The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1999/07/07~ .. d.~ ~_. . . . . . . . i;, SUMMARY ACTdON AGENDA ~ITY OF Ai~,~H~IM PLANNlNG COMNi~~SION MEETILV~ WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 1999 10:3~ A.M. • PRESENTATION BY THE RED~VELOPMENT AGENCY REGARDING THE VACANT LAND ON THE NORTH AND EAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BEFDCH BOULEVARD AND LINCOLN! ~'~V~NUE 11:Q0 A.M. STAFF UPDATE T~ COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPME~ITS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSiO,r~) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.M. • PIJgLIC HEARING TESTIMON'~ COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, KOOS, NAPOLES, VANDERBILT ABSENT: ESPING STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Greg Hastings Cheryl Flores Judy Dadant Greg McCaffe~ty Karen Dudley Kim Taylor Don Yourstone Brent Schultz Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Margarita Solorio Ossio Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Associate Planner Associate Planner Associate Planner Associate Planner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Redevelopment/Housing Development Manager Principal Transportation Planner Associate Civil Engineer Flanning Commission Secretary Senior Secretary ~ P:\DOCSICLERICALIAGENDAS\070799.DOC City of Anaheim Plann(ng Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-J9 Page 1 ITEi~7S OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None DISCUSSION ITEM: Selection of Planning Commission Chairman and Pro-Tempore. Continued to (Please note: City Council postponed 99/00 appointment/reappointment of the 2 ~uly 19,1999 P/anning Commissioners until7-20-99.) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. COUNTY OF ORANGE SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY - REQUEST Determined to be TO DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WITii THE GENERAL PLAN TO in conformance ENTER INTO A DONATED SPACE AGREEMENT FOR OFFICE with the Anaheim SPACE: Paul Douglas Jr., County of Orange Social Services General Plan Agency, 888 North main Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701, requests a determination of substantial conformance with the Anaheim General Plan to enter ~nto a donated space agreement for office space (CaIWORKS Welfare-to-Work Program). Property is located at 1240 South State College Boulevard. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTiON CARRIED (Commissioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find the County's proposal to enter into a donated space agreement with Maximus, Inc., for office space located at 1240 South State Col!ege Boulevard is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. SR0022KT.DOC Kim Taylor, Associate Planner: This is a request from the Orange County Social Services Agency to determine conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for 1240 South State College Boulevard. The Social Service Agency is pronosing to enter into the donated space agreement for 1,000 sq~3re feet of office space to work with their contractor, MAXIMUS Inc., to run the CaIWORKS welfare-to-work program. The site is zoned CL (Commercial Limited) Zone and is designated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan for Generai Commercial Iand uses. Office uses are considered to be consistent and compatible with the General Commercial designation. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission, by motion, find the County's proposai to enter into z donated space agreement with MAXIMUS Inc. for office space located at 1240 South State Coliege Boulevard in conformance with the Anaheim ueneral Plan. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 2 Ft . B. COUNTY OF ORANGE COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY - REQUEST 70 DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WIITH THE GENERAL PLAN TO ENTER INTO A DONATED SPACE Detemnined to be in conformance with the Anaheim AGREEMENT: Bill De Luca, County of Orange, Communfty Servfces General Plan Agency,1300 South Grand Avenue, Bldg. 6, Santa Ana, CA 92705, requests a determination of substantial cunformance with the . Anaheim General Plan to enter into a donated space agreement (Job Training Partnership Program (JTPA}). Property is ~ocatad at 2~~C West La Palma Avenue. CA TION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissfoner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find the County's proposal to enter into a donated space agreement at 2360 West La Palma Avenue in connection with its JTPA Program, i~ in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. SR0021 KT.DOC Kim Taylor, Associate Planner: 7his is a request from the County of Orange, Community Services Agency, to determine conformance with the Anaheim General Plan to enter into a donated space agreement at 2360 West La Palma Avenue. The request is to enter into a donated space for 200 square feet of office space. Subject property is behind the North Orange Counry Regional Occupation Center (NOCROC) to provide Job Training Assistance Program (JTPA). The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the property for Low Densiry Residential uses. The site is zoned RS-A-43,000 Zone which is an implementation for Low Density Residential designation. Public school facilities are typically zoned within RS-A-43,000. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission find the County's proposal to enter into a donated space agreement at 2360 West La Palma Avenue in conformance with Yhe Anaheim General Pian. City of Anahf,im Plann(ng Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-OT-99 Page 3 y. ~,. C. ENVIRONh1ENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 313 (PREV: CERTIPIHD) Approved AND REQUEST FOR FINAL SITE PLAN REVtEW NO. 95-03. Approved REVISION N0.1: Stephen Hsu, 515 West Katella Avenue, Anahefm, Ca 92802 and Sylvia E. Lyons, 53 Hunter Point Road, Phillips Ranch, CA 91766-4959, request for review and approval of a revised landscape plan. Property is located at 515 West Katella Avenue (Four Points Sheraton). ACT10N: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that previously-certified EIR No. 313 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the subject request. