expire August 3, 2003) to retain an oufdoor portable food service use (hot dog cart) in conjunction with a permitted retail store. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-727 Concurred with staff Approved reinstatement with deletion of time (imitation. sr5035jr.doc Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. • Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. He stated the subject item is a request to retain a hot dog cart, at Home Depot, staff recommends approval of the reinstatement without a time limit and subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report. Applicant's Statement: Marlene Brown, 3916 E. Miraloma Avenue, Suites B& C, Anaheim. Stated she is requesting deletion of the limitation because they have been at Home Depot for the past 12 years and have not had any complaints. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if the applicant had a chance to review the staff report, and accepts all the conditions as stated. Ms. Brown was in agreement. THE PUBLIC HEAR(NG WAS CLOSED. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy), That the Anaheim City Planning does hereby determine that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301, Class 11 (Accessory Structures), as defined in the CEQA Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. • 09-08-03 Page 23 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Approved the request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4045 (Tracking No. CUP2003-04749) to retain an outdoor portable food seroice use (hot dog cart) in conjunction with a permitted retail store (Home Depot), without a time limitation. Amended Resolution No. PC98-120 in its entirety and replaced with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval based on the finding that the modification is necessary to retain an outdoor portable food service use (hot dog cart) in conjunction with a permitted retail store: 1. That only one (1) hot dog cart shall be permitted and that no accessory equipment, displays or freestanding accessories shall be permitted in conjunction with this approval. 2. That no signs advertising this food service, other than signs affixed to the cart, shall be permitted. 3. That the subject property shall 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 No. 1, and as conditioned herein. 4. 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 O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (3:13-3:16) u 09-08-03 Page 24 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 6b. CONDIi'IONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04591 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04748) OWNER: John Redman, Executive Director, Conservative Baptist Association of Southern California, 150 West Vermont Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 150 West Vermont Avenue. Property is approximately 1.15 acres, located at the southeast corner of Vermont Avenue and Lemon Street (Conservative Baptist Association of Southern California). Request reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on September 9, 2002, to expire September 9, 2003) to retain a church in conjunction with a permitted training facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-128 ~ ~ Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Concurred with staff Approved reinstatement with deletion of time limitation. sr5036jr.doc Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. He stated the subject item is a request for reinstatement of the permit to retain a church for property located at 150 W. Vermont Avenue, staff is recommending approval without a time limit and subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant or representative come forward to speak. John Redman, 869 S. Sapphire Lane, Anaheim. Stated he is the executive director for the organization. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant if he had a chance to review the staff report. Mr. Redman responded yes. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if he had any concerns or issues. Mr. Redman responded no. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bosfinrick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy), That the Anaheim City Planning does hereby determine that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the CEQA Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. 09-08-03 Page 25 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNlNG COMMlSSION MlNUTES • Approved the request for reinstatement of Condifional Use Permit No. 2002-04591 (Tracking No. CUP2003-04748) to retain a church in conjunction with a permitted training facility without a time limitation. Amended Resolution No. PC2002-134 in its entirety and replaced with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: 1. That no portable signage shall be utilized to advertise the church. 2. That no bells audible from the exterior of the building shall be permitted. 3. That a Special Event Permit may be issued for banners only. Due to the proximity of residential land uses, no outdoor events shall be permitted. 4. That the only accessory school activity shall be Sunday school and this facility shall not be used as a private daycare, nursery, elementary, junior and/or senior high school. 5. That the adult congregation at any one time shall be limited to 50 persons. If the number of congregates exceeds this number of inembers, at any one time, the petitioner shall then submit an updated parking study to the Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval, prior to review and approval by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing. 6. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway in a manner, which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public streets. Installation of any gates shall conform to Engineering Standard Plan No. 609 and shall be subject • to the review and approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. 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 the church and training facility shall not operate at the same time to ensure adequate parking is provided on-site at all times. 9. That a landscape plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. The plan shall indicate a total of eight (8) trees along the Vermont Avenue frontage and eighteen (18) trees along the Lemon Street frontage. All trees shall be minimum 24-inch box in size. Said trees shall be instailed within 30 days of plan approval and thereafter maintained in a live and healthy manner. 10. That the on-site landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained in compliance with City standards. 11. That 3-foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the view of the street or adjacent and nearby properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Police Department, Community Services Division approval. 12. That any signage identifying the church activities, beyond those legally existing at the date of this resolution, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendation item. ~ 13. That only the 2199 square foot assembly area shown on approved exhibits shall be utilized as church assembly area. 09-08-03 Page 26 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 14. That subject property shall be 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 Exf~ibif Nos. 1 and 2 and as conditioned herein. 15. 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. Approva! 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 O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (3:17-3:18) . r~ ~ 09-08-03 Page 27 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . ~ 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 7b. CONDITtONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2090 Approved reinstatement (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04740) for 1 year (to expire on August 27, 2004) OWNER: Paul Nikolau, 3392 Gilbert Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 AGENT: Tony Garcia, Xalos Restaurant and Bar, 1160 North Kraemer Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1160 North Kraemer Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.9-acre, having a frontage of 175 feet on the east side of Kraemer Boulevard, located 242 feet south of the centerline of Coronado Street (Xalos Restaurant). Request reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on July 29, 2002 to expire August 27, 2003) and to amend or delete conditions of approval for a restaurant with sales of alcoholic beverages for on- premises consumption and public entertainment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-129 sr1126cw.doc Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item: Greg McCafferty, Princ+pal Planner. Stated the subject item is a request to reinstate public entertainment in conjunction with an existing restaurant with on premises consumption of alcoholic beverages. The petitioner is also requesting that the conditions be modified to allow eating and drinking on the outdoor patio, staff is recommending approval in part, to reinstate the permit for an additional year since there is a new owner and one year should be appropriate to see how the operation runs. They are recommending denial of the request to extend the eating and drinking to the outdoor patio since you can't see the outdoor patio from the restaurant and that is the Police DepartmenYs concern. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant or representative come forward to speak, and asked if he had a chance to review the staff report. Applicant's Statement: Tony Garcia, 1160 N. Kraemer Blvd., Anaheim. Stated he has reviewed the staff report. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if the applicant had any concerns with the staff report. Mr. Garcia responded yes, and he had an opportunity to meet Commissioner Romero earlier today and informed Commissioner Romero that he understands staff's concerns about drinking and eating out in the patio. He stated his brofher-in-law and he purchased the business knowing the history of the place, how bad it was. But, they had a vision and they truly believe they could change things around at the subject business. It has been 6 months since they have been operating the business, and have really focused on changing the reputation of the place and do understand the crime rate. ~ He asked Commission if they could analyze the business in the last 6 months. He doesn't believe there was a single call for service and truly believes they have changed the aspect of the place, they have been getting good comments from the neighbors. 09-08-03 Page 28 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • He stated the patio is pretty big, 40 x 20, and seats approximately 30 people and explained being in Southern California it would be a waste of space not to use the patio, because most people would like to be out there with the nice weather. He explained they understand their chances of getting approved today are very small based on the history of the place. He asked Commission to give them an opportunity and to look at what they have done in the last 6 months, and stated if Police Department staff is present they might be able to give some feedback. He informed Commissioner Romero was there today and had an opportunity to see some changes since it was previously called "The Shack" and was literally a"shack" when they took over the business. They got criticized by a lot of people, but so far they are proud of what they have done as they concentrate on the good food and their night entertainment has been pretty good. They try to have enough security, and have two "undercover cops" that go inside and looking for minors drinking. They also focus on having enough security to keep everything peaceful. THE PUBLIC HEARlNG WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Romero clarified he did speak with the applicant earlier today, and stated they have made a very big improvement in what they have done inside. However, the patio issue is still a concern the way that it is setup because you cannot see from the inside to the outside, which is a concern of the Police Department and he is also concerned. Therefore, he is in favor of extending it for a year and then there may be some proposed modifications. Commissioner Flores referred to the outside patio and stated you really can't see from the inside because it is all boarded up. She suggested opening it up a bit, put some windows so you could see from the inside to the outside and screen the patio from the outside. If some modifications to the patio are submitted then there might be some consideration, but the way it is now, she is unsure because there is no visibility from the inside to the outside. Mr. Garcia stated he understands and referred to the photographs that he submitted. ~ Commissioner Flores indicated she is aware there are some windows, but it is not sufficient. Mr. Garcia stated he is unsure with the pictures if you could see that as you come into the restaurant there is a lobby, the counter faces out to the patio, and there are two big windows that allow you to see outside to the patio. They normally have a hostess and she has ciear visibility to the outside of the patio and the only way to go out to the patio is through entrance to the lobby so there is some visibility. He understands the concern about the visibility is in regards to minors drinking, but as expressed before, their main concern is to gain a good reputation, with no problems. It is their business and has a liquor license and don't want to lose it. He reiterafed they have "undercover cops" and there is visibility from the lobby which is part of the building and they could have someone there in place. He explained most of their clients are adults; therefore, they are doing their best to not get in trouble or get their business in jeopardy. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked for the Police Department and Code Enforcement representatives to reiterate points made earlier today regarding the memos the Commission received with their packet and to respond to the patio issue. Tammy Governale, Criminal Research Specialist. Stated the applicant has only been in business for 6 months, and the subject location was a problem for the Police Department. There was one call for service, which is an improvement compared to previously. They would like to have the opportunity to see how they are going to operate the business for at feasf one year, before making any recommendation of changing any conditions. Additionally, they wouldn't want to change the condition unless there was some type of visibility from the inside, she doesn't believe the hostess sitting in the area would be able to keep an eye on what is happening. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant if the hostess's back would be facing the viewpoint of the ~ patio. 09-08-03 Page 29 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Garcia explained if the hostess is behind the counter she would be facing to the outside into the patio, and there are two windows. He also stated they have the ability to manage it correctly, and expiained that their business can improve. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Ms. Governale even with the situation they are suggesting with the hostess, they still maintain waiting a year to see the performance of the business. Ms. Governale was in agreement. Commissioner Bostwick asked the applicant for the operating hours. Mr. Garcia stated the restaurant is open from 11:00 a.m.-2:30 p.m,, they have a lunch buffet; and then they re-open in the evening from 6-10 p.m.; and on the weekend 11:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m. He stated on the weekends, the live entertainment is until 2:00 a.m. Commissioner Bostwick stated regarding the restaurant, there is a condition that you serve food all the time when you are open. Mr. Garcia agreed, it is a"family" sit down type, they have the kitchen opened all the time, but they don't get too much food sales at 12-1 in the morning. He stated he separates the restaurant and the nightclub. But, they do understand they have to have food at all hours of operation. Commissioner Bosfinrick stated they have an advertisement for the restaurant/night club, which advertises the "prettiest ladies" in Anaheim, and asked what is he talking about when he says a"family' restaurant. Mr. Garcia reiterated they separate the business in two ways, the restaurant, "families" are not going to show up at 10-11 p.m., they have dinner at 6-7 p.m., that is where the family restaurant stops, then they • have the "beautiful ladies". They only have Thursday, Friday and Saturday for the night entertainment. Commissioner Flores asked in the evenings, do you have to be over 18 years old to get inside. Mr. Garcia responded on Friday it is 21 and over, and on Thursday and Saturday it is 18 and over. Commissioner Flores asked what is in the back area, by the patio. Mr. Garcia responded it is a cooler, where they keep the beer. Commissioner Flores verified that portion is not an eating area. Mr. Garcia agreed. Commissioner Flores stated she had thought maybe they could open up that area. Mr. Garcia responded no, and stated that is what Commissioner Romero had thought also, but it is the cooler. Commissioner Eastman also stated she thought maybe the area adjacent to the patio had the ability to open up a window or even put in a set of French doors so that there was more window area in order to see out. It would also give a better feeling of a dining area. Mr. McCafferty referred to the conditions of approval, and stated that all telephones are to be located inside the building, and the site inspection indicated there is one telephone outside the building in the smoking patio. The landscaping in the parking lot and fhe trash enclosure gates needs to be refurbished. Also, the back area which is chain linked off, have some abandon items that need to be removed and the • area needs to be cleaned up, perhaps slats could be put into the chain link fence in order for it not to be visible from the parking lot. He stated these sort of things need to be completed right away in order to reinstate a project. 09-08-03 Page 30 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Flores stated there is a water heater in the back area that needs to be enclosed. She referred to the sink and stated she does not believe it is permitted because of the "plastic plumbing ~xtures", plastic is not allowed for commercial uses. Mr. Garcia stated the health department already approved it, and they are the ones who requested they install it. Commissioner Flores suggested they obtain a plumbing permit. Mr. McCafferty stated if that is something new, and a plumbing permit was not obtained, then the Building Division would require a plumbing permit. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant if he has any concerns regarding the conditions described by Mr. McCafferty. Mr. Garcia responded no, they would take care of them. Chairperson Vanderbilt explained he doesn't get the sense from his fellow Commissioners that they want to go against the Police DepartmenYs recommendation, and feels a trial period of operation may be incorporated. Commissioner Romero stated he feels the applicant has done great things, but suggested that he come back in a year with a plan to use the patio and the Commission would then have the opportunity to review it. During the action, Mr. McCafferty asked for a certain date to be set regarding the conditions/issues he • had referred to that need to be completed promptly. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant if those conditions mentioned could be completed within 60 days. Mr. Garcia was in agreement, but asked for clarification on the issues. Mr. McCafferty stated to remove the public coin operated phone and place it inside if they choose, obtain a permit for the water heater enclosure, obtain a plumbing permit for the sink, if necessary, and to refurbish the landscape planters in the parking lot, to remove the "unpermitted" wood sign in the landscape setback off of Kraemer Boulevard, and to clean up the enclosure in the back area and install PVC slats in order to screen the area in the back. He stated he would inform the planner to contact the applicant to ensure he understands all the issues that need to be taken care of. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy), That the Anaheim City Planning does hereby determine that the previously- approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for this request. Approved the request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2090 (Tracking No. CUP2003-04740) to retain public entertainment in conjunction with the previously- ~ approved restaurant with retail sales of alcohol beverages for on-premises consumption for a period of one year to expire August 27, 2004 and deny the requested modifications to conditions of approval pertaining to the outdoor patio. 09-08-03 Page 31 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Amended Resolution No. PC2002-114 in its entirety and replaced with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: 1. That the accessory public entertainment shall expire on August 27, 2004. 2. That the outdoor patio area may be used by patrons for seating and smoking purposes only. That no other outdoor activities, including but not limited to dining, drinking, entertainment, dancing etc. shall be permitted in the patio area. 3. That the number of persons attending any event at this property shall not exceed the maximum occupancy load as determined by the Anaheim Fire Department. Signs indicating the maximum occupancy shall be prominently displayed within the premises. 4. That the property owner shall provide any new business operator/owner with the conditions of approval contained in this resolution. 5. That the sales of any type of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises shall be prohibited. 6. That there shall be no live entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted on the premises at any time without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. 7. That the activities occurring in conjunction with the operation of this establishment shall not cause noise disturbance to surrounding properties and • shall conform to the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance. 8. That all doors serving subject establishment shall comply with the requirements . of the Uniform Fire Code and shall be kept closed and unlocked at all times during hours of operation except for ingress/egress, deliveries and in cases of emergency. 9. That at all times when entertainment or dancing is permitted, uniformed security guards shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department to deter unlawful conduct on the part of employees or patrons, and promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, and prevent disturbance to the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises. 10. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. 11. That there shall be no pool tables, amusement devices or games maintained within subject establishment without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. 12. That the business operator shall comply with Section 24200.5 of the Business and Professions Code so as not to employ or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. • 13. That there shall be no public telephones on the premises located outside the building. 09-08-03 Page 32 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 14. That this establishment shall be operated as a"Bona Fide Public Eating Place" as defined by Section 23038 of the California Business and Professions Code. 15. That there shall be no bar or lounge maintained on the property unless licensed by Alcoholic Beverage Control and approved by the City of Anaheim. 16. That food service with a full meal shall be available from opening time until either 10:00 p.m. or closing time, whichever occurs first, on each day of operation. 17. That subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a public premises (bar) fype license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premise as defined in Section 23039 of the California Business and Professions Code. 18. That the sales of any type of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 40% of the gross sales of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of any type of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be made available, subject to audit and, when requested, inspection by any City of Anaheim official during reasonable business hours. 19. That there shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. 20. That the operator of subject facility shall pay for the cost of any Code ~ Enforcement inspections which may be required to address Code violations or violations of these conditions of approval. 21. That there shall be no direct pedestrian access to the outdoor patio area from outside the building. All access to this area shall be solely through the restaurant. Further, that a sign shall be posted at the entrance to the patio stating that this area shall be used for seating and smoking purposes only and that no dining, drinking or dancing shall be permitted in the patio. 22. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 23. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the SP94-1, DA-3 Zone unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the Planning Commission or City Council. 