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, sec~nded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the revised landscape plan (identified as Exhibit No. 7A of the Finai Site Plan on file in the Planning Department) based upon a finding that the revised landscape plan is in conformance with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Karen Dudley, Associate Planner: This is a request for review and approval of a revised landscape plan for the 11-foot wide front setback area for the Four Points Sheraton Hotel located at 515 West Katella Avenue in the Anaheim Resort. The revised plan incorporates a tropicai design for mature 36-inch box coral trees, ten 15-gallon umbreila trees with a generous mix of flowering plants and shrubs that incorporate a layered landscape design adjacent to the Katella right-of-way. Staff reviewed the plan and found it to be in conformance with Anaheim Resort Specific Plan including the site development standards and the design critsria for tree density factor and layering. After review the applicanYs environmental compliance form, staff found that the project falis within the perimeters and time frames and assumptions of Environmental Impact Report No. 313 which was previously-certified for the Anaheim Resort Specific Pian No. 92-02. There was a Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 001, Revision No.1 which was previously prepared for the final site plan that was approved by the Planning Commission for the hotel project itself and found with the impiementation of those mitigation measures that there will be no significant environmental impacls based on the revised plan. Based on the findings, staff recommended to the Planning Commission that the revised landscape plan be approved. City of Anaheim Plannfng Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 4 ~ ~. :' w~ -~u's I ~? . ~ .,,~ ~ ' I .~ 1 - , PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: ~ 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 2b. RECLASSIFICATI4N NO. 98-99-13 August 16,1999 INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim (Community Development), 201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: No address assianed. Property is 2.27 acres located at the southwest comer of Monte Vista Road and Bauer Road. To reclassify this property from the RS-A-43,000(SC) Zone to the RS- 5000(SC) Zone. Continued from the Commission meeting of May 24,1999. RECLABSIFICATION RESOLUTIOCV N0. SR7487 • • • • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the August 16,1999 Planning Commission meeting per the reques; of the Redevelopment Agency. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. City of Anahsim Plannir~c~ Commission Summary Action Agenda' 07-07-99 • Page 5 3b. WAIVEt~ OF CODE REQUlREMENT I Denied 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4089 Denied OWNER: La Palma Family Partnership, P.O. Box 448, Los Alamitos, CA 90721 AGENT: Coorg Corporation, P.O. Box 448, Los Alamitos, CA 90721 LOCATION: Parcel 1-This irregularly-shaped 1.18-acre property has a frontage of 120 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, a frontage of 120 feet on the noRh side of North Street, a maximum depth of 430 feet, and is located 120 feet east of the centerline of Pauline Street (740 East La Palma Avenue). Parcel 2- This rectangularly-shaped 1.5-acre propecty has a frontage of 85 feet ~:i the south side of No~th Street, a frontage of 95 feet on the north side of Wilhemina Street, a maximum depth of 770 feet, and is located 159 feet east of the centerline of Pauline Street (no street address). To permit a building material/contractor's storage yard and outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats and trailers wiih waiver of required site screening. Continued from the Commission meetings of April 12, and May 24,1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLU710N NO. PC99-120 SR74 P.pplicanYs Statement: Edward Ballard, 535 Anton Boulevard, Suite 800, Costa Mesa, CA 92626: Stated the Coorg Corporation who is the agent for the La Palma Family Ltd. Trust is applying `or a conditional use permit concerning parcel 2 of subject property to have an outdoor storage facility. He was concerned with staffs recommendation, page 7(c) of the staff report, to deny this request for the following reasons: • 7(c)(i) states, "That the proposed outdoor storage yard will not provide aesthetic improvement to this property which is visible to adjacent multiple and single-family lands uses". This is a narrow piece of property along a railroad track. Parcel 2 is approximately 800 feet long. Prior to the Coorg Corporation's involvement this property was a barren piece of land with railroad tracks down the center. Part of this proposal will include fencing with a combination of block wall, green mesh with landscaping to shield the view of the railroad from the single-family residences on the west side of the track. On the east side of the railroad tracks there are apartment buildings. Line-of-sight studies have been done indicating that people living on the second floor balconies of those apartment buildings will not be able to see into the proposed storage area. Anything done to this property would clearly be an improvement on the aesthetics of the area. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 6 He referred to their two-scale architectural model of this site which was forwarded ta Commission for their review. It includes line-of-site visualization which represents the apartment buildings on the east side of the property. • 7(c)(iii) states, "That the size and shape of this property is adequate to construct storage buildings which would be more compatible with residential land uses". They have been working with the Planning Department staff to try to meet