24. That a valid business license shall be maintained for this business from the City of Anaheim Business License Division of the Finance Department. 25. That this resolution shall be permanently posted in an obvious location within the employee work area to serve as a reminder of the conditions of approval contained herein. 26. That three-foot high address numbers shall be maintained and displayed on the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the view of the street or adjacent properties. • 27. That the on-site landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained in compliance with City standards. 09-08-03 Page 33 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 28. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 29. That all existing mature landscaping shall be maintained and immediately replaced in the event that it becomes diseased or dies. 30. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum one-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum three-foot centers or tall shrubbery. 31. That subject properfy shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1, and as conditioned herein. 32. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. ~ Added the following condition to read as follows: Petitioner further stipulated that the following would be completed within sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution: 1. Removal of the coin-operated phone from the patio. 2. Obtain the required permits for the sink. 3. Construct an enclosure around the water heater with appropriate permits. 4. Remove unpermitted wood sign in landscape setback along Kraemer Boulevard. 5. Refurbish trash enclosure gates. 6. Clean up area to the rear of the restaurant and install slats in the chain link enclosure. 7. Refurbish landscaping in parking lot. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 27 minutes (3:19-3:46) ~ A 10-minute break was taken (3:48-3:58). 09-08-03 Page 34 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 14 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3832 (TRACKING NO. 2003-04745) OWNER: Kenneth W. Holt, 1557 West Mable Street, Anaheim, CA 92802 AGENT: David R. Jackson, Fairmont Private Schools, 1575 West Mable Street, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 1557 West Mable Street. Property is approximately 2.15 acres, having a frontage of approximately 442 feet on the north side of Mable Street, located 420 feet east of the centerline of Loara Street (Fairmont Private School). Request to amend a condition of approval pertaining to a previously- approved modular classroom building in conjunction with an existing private school. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-130 Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Concurred with staff Approved amendment to conditions of approval. sr1124cw.doc Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. Stated the subject item is a request to retain a modular classroom. Staff is supportive of reinstating it without a time limit and stated there is a modification to the conditions • of approval on page 3 of the staff report, Condition No. 3, to add a sentence that the work to put the modular classroom on a permanent foundation shall be completed within 60 days of issuance of a building permit. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant or representative come forward to speak, there was no response. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy), That the Anaheim City Planning does hereby determine that the project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15314, Class 14, (Minor Additions to Schools) of the CEQA guidelines. Approved request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 3832 (Tracking No. CUP2003- 04745) pertaining to the time allotted to place the modular classroom trailer on permanent foundation and to obtain the appropriate permits, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated September 8, 2003, with the following modifications: • 3. That prior to June 1, 2004, plans shall be submitted to the Building Division to place the modular classroom building on permanent foundation; and that the 09-08-03 Page 35 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • appropriate permits shall be obtained. The work shall be completed within 60 days of permit issuance. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (3:58-4:02) ~ • 09-08-03 Page 36 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04746 OWNER: Steven Dunbar, 20429 East Yorba Linda Boulevard, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 AGENT: Gregory Roseen, 23 Dawnwood, Ladera Ranch, CA 92694 LOCATION; 5055 East Short Street. Property is approximately 0.46- acre, located at the northwest corner of Kellogg Drive and Short Street. Request to construct a veterinary hospital and animal boarding facility with waivers of: (a) maximum fence height, (b) signs permitted in residential zones, (c) maximum structural height, and (d) minimum front yard setback and (e) minimum side yard setback. * Waiver (c) has been deleted. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Continued to October 6, 2003 sr5039jr.doc • Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner introduced Item No. 9 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04746, 5055 E. Short Street. Requesting approval to construct veterinary hospital and animal boarding facility with waivers of (a) maximum fence height (b) signs permitted in residential zone (c) maximum structural height (d) minimum front yard setback and (e) minimum side yard setback. Waiver (c) has been deleted Staff is recommending approval with some modifications to the conditions of approval. He stated letters in opposition were received, and a copy of the letters was provided to the applicant. Chairperson Vanderbilt verified that they received packet with opposition letters. ApplicanYs Testimony - delayed: Steve Dunbar, 20429 Yorba Linda Blvd, Yorba Linda. He has reviewed the staff report and had no questions or concerns regarding the content. Public Testimony: Lesa Bradley 5840 Blueberry Street, Yorba Linda. Yorba Linda is about 60 feet up from Short Street from this particular property. Since many of our residents are impacted by this request, I solicited a petition with our issues as follows. First of all, traffic in and out of the property will add to an already busy intersection and increase driving hazard. There are on-ramps and off-ramps on Imperial Boulevard. Short Street is a hill going up to our neighborhood and is the only access road going into the neighborhood, which are Yorba Linda and Anaheim properties. Also, Esperanza High School has significant traffic before school and after school, and I am assuming it would be at the same time people are dropping off their animals for care at this facility. It is already very difficult to safely pull off of Short Street onto Kellogg. Also, we are concerned about the potential negative impact on our neighborhood property values. These are ~ equestrian properties. We are animal lovers, so we are not against animals because we all have a lot of them. But, these are large properties, so the notification of this hearing was only limited to a couple of houses because of the size of the lots, many neighbors in the neighborhood were not even aware that this was taking place. 09-08-03 Page 37 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Also, we are concerned about potential future use of this property, if this veterinarian facility is not successful or at some time in the future chooses to pull out of there. What could be the potential use down the road? The structure in itself is obstructive, it is a very large two-story facility with a lot of variances on the code. The lighting, everything about it, does not fit in to the neighborhood. Many of us live here because it is rural in nature and we want it to be maintained in that way. Anthony Leone, 1930 Brandon Circle, Anaheim. Represents the Brandon Circle Homeowners Association which is directly south of the proposed project. We live behind a gated community there are only eight houses. We were notified by postcard dated August 28 of this project, which was a week ago Friday, so it did not give us much time to organize the neighborhood. Everyone around us to the west and north is Yorba Linda, so no one on Short Street, which will be heavily impacted by the traffic was notified. Many of them are here today because we put up a banner notifying people that this hospital was proposed and we needed to do something about it to protect our property values as well as traffic. I can add as an expert in real estate. I have been appraising real estate since 1972 in Califomia and any time you have a residential home that backs to or is that close to a commercial building, you have to deduct value from that residence because of the commercial site. Any appraiser will tell you that. If you submit an appraisal to a lender without making that adjustment, you will get it back because it has impact on traffic and noise. I don't know what the doctor has planned to keep the dogs from barking day and night in the kennel. I have been told they are enclosed, but I also heard there are going to be open dog runs. You can't tell a dog not to bark, and that house is a pitching wedge away from where I live, and I don't want to hear dogs barking. I iove animals, but dogs barking at 3 in the morning are not my favorite thing. I think the way this went about, not letting other people in the nearby city know, was underhanded. It may be a law that they don't have to notify anybody unless they are 300 feet away, but I think that is unrealistic. • That will be the only commercial site within a mile and a half if it is put in. It is way too big for the lot. The lot is half of an acre or .46 and is between an 8,000 -10,000 square foot building. And it is a building, it is not a residence and that is what we have against it. I have signatures, a lot of people couldn't come today because they weren't given enough notice and a!ot of people can't get off work. I'd like you to consider these objections. We have nothing against animals. We have nothing against Dr. Dunbar building a place to make his business, but not in our backyard. Wendy West, 5992 Short Street, Yorba Linda. I live on Short Street a few houses up the hill and my comments are very much the same as what has already been told here. There are a lot of young children in the neighborhood. Short Street is a very rural street, as are the streets off of Short Street. There are horses up and down the street, children on bicycles and there are no sidewalks. I have a petition opposing this conditional use permit signed by 40 of my neighbors, different neighbors from the one Lisa has already given to you. There have been quite a few calls to the City and I have pictures of the way the property has looked for about a year and a half as well as a picture of a banner that some of our neighbors have paid for in opposition to this. It is a safety and a fire hazard. Marian Oehlman, 6061 Calle Cortez, Yorba Linda, I have lived there 20 years. It is a gated private community and two or three times a day, I drive out Calle Mirador and go down to Short Street and for 20 years I have seen this horrible drainage ditch and weeds and I think it is about time we do something with it. From the pictures and rendering of what ( have seen, I think it would be a wonderful asset. If the neighbors succeed in stopping this, we may all be here next year fighting a Jiffy Lube, a Taco Bell, a mortuary or something like that. This is a beautiful building and I think it would fit very nicely in our neighborhood. Some of the neighbors were a little concerned about lights, but the lights are clear across the street and I don't assume they would be lights like a ball field, they would probably just be parking lights. Edward Young, 5821 Blueberry Street. I live just north of the proposed facility right off of Short Street in • the City of Yorba Linda. My main concern is congestion and traffic. The staff reports states there would only be eight vehicles per hour. However, they go on to point out, that you are talking about 8-12 employees (eight being minimum and twelve being maximum), two to three doctors which could be 09-08-03 Page 38 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • serving six to eight clients per hour per doctor. It is going to compute to a lot more than eight vehicles per hour. Beyond that we are talking about a grooming facility, eighteen luxury animal suites, two catteries. This is going to indicate more congestion, parking on the street, and it is not a situation that is compatible with a residential neighborhood. It is zoned residential and the staff report is asking the Planning Commission make an exception to the zoning to allow conditions where there would be a commercial building there. I stand along with many of my neighbors opposed to that. Steven Gutmann, 20615 Via Veronica, Yorba Linda. I am representing my mother Blanch Gutmann and the Gutmann trust along with my brother Eric. We have a split personality on our property because part is in Yorba Linda and part is in Anaheim. We own that parcel that is adjoining and the larger lot that is above it. We have the parcel where the City of Anaheim property line runs through. We are opposed to the project because of the impact it will have on a purely residential community. They are concerned about the grading of the property and the level of light that will affect his mother's house. They are also concerned about the drainage in the easement that they have on the property. Other concerns include the proximity of the dog runs to his mother's house as well as the possible odors that will come from the dog runs. Finally, the site plan indicates that they are going to have cages, and those are the circles on the north side of the property. There are eight of them there. They are within 130 feet of my mother's property. Commissioner Bostwick stated those are trees. Mr. Gutmann asked if those aren't the dog runs. Commissioner Bostwick said the circles indicate trees, and the length is a run. • Mr. Gutmann said Mr. Dunbar described them to us at a meeting in Yorba Linda as dog cages. Commissioner Bostwick stated they are dog runs, they are going to let them out and the dog can run back and forth. The circles are not in an individual cage. Mr. Gutmann stated that actually emphasizes my point even more. Commissioner Bostwick asked from that parking lot, how far away is your mother's house. Mr. Gutmann asked my mother's house or the lot. Commissioner Bostwick said the existing house. Mr. Gutmann stated I haven't measured it; I have just been going by the property lines of the property. Commissioner Bostwick asked do you know how long your property is overall? Mr. Gutmann stated I don't have that dimension. Nevertheless, you have the Imperial Highway above which is raised. You have the dog runs on that side of the building, bound to create an echo. Then there is the odor issue I think you have the letter that I wrote pertaining to this project, and I would like these issues addressed by Mr. Dunbar and in a written response and I would like to know the method of mitigation for each of those items I mentioned and are also listed in our letter. I really disagree with items 25, 26 and item 27 (their recommendations). Now are those circles trees that I see on the parking lot or are those standards? Commissioner Eastman stated those are trees i Mr. Gutmann so the lighting standards actually haven't been laid out at all. 09-08-03 Page 39 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bostwick responded no. Mr. Gutmann said it kind of makes sense that where we have these openings we have laid out here that those are where the standards might be placed but nevertheless one loom per square foot is tremendous, borderir-g a residential property. Randy Frager, 1990 Brandon Circle. I am probably the closest house, I am the one with the sign on the wall. I am right there and have the same concerns that everybody has talked to already. It doesn't show the actual lighting, noise, people, trash trucks, and deliveries coming and going that will occur. We bought in this quiet neighborhood because it was a neighborhood, and not an 8000-10,000 square foot business. Wayne Manska, 1921 Kellogg Drive. I am approximately 200-300 feet south of the proposed project. The project is completely inappropriate for its location. The immediate area is entirely residential, comprising homes valued at $650,000 to well over a million dollars. He is not saying that if these homes were valued at $250,000 the project would be appropriate, any neighborhood would resent having a 10,000 square foot animal hospital and animal boarding facility put in their neighborhood and I think anyone on the panel would feel the same way that we do. I am not sure it even permits the project, but the zoning is RA (Residential/Agricultural), was established maybe 80 years ago. At that time, this was not a residential area, it was just an area zoned residential/agricultural. But it has since been established to become a residential neighborhood. I hope this is not going to pass for revenue reasons. Even though these homes are $600,000 -$700,000 or a million dollars, none of them are 10,000 square feet, so this doesn't fit in the neighborhood. The fact that so many waivers are requested substantiates that the project is unsuitable for the site. I understand a traffic impact study was done at a time when traffic was minimal. The fact is, the site is about 100 yards away from Esperanza High Schoof. At least half of the people coming to the school and leaving are coming south on Kellogg, it is the main artery into ~ the high school. At least half of those will pass the project site. Most of these commuters are inexperienced teenage drivers. It is reasonable to believe that many of the proposed hospitals clients would be in a rush to get their injured pets to the hospital in certain emergency situations. This is a sure recipe for a potential tragedy. Although the project is proposed as a veterinary animal hospital boarding facility, it will also offer pet foods and supplies. This makes it a retail outlet as well, which additionally compounds the above negatives of the project. It will also add to the traffic. Many of the neighbors have not been advised of the project and I think that is why we have so few present today. I~personally did not get the postcard until Wednesday last week so I suggest that it is unfair to us and wish we had more time to get together to respond and react. I would suggest that a traffic study be re-done during the busy school hours before and after school, during the school season. The dogs barking will affect me, especially with a wall behind there acting as a baffle or resounding board for the noise. To sum it all up, I am adamantly opposed to the project. I believe it is ill conceived. The building is huge and obtrusive and I believe it would be poor planning to be allowed. Paul Albertini, 5949 Short Street, Yorba Linda. I appreciate the job that you guys have to do. I am absolutely opposed to it. I apologize if one of our fellow neighbors here feels she will be barked at because she wants it. And I agree, we will be battling about something at some point in the future because it absolutely will be developed at some point. That is the entrance to our community, these are very large lots, about 10 homes got notified because of the 300 foot radius. They are all 20,000 foot and larger lots. The reason people move there is for the same reason that has been echoed by the neighbors. It is a quiet place. There is no street light probably 200 feet into Short Street. If this should be approved, I would be curious to know what his other facilities are going to be coming when he constructs this one. Will he keep all three or eliminate the other two and consolidate to this one. In your planning meeting I heard some mention about making some amends for emergency services • because there will be animals boarded there. That lends to a problem because as soon as you give that okay, emergencies can happen 24 hours a day. A lot of these neighboring homes are going to have emergency situations two and three times a night. If he is boarding animals that are a potential risk, then 09-08-03 Page 40 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • that becomes a 24 hour affair in an area that is strictly residential. There are also drainage issues, it is a very narrow street on Short Street. I heard somebody proposing going two lanes coming off of Short. It is not so much traffic count, it is traffic quality, these are licensed drivers 18 and under. Also Esperanza High School has quite a significant amount of sport teams that have kids jogging down Short Street loop every single day - two to three times a day. Currently, the wall that is there is a six foot block wall set back twelve feet from the curb. You cannot see when you pull fonivard at the stop sign. If you stay behind the limit line like you are supposed to, you cannot see far enough north on Kellogg to make a safe right hand or left hand turn. This is a bordered situafion, Anaheim police will not patrol that area. Brea police make a cursory drive down there because Yorba Linda contracts with 8rea. If I have a problem with the code enforcement, how quickly will that get acted on when there are only ten Anaheim residents impacted. Should this business go down what will also be allowed to go in that spot. What other uses could go in a 10,000 square foot building? It is not suitable, is two stories, is in an area that is totally rural, seven days a week 7:30AM to 9PM., with extended emergency provision, it is a serious problem. Another issue is the signage that they are asking for; two times the normal size that is permitted in the City of Anaheim. Why would that be okay and even less so in a residential area. Also, no-one got notice until two weeks before the actual event. No notice was given and then when we called the Planning Department, it was basically stated that this was a done deal. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated there is just one point I wanted to make about this being a done deal. I don't know if that is necessarily a fair characterization because I know I get to vote on it and I haven't decided. I don't think any of the other Commissioners have either. So, there is still the process and of course City Council would also have an opportunity for review as well. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner stated just for staff standpoint obviously we know the Planning • Commission pushes the buttons, we just make the recommendations. I don't believe planning staff would tell them it is a done deal because we value the public input. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated I know sometimes there are wires that are crossed in communication and perhaps that happened in this instance. Applicant's Statement: Greg Roseen, 23 Dawnwood, Ladera Ranch, California. Stated I am Dr. Dunbar's agent, just to reiterate, I have been working with John and Greg and staff for about eight months on this and have never heard it is a done deal, from the very beginning, they have said we have to see what happens. We would like to talk about a couple of the comments that were made and just bring up a couple of points. We did amend a couple of things on the pfans. We did send out a flyer to the adjacent communities and yes, we probably hit 20 homes with a neighborhood outreach to get their feedback and introduce them to the project. We had about 15 people show up and we have taken their considerations. We have had numerous people talk about petitions. I grew up in Yorba Linda, I ran up Short Street, I know that area very well. I went to Esperanza High School. We know people in that area also and there is some information that has been given out to the residents which is not necessarily true, whether it be fabricated or just unknown information. First of all the dog runs. It must have been a miscommunication because we have never talked about cages outside. That has been a very important thing to us. We did know we were going into an area that has a lot of residential homes and we tried to tailor the buildings so that it fits into the neighborhood. The dog runs that are on the north side of the building, rather the dog exercise areas are being used, the dogs will be on a leash. ~ Commissioner Eastman asked will there be restricted hours when that would be happening. 09-08-03 Page 41 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Dr. Dunbar stated right now our office is open from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m., Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. until Noon on Saturday. The animal hospital will not be open seven days a week. Since we also have a boarding facility, there will be opportunities for people to come pick up their animals on Sunday, but we are not running late hours as far as the hospital goes. These are mainly exercise areas so animals can be taken out of the indoor rooms to that area. Commissioner Eastman asked would they be left alone. Dr. Dunbar said no, they would be attended, on a leash. These animals will be taken out there and then brought back inside. Commissioner Flores stated so somebody will always be there. Dr. Dunbar stated yes, it is an exercise area. They are not runs, they aren't where dogs are left out there by themselves. In the area we are in right now, Eastlake Village Shopping Center, we walk the dogs in the shopping center, on a leash. The problem they have been nervous about it is not a penned in area. They have never had any dogs get loose, but it would be nice to have an area be penned in. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked this is one dog at a time. Dr. Dunbar answered one dog, per person, there are not half dozen dogs put out there. Mr. Roseen said the staff received a grading plan that talks about the elevation of the parking lot in reference to Mr. Guzman's property and the grading plan shows existing grades and new grades. We are within six to eight inches of existing grade. The street does go up, and the site is very low and there is a drainage ditch, that is the low end of the site. Against Mr. Guzman's property, the elevation does rise and that is the elevation we are going to hold. There will not be any retaining walls that were required between • Mr. Guzman's property and our property. Commissioner Eastman asked if the natural drainage will still be maintained. Mr. Roseen answered if it is draining now I would assume the natural drainage would be, but I didn't think that just because they had natural drainage there doesn't necessarily mean somebody can run their water on your property. The property used to be owned by CalTrans, and I don't think it was maintained. I know that in the past, if water is running off your property, you can run water off your property onto the city property but you can't run your water off your property onto somebody else's property. Dr. Dunbar said the drainage from Mr. Guzman's lot will continue on from under the road that goes across to his lot and continue on down to the storm drain where it is now. Currently, it just runs across the surtace of the lot and is not contained or cemented, it just drains across the lot. So those are the issues that will have to be directed so the lot will continue to drain into the storm drain. Greg Roseen stated in working on this property we have again been working with the Public Works Department, and the Planning Department. Short Street on the north side is proposed to be widened. We are going from 15 feet from centerline to face of curb to now 18 feet from centerline to face of curb. We are also building a sidewalk, so the runners who run up and down the street will have a place to run and would be out of the street. The radius of this curb does not meet city standards. We are changing that radius to bring within the city standards. This handicapped ramp is not within the city standards, but we are changing it also to be within the city standards. We are upgrading that side of the street and making it much safer. It is a very good point they bring up with the existing wall that is there. Turning left out of there has to be tough because the view is not very good and we have talked about this. The proposed location for the wall is roughly in the same location as the retaining wall, or the existing wall. Dr. Dunbar has made a concession that we will probably go ahead and eliminate that wall and run this line right down here so we will back that wall up about eight feet and create a two to one slope from the • existing right of way elevation which will give them a real clear view all the way straight through there. So I think that you are going to find we are going to do whatever we can to make that corner safer than it is right now. 09-08-03 Page 42 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Dr. Dunbar said the wall that is there now is a permitted wall. Commissioner Eastman said, that was part of the questioning that I brought up at our morning session because just based on your drawing that we were working from and knowing where the wall is now, we were questioning that anything get built out where it is going to restrict that view from anybody coming off the freeway. Mr. Roseen answered we are going to be eliminating that sign, and adding a new sign, the sign is not going to be pointing to any residence and it is not going to intrude on their view of the intersection. Commissioner Eastman stated that sounds much better. Mr. McCafferty stated based on the level of public comment received today, being odor, noise, traffic, line of sight, all these things we believe at a staff level needs to be addressed in the staff report to Commission so that you know what the issues are and staff's recommendations. So, our recommendation would be that we continue for a minimum of two weeks in order to answer all the questions and come back with the complete staff report and perhaps some revisions to the recommendations. Commissioner Bostwick asked could we also have updated plans that show the setback and the signage where you are anticipating, so that it is clear in the exhibits. Redo the exhibits to show the wall not there and the sign moved so that exhibits matched what their actual plans are going to be. Mr. Roseen asked are you considering this to be an exhibit and not the rendering? Dr. Dunbar stated yes, that is not a problem. The rendering would be a little tough to change. • Commissioner Bostwick said yes, we have seen the picture of the building. I notice in this staff report, one of the requirements is that you are going to put in street lights and the site plan doesn't have the lighting plan on it. So if you could include the lighting plan. I know there is a condition that the plan will meet the code and will not be offensive to the neighbors and will be directed away from the neighborhood. Mr. McCafferty stated he would suggest giving that comment that they submit a photometric plan that shows the limits of the light in the parking lot and perhaps maybe using bollard-type lights, in lieu of lighting standards. This is also an additional opportunity for anyone else from the public who has concerns or comments to get in touch with John and voice their concerns and make sure when the staff report comes back to you that all the issues are discussed and evaluated in the staff report and gives an opportunity for the applicant to meet with the neighbors. Mr. Roseen stated the elevation of the parking lot is roughly a 300-301 elevation. The street going up there is running at 309 all the way up to in front of Mr. Guzman's house about 316-317, so we are going to be below grade. Obviously we have to get the lights up high but if we use a bollard-type light there is not any kind of lights that can get into the windows. Commissioner Bostwick asked regarding emergency service, if somebody drives up with an injured pet at midnight what would you do. Dr. Dunbar stated I have another hospital over in Anaheim Hills that we refer all our emergency cases to. If you call our office after hours, that's where the calls go. Commissioner Bostwick asked if there wouldn't be any traffic after evening hours. • Dr. Dunbar answered I would probably go down there, but at night people are employed there, we wouldn't run emergency service hours after we are closed. 09-08-03 Page 43 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bostwick asked if he had a couple of people that stay all night with the animals. Dr. Dunbar responded probably one. Commissioner Bostwick asked on duty all night. Dr. Dunbar said yes. Commissioner Bostwick referred to the staff report, where it states the six to eight trips and asked is that the amount of customers that are coming, not the staff that is coming. They come in the morning and stay all day. Dr. Dunbar stated we have two doctors, they see about four appointments per hour. So that would be eight per hour give or take a few, but that is roughly what it would be when we are seeing clients. The other thing I would like to point out is with the tra~c, most of the traffic all comes from the north, either off of Imperial Highway, down Kellogg to Short Street, and would be turning right and there are very few houses, single family residences below Esperanza and over towards Lakeview Avenue so we have very small numbers, probably one or two clients maybe per week even coming north on Kellogg per day or even per week. So all of our traffic would be coming from the north and not crossing that intersection. Commissioner Bostwick stated comments were made about customers coming and buying dog food or cat food, what do you carry in stock and how much do you sell. Dr. Dunbar stated probably about eight to ten feet of display area. Most of those are convenience items, for animals that we basically prescribe using a certain type of shampoo, prescription type diet, etc., but it is not a retail center that people would be driving there specifically to look for items, it would be items that we would send home. • Chairperson Vanderbilt stated there was some mention in earlier testimony about grooming that will be taking place on the site. So, generally, I would assume doctors are not required to be involved with that. Dr. Dunbar was in agreement. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if it would increase your visit count from eight. Dr. Dunbar said yes, some of them are animals that are going to be boarded there as well, so these are animals that are going to be groomed before they leave. On average, a groomer might do 20 animals in a day, but some of those animals are staying there. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated there were some discussion in your letter and a report in the staff report about effective sound control mitigation techniques in the construction. Can you say with any certainty that you are going to be able to limit dog barking. Dr. Dunbar stated right now I am in Eastlake Village Shopping Center, a neighborhood shopping center, probably within 75 feet of the houses that run right along the side of the shopping center. Unless a back door or side door is open, you could be in the parking lot in the center and never hear a dog bark unless somebody is outside walking their dog before they come in. But you do not hear animals in the hospital. I have never had any complaints from the neighbors above us or from the city of Yorba Linda and their departments. I have been there 18-19 years. In the design, the boarding animals are upstairs, they are within a room, individual suite and then they have a separate wall that is doored off from the kennel itself, separate from the rest of the second story portion of that. So not only are they enclosed within their kennel but you have the whole outside of the building. • 09-08-03 Page 44 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ He stated if anybody has a question they can come over to the shopping center I am in now. We have been very close to neighbors much closer than we are going to be. Besides that, we are backed up to Imperial Highway. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated if someone like myself were to visit your Eastlake Village location I have every reason to not hear any dog sounds and the number of animals there is proportional to the size of the facility. Dr. Dunbar stated we would probably have on most weekdays 25 animals. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked how many dogs Dr. Dunbar answered 25 dogs. Mr. Roseen said the Eastlake Village Animal Hospital was built 17 years ago. He introduced Rich Rauh, the architect who is well known in animal hospitals and he would like to talk about the actual noise that you mentioned. Rich Rauh, 22652 Shady Grove Circle, Lake Forest. He stated I am a specialty architect, as I specialize exclusively in veterinary hospitals, for 18-20 years. Really interesting because, like Greg was referring to, that Dr. Dunbar's prior project has been there for 17 years. This one here incorporates a lot of modern technology that hadn't been available 17 years ago. One thing in particular that we are acutely sensitive to is sound abatement, sound control. And how we attenuate the sound in these new facilities is not only do we provide special sound attenuation walls, and mechanical systems to evaluate how any air is evacuated out of the space and where that air goes, but we also look at transition zones and that is what we have incorporated into the design of this upper level. Transition vestibules what that relates to is largely a mud room. It is a transition room. For example, you have a dog in one room and you want to • take that dog to the outside, you have two doors, in between those two doors you have a transition space. One door opens, it is self closing. That dog passes through that transition zone to the other door which is also self closing. The intent is to mitigate the noise so if a door for some reason is jarred (left open), it traps unwanted sound from the exterior environment. That is how we largely handle that. In terms of disease control, we have learned some lessons from the Center of Disease Control. We use UVC ultraviolet lights, to virtually eliminate any viruses or bacteria problems. So virtually the hospitals of today, especially the boarding facilities are odor free, it is not a problem and we have special waste handling, so odor is not going to be a problem on or within the building at all. Mr. McCafferty asked if we can check with the Eastlake location in Yorba Linda, could we get the address so we can check on noise complaints. Dr. Dunbar said the address is 20429 Yorba Linda Blvd., Yorba Linda. Mr. McCafferty asked lastly, if the applicant would address dead animal carcass pickup at this location. Dr. Dunbar responded that there seems to be in some of the letters we read a misconception that we are running a crematorium there. ThaYs not true. My animals are kept inside, when they pass away or are put to sleep. They are placed in a freezer and we have a company that comes by once a week, during hours, and these animals are placed in containers or bags and they place them in a container and take them out to a truck. Any animal waste inside, we have commercial type toilets that all the waste is flushed so there is no dumpster. Commissioner Flores asked when are deliveries made, will you have large trucks come in and deliver items. • Dr. Dunbar responded most of our items are brought by UPS, Federal Express. There is a Hills delivery truck that stops by once a week usually around 12:00. 09-08-03 Page 45 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Flores asked when they pick up the deceased animals, is it a large truck? Dr. Dunbar responded it is a pick up type truck, with a back on it. Commissioner Flores asked when was the survey for the traffic done? Dr. Dunbar stated he believes the comment about traffic light studies had nothing to do with us, but our parking lot study was done evaluating similar animal hospitals in the area but there was a study done and I know that our traffic engineer can talk about that and it was done in October. Dr. Dunbar's traffic engineer stated the city conducted counts last October, 24-hour counts and we did signal warrant analysis and the signal is not warranted at this time and that was in October, so school was in session. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated I appreciate everybody taking time today to make some comments. We will be based on a motion, bringing this item up in minimum of two weeks. Mr. McCafferty stated he would be a lot more comfortable if it was a four-week continuance in case we get any additional comments from the public; and then logistical time to have the applicant meet with our traffic engineer and our civil engineers in order to work out and respond to each of the issues that the public brought up today. After action was taken, Mr. McCafferty stated there will be no additional notification for the public, the public hearing starts at 1:30 p.m. on October 6tn ~ OPPOSITION: 8 people spoke in opposition. During the meeting photographs were submitted in opposition, and 55 signatures were received in opposition to the subject request. Prior to the meeting, 7 letters were received in opposition to the subject request. IN SUPPORT: 1 person spoke in favor of the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to the October 6, 2003, Planning Commission meeting in order to give staff time to investigate the concerns of the citizens and to allow the applicant time to submit revised plans. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 11 minutes (4:03-5:14) ~ 09-08-03 Page 46 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 10c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04744 OWNER: First Congregational Church of Anaheim, 515 North State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Adan Madrid, Trillium Telecommunications, 3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 210, Seal Beach, CA 90740 LOCATION: 515 North State Colleae Boulevard. Property is approximately 5.6 acres, located at the northwest corner of Sycamore Street and State College Boulevard (First Congregational Church of Anaheim). Request to permit a telecommunications antenna with accessory ground- mounted equipment with waivers of: (a) minimum front yard setback and (b) minimum side yard setback. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ~ • OPPOSITION: None Continued to October 6, 2003 sr8639vn.doc ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to the October 6, 2003 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant in order to explore alternative design options. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 09-08-03 Page 47 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 11b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 11c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04743 Granted OWNER: AOC Building, 1808 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Andy Park, Andy Park Architect and Associates, 9012 Garden Grove Boulevard, Suite 12, Garden Grove, CA 92844 LOCATION: 1808 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 0.53-acre, having a frontage of 98 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, located 690 feet east of the centerline of Broadview Street. Request to permit a private religious educational institution within an existing three-story office building with waivers of: (a) required setback for institutional uses adjacent to residential zones, and (b) minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-131 sr8637vn.doc Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. S Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. Stated the subject item is Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04743 for property located at 1808 W. Lincoln Avenue, it is a request to permit a private religious educational institution in an existing office building. No changes to conditions of approval but we did receive an additional letter this morning from a tenant in the office building that the applicant is locating in expressing parking concerns. Staff is recommending approval of the project as recommended in the staff report. Applicant's Statement: Anna Chou, Vice President, referred to a letter received by the existing tenant and stated this was suppose to be disregarded because the current Universal Care Dental is a tenant who is on a month-to- month rental agreement. I have just spoken to sellers' agent and the attorney they are going to send out a one-month notice to this current tenant by September 15'h. So this should be disregarded. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated we could still discuss the parking issue even though it is not from a future tenant. Anna Chou stated without them Piedmont University would be a self-occupied new owner starting with 5 or 6 students with maximum of 30. That will happen in about three to five years. Mr. Goldberg from Education Department can explain how that will work. I really want to clear the issue regarding the letter from the dental group and the seller was very surprised, he said he mentioned this about three months ago and they said okay. I don't know why they wrote this letter today but notice will be out September 15tn Chairperson Vanderbilt stated we know there won't be two businesses located at this location based on what the seller and the buyer have arranged. You have a chance to review the staff report and do you have any questions or concerns • 09-08-03 Page 48 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Anna Chou said we have about 40 parking spaces and we are only going to start with five or six students. This is a specialty school with hours from 9AM to 5PM and it will be very quiet so I don't think parking permit should be an issue. It will take about three to five years to have the maximum of 30 students. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if there is anyone else in the audience who wishes to speak. Public Testimony: Stewart Wren stated I work for Universal Care representing Howard Davis, President and CEO with regard to this issue. Our issue isn't that we are a tenant in the building, our issue is we own the two buildings next door. The issue that we have regard to is it is a busy area and there is no public parking that is typically available, and the assumptions that are being brought forth to this group are that with 12,000 square feet of property it will be occupied by 30 people. The standard that I believe you have established in the report that you have provided today shows the standard to typically be 80 parking spots for this size property, yet you are accommodating this group by cutting that down by 50% and I don't know what consequences they have if they don't comply. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he is confused because the second paragraph in the letter says we (meaning Howard Davis) also rent 2,242 square feet on the 2nd floor from Dr. Chou at 1808 West Lincoln Avenue. Mr. Wren stated that is correct. The first paragraph also says that we own the buildings and operate the medical practices at 1814 and 1820 W. Lincoln Avenue. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if he said he wasn't a tenant of this building. Mr. Wren verified he said, as well as being a tenant. ~ Chairperson Vanderbilt stated regarding your future occupancy, you have every reason to think that you will get a notice on September 15th, giving you 30-days notice and you are no longer going to be a tenant. Are you on a month to month arrangement. Mr. Wren stated I would presume that is correct and 1 have no reason to doubt that. And certainly that is a concern and I want to be very open and honest about this with regard to our tenancy with that building. We also want to demonstrate we have about 20,000 square feet right next door where we have had medical practices for the better part of 14 years. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated we understand you are a neighbor and a tenant and you rent month to month and you have a right to speak on this item. Mr. Wren stated that would be my presumption based on the previous comments. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked, with regard to your concerns about the traffic use and maybe I am summarizing but you are concerned about some spill-over onto your property. Mr. Wren agreed. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if he had any other concerns or just parking Mr. Wren stated he is not an expert but he would be concerned simply because that 12,000 square foot, I understand this organization may have another location in the community with a much larger student/faculty ratio, it may be in Anaheim or Garden Grove, and it is reasonable that they would want to maximize this particular space for the benefit of their business. • THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 09-08-03 Page 49 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Dr. Daniel Goidberg, Vice President of Piedmont University, for educational matters. Stated he would like to address the parking issue. At the other location from which they are moving, they have less than ten (10) students. The location is mainly used for offices and they are looking forward to vacating the location at 3319 W. Lincoln, in favor of moving into the new facilities. They are a very specialized religious educational instifution and really only expect ten (10) students in the next year or two, perhaps in five years they might reach a capacity of thirty (30) students. Their specialization is that they like to send trained individuals out to serve in third world and other countries, preferably doctors, nurses and educators, not only trained to give good news but trained in very practicable areas to help out. They would also represent America as good citizens in the other countries, therefore, this is part of their educational objectives. He referred back to the parking situation, and stated it would take them seven to ten years to get to thirty (30) students. They now have 40 parking spaces, and less than ten (10) students. Chairperson Vanderbilt understands that if it were a brand new institution, in the process of building your institution you would go from a handful of students to a larger number. He asked being that it's an existing institution, why would it take so long to build up the thirty (30) students. Dr. Goldberg stated because they limit the type of personnel that are coming into the institution and the particular religious education that they are giving them. They are only offering three degrees; a B.A. and M.A. admissions to send people out to other countries, and a Doctor of Ministries to train/help ministers get further education. It is very highly specialized and they are not soliciting just to get a larger student body. They don't anticipate any parking problems, with 40 parking spaces at the present. He expfained students are not coming in at the same time, the B.A. students come in the morning, the M.A. students come in the afternoon, and the doctoral candidates in the evening. Therefore, he doesn't anticipate any problems with their neighbors and would like to be good neighbors. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated the proposed course schedule also identifies English as a second ~ language, on Thursdays. He asked if that is part of the degree program or a separate program. Dr. Goldberg stated it would be lower degrees, and they prefer to teach in English and they like to help the students that do need to achieve their English so they could progress. Chairperson Vanderbilt verified they would be the same students. Dr. Goldberg agreed, and stated it is not a different clientele. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if they have the exemption from the State of California, since the school is religious. Dr. Goldberg stated they are seeking the standard accreditation from the State of California, they either have the exemption or an inclusion. Chairperson Vanderbilt verified they are licensed and not accreditation. Dr. Goldberg agreed, and stated they are seeking accreditation in two areas, one from the State of California other than exemption and also from another accreditation association. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated the State of California doesn't accredit, you can get licensed by the State of California, Department of Consumer Af~airs. Dr. Goldberg agreed. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated the licensing process also requires a review of the facilities to determine that the facilities are adequate. ~ Dr. Goldberg agreed, they would comply with those requirements. 09-08-03 Page 50 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Chairperson Vanderbilt informed that staff mentioned that the ratio of classrooms and students to administration type services is usually in reverse of what the applicant is proposing, as he has an intensive administrative operation taking up the majority of the floor space and a very small student population. He asked if it coincides with the missionary services that they offer. Dr. Goldberg stated most of their faculty is adjunct rather than full time; therefore, they bring in experts. Obviously, they can't hire a lot of full-time faculty for a limited amount of students that they are training, so they operate heavily on adjunct faculty to bring in experts in their field to teach a few hours that they are operating. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked what is the nature of the administration, which appears to be a large part of the operation. Dr. Goldberg stated the administration is actually quite simple, they have a president of the school and he is serving as Vice President in Academic Affairs and there is a Board for the school. They are highly specialized in sending out individuals and they are sent out very well trained. They are not in competition in seeking a large student body, which is why the parking is not a problem, and they could keep within their limits. Commissioner Eastman asked for clarification and stated the amount of the total square footage for the students to utilize for class space, etc., seems to be small compared to the amount of area that the area is being used for administration purposes. She asked if missionary programs or other things are occurring. Dr. Goldberg responded yes. Ms. Chou interjected and stated Dr. Goldberg isn't aware because he is only in the educational ~ department, and that she has the complete plan. They have a very personalized study room and library, they almost have one private library to each student which is in the plans. Commissioner Eastman asked if it is more like one-on-one, which explains why they need so much space for the number of students. Ms. Chou agreed and stated the architect is also present if there are any questions about the floor plan. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated there are a lot of rooms dedicated to students and even though they parceled out the times of day for certain students, it seems with the library and computer lab that the student might be there all day rather than the certain class times. It is germane because the parking is recommended to be twice as much as what is being proposed. Commissioner Eastman referred fo the signage and stated it doesn't sound like this is the kind of facility that needs a lot of signage. They are always looking for opportunities to make things more beautiful, and since this is a major corridor and it doesn't seem like the building needs to have a large pole sign with space for different medical offices to be listed. Ms. Chou stated the listing agenYs attorney sent an e-mail indicating that every signage that the City says to be removed, will be removed and the signage problem will be solved. Commissioner Eastman stated the applicant would be taking the sign off from the roof, but asked staff if the pole sign is going to be removed. Mr. McCafferty stated the roof sign is not a permitted sign, and staff is recommending that it be removed. If the applicant feels they don't need the additional sign, it might be appropriate to have it removed. ~ Commissioner Eastman stated she felt this might be the appropriate time to condition the additional sign be removed. 09-08-03 Page 51 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Ms. Chou stated it is a really small sign and that is ail they want. Commissioner Eastman verified with the applicant that they wouldn't have any objection in complying with Anaheim's current codes and putting in a small monument sign. Ms. Chou agreed, and stated the signage issue is no problem with them. Mr. McCafferty verified with Commissioner Eastman she is requesting to modify Condition No. 2 to include that the pole sign also be removed. Commissioner Eastman stated also for the applicant to work with staff in order to comply with the monument sign. Mr. McCafferty stated that is under Condition No. 8. Commissioner Flores asked if currently there are 40 parking spaces. Mr. McCafferty responded yes. Commissioner Flores asked if it includes handicapped. Mr. McCafferty responded it is the total parking on the site. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked how many spaces are handicapped. Mr. McCafferty referred to the site plan and stated near the back entrance of the building, on the south side, there are two handicapped stalls. ~ Commissioner Eastman asked if one near the front entry is required. Taher Jalai, Principal Traffic Engineer. He stated iYs not required as long as they have adequate handicapped stalls and it is adjacent to the building entry. Commissioner Eastman asked if two is all that is required with 40 spaces. Mr. Jalai responded yes, and stated one is necessary for every 25 spaces. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition and a letter was received expressing parking concerns. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved Waivers of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04743 (to permit a religious educational institution in an existing office building), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated September 8, 2003, with the following modifications: Modified Condition No. 2 to read as follows: 2. That the existing non-conforming roof-mounted sign and pole sign shall be removed. ~ 09-08-03 Page 52 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bostwick and O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy) (Commissioner Bostwick left the Chambers at 5:17 p.m.) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 28 minutes (5:17-5:45) ~ ~ 09-08-03 Page 53 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 12c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04742 OWNER: Richter Farms Trust, 5505 Garden Grove Boulevard, Westminster, CA 92683 AGENT: John Tarlos, Tarlos and Associates, 17802 North Mitchell, Irvine, CA 92867 LOCATION: 1092 North State Collepe Boulevard. Property is approximately 6.9 acres, located north and east of the northeast corner of State College Boulevard and La Palma Avenue. Request to construct a drive-through restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to October 6, 2003 sr3038ey.doc Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. He stated the subject item is a request to construct a new drive- through restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. He explained staff s initial ~ recommendation was for denial, but they are supportive of a land use, but feel the design could better be worked out on the site, without exposing the drive-through lane to State College Boulevard. Therefore, in lieu of recommending denial, they recommend a continuance. He stated there are some modifications to the conditions of approval, Condition No. 30, to add a sentence that says "said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits", Condition No. 5 to strike-out Condition No. 32 and add Condition No. 33. With regard to signage, to indicate that the signage shall be limited to existing approved signage shown on exhibits. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant or representative come forward to speak. Applicant's Statement: John Tarlos, Project Architect, 17802 N. Mitchell, Irvine. He relayed the names of representatives who are present for the subject request, being John Ferrera, Head of Engineering for the western region; Jorge Mendoza, Project Manager for the subject location; Joel Faulter who produced the traffic study; and Gerry O'Donnell, representing the ownership. He stated he has a rendering of what the building would look like from the street. He feels they agree with most of the issues, but there is a problem if the building is oriented towards the streets. The biggest problem is they have a lease that they have to comply within the lease area, that is the only thing they are allowed to use and if the building were rotated they would basically meet the necessary requirements. A good portion of the project would be off the property itself. They are proposing to put a 3-foot high wall along the drive through lane and basically put a berm directly in front of it. When the people drive on the street the visibility of the cars would be very minimal. Also, representatives are present to answer any questions staff may have regarding the orientation of the project. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant for clarification regarding the lease, and why it limits their • options. 09-08-03 Page 54 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Tarlos agreed, and stated if you take the existing project it goes into an existing shopping center, and if you take the minimum number of parking spaces out of here and place the building into the site, the best they could come up with is what they presented to Commission for consideration. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if he is indicating it would minimize the impact to the existing parking. Mr. Tarlos responded yes, and stated they would be staying within their lease line. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Eastman explained she is concerned about the backside of buildings fronting on major streets and feels the City of Anaheim deserves better. The City has made many improvements by under- grounding the utilities, adding medians, and many other things to bring the quality up. The subject area has a lot of graffiti problems and feels the proposed facility orientation may welcome graffiti opportunities. Further, she is very uncomfortable with the subject orientation and feels the building should be "flipped", put the front towards the street and the drive-though in the back area. Then it would be presenting the best face on the City's major arterial street. It appears the same amount of space would be used, and she doesn't understand the dynamics of the ground lease agreement and asked why it wouldn't work to "flip" the building orientation. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated the alternate "footprinY' would be pushing the "footprinY' to the east and allowing parking between the sidewalk and the front of the building. Mr. Tarlos indicated they have an alternate solution which they could demonstrate showing how much property it would take up if they rotate the building. Commissioner Eastman indicated she would be interested in an alternative solution because she would ~ not be supportive of the current proposed plans. Mr. McCafferty stated a few months ago the Planning Commission approved the remodel of McDonald's at Ball and Anaheim Boulevard, it includes a real nice face lift in the front. There is landscaping in the front and a couple of outdoor seating tables, not intervene by parking and then around the building is the menu board, and the pick-up window is screened from Ball Road. For ground lease issues, it could be done. Mr. Tarlos submitted a sketch "alternate solution" to Commission, which Commission proceeded to review. Mr. Tarlos stated the front of the building would be what is now shown as the side of the building. Commissioner Eastman stated what is currently shown as the south elevation, would become the west elevation in the alternate plan. Mr. Tarlos agreed, and stated the drive-through is the side of the building and is not the back of the building. He referred to the site plan, and stated the way the parking would have to be laid out, they would lose parking stalls. He asked Commission to look at the location of the lease line and indicated a representative is present who could address that issue. Commissioner Eastman suggested another layout, but still lengthwise on the lot. Mr. Tarlos explained people coming into the building have to walk through the drive-through lane, because the drive-through lane would be on the opposite side of the building, as shown on the sketch. He stated they have looked at about 10 different sketches, and stated the one that is proposed today for Commission's consideration is the one that would have the least amount of traffic interruption and traffic ~ for the site, and the least amount of parking stalls to be eliminated. They have looked at the other options, and basically they would lose a lot more parking stalls, etc. 09-08-03 Page 55 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • He referred to a sketch, and stated they could put a small wall with a berm in order to help visually. Commissioner Eastman asked the representative to speak regarding the lease line. Gerry O'Donnell, represents the owner of the property. He stated there is a lease for a certain amount of square footage, but their concern is to mitigate as much as possible taking away parking spaces which was their concern when they negotiated the lease. This would impact the whole center because every parking space is critical, as Commission is aware they have a few other issues in the subject center. He referred to existing conditional use permits that have been granted with the existing parking and they would not want to take anymore away. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he has seen so many fast food places with this type of architecture that is obviously an evolutionary design that is most likely perfected since there are so many. He informed when they looked at some drug stores, there were certain sides to the building which had no architecture. They were able to suggest some kind of architectural features that eliminated the impression that it was just a solid wall. He understands that the applicant has done some of that, as they have the red light fixtures, vertical and horizontal lines that add a little dimension to it, and then the drive-through second window has a different shade that gives you a sense of depth. Commissioner Eastman stated it takes any of the architectural interest of the building, as to the windows, signage, etc., it puts it in a corner facing the Arco Station and a hedge, therefore, it negates any reason to do anything as that. She stated because they are going to eliminate the driveway to the south, and only have the driveway into the shopping center to the north, and referred to their most prominent view. This is what people see when they come into Anaheim, south on State College Boulevard. She asked, architecturally, do we want more of that in our City. She stated she can't be supportive and agrees with staff's position. ~ John Ferrera, Director of Engineering for Wendy's International. He stated what they have done in the past to address some of the similar concerns. They designed and built fully integral to the building is a canopy of the drive-through area. From reading the staff report and hearing concerns, it sounds as though the biggest issue is to shield the drive-through use and not to have such an impact off the stree He explained they could build a complete canopy. Commissioner Eastman verified more architectural enhancements, which would make it look like a building to be proud of. t. Mr. Ferrera agreed, and stated Wendy's does not have any problem with that, they want to make an impact just as much as the City would. The site plan issue regarding the building orientation seems to be the concern, they wish they could address that by laying out the site differently, but the site as it stands is about 24,000 square feet which is just over %2 an acre, there is not a lot of room. It is in a larger development and seems there is a lot of room to work with, but they are limited on what they could do. Therefore, they would like to use the site plan and work with staff, he suggested they could build an enhanced canopy over both drive-through windows. Commissioner Eastman asked how long would they need, if they suggested a continuance to bring the plan back to them. Mr. Ferrera responded two weeks, they could have something presented to staff by the end of the week, if necessary Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff based on what the architect is proposing, would it change their opinion if they modify the elevations to conceal and add enhancements to the project, as staff's findings right now are focused on the drive-through and the service windows being adjacent to the right-of-way. ~ Mr. McCafferty stated they are open to look at options, but agrees with Commissioner Eastman they don't feel it would change their recommendation because it would still be exposing the inner side of the building to the public street and they believe their community deserves better than that. Therefore, feels it should 09-08-03 Page 56 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION ~IIINUTES • be oriented with the drive-through lane away from the street. They don't believe that land use decisions should be guided by ground leases, it should be by site design and planning principles. Commissioner Romero stated he would be open to see what it would look like with enhancements to the building. Commissioner Eastman stated if there was a way for no one to tell it was the rear end of the building, and it looked as lovely as the front of most buildings would look, then she feels there would be more receptivity. Mr. Ferrera stated two sites have just opened in Glendale, Arizona, with the same exact situation the back of the building is facing the side, not the street. They have some where they want the back of the building to face the street, and they dressed it up where it is prettier than the front of the building. They would be more than happy to do the same. Commissioner Eastman stated that is the same treatment they want to see in Anaheim. Mr. Ferrera was in agreement. Mr. McCafferty asked if the Commission is open to keeping the drive-through lane along State College Boulevard. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated if a continuance is made, there will be a different dynamic at the next meeting because there will be 6 or 7 Commissioners present. He feels closer to staff s position, but is interested in seeing what is brought forward for consideration. Therefore, it would seem logical to have a continuance. He asked the applicant if he agrees with a 4-week continuance. ~ Mr. Ferrera asked if they could present something to staff by the end of the week, for a 2-week continuance. Mr. McCafferty explained they are already working on the next Planning Commission meeting, as their timeframe is so quick. The planner would need to get it by the end of this week in order to get it ready for the next meeting. Staff would also have to schedule a meeting with the applicant by tomorrow or the next day, in order to work out the design issues and then the architect draw it and bring it back by Thursday or Friday morning. Commissioner Eastman asked due to staff's workload is it possible. Mr. McCafferty explained it is always possible, but would prefer 4 weeks in order to give it the attention that is needed. Mr. Ferrera was in agreement with a 4-week continuance. Mr. Tarlos stated they are going to enhance the building, and asked if the site plan is going to be approved or disapproved regarding the orientation of the building. Mr. O'Donnell spoke briefly from the audience area, not af the podium, therefore it was not recorded on tape. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he feels they are asking if everything is done as they propose based on the current orientation. Mr. O'Donnell spoke briefly from the audience area, not at the podium, therefore it was not recorded on tape. ~ Chairperson Vanderbilt stated they could vote on the item today, and there is the appeal process available. 09-08-03 Page 57 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. O'Donnell continued to speak from the audience area, not at the podium, therefore it was not ~ recorded on tape. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Mr. O'Donnell to come forward to speak. Mr. O'Donnell stated if you just want to beautify Anaheim and not have business that is one thing you need to think about. When they went into the negotiation they agreed it would be minimized blocking the back portion of the folks that also need a little bit of exposure. The more open space you have is more inviting than having a building in the front. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked for clarification on Mr. O'Donnell's statement. Mr. O'Donnell clarified that if you want to help your tenants in the back, the more open space you have as you're driving north and south on State College Boulevard, it is an invitation to come into the center, so people can see there are other businesses. Commissioner Eastman stated then the lengthwise would be better. Mr. O'Donnell responded no it's not, having it turned so that the minimum amount of the building is exposed to State College Boulevard. Commissioner Eastman clarified that would be better for your tenants in the back of the center. Mr. O'Donnell responded that is what he wants, and explained he wants it turned so that it opens up. Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. McCafferty reviewed together what Mr. O'Donnell is referring to regarding the ~ orientation of the building. Mr. O'Donnell stated if not, they may not allow the change in the lease. Commissioner Eastman stated she feels Commission understands that. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bostwick and O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to the October 6, 2003 Planning Commission meeting in order to submit revised plans with more architectural enhancements. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: 29 minutes (5:46-6:15) ~ 09-08-03 Page 58 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 13a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3 Continued to 13b. VARIANCE NO. 2003-04574 October 6, 2003 OWNER: Neelam Shewa, 5333 University Drive, Irvine, CA 92616 AGENT: Blash Momeny, 23120 Alicia Parkway, #100, Mission Viejo, CA 92692 LOCATION: 301 and 345 Pennv Lane. Parcel 1: Property is approximately 0.53-acre, having a frontage of 90 feet on the southerly side of Penny Lane, located 70 feet southeast of the centerline of Mohler Drive. Parcel 2: Property is approximately 0.78-acre, having a frontage of 220 feet on the southerly side of Penny Lane, located 160 feet southeast of the centerline of Mohler Drive. Request waivers of: (a) maximum structural height, (b) minimum front yard setback, and (c) minimum side yard setback, to construct two single family homes. sr5037jr.doc VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None I~ ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to the October 6, 2003 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant in order to modify the request to include a waiver of the required improvement to the private street serving the two properties (Penny Lane). VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bostwick and O'Connell absent and with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 09-08-03 Page 59 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:17 P.M. TO MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. ~ ~ Respectfully submitted: ~~~~ ~~~y ~D~-°Lt-~ ./ Elly Morris Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on D~~ober ~ , 2003. 09-08-03 Page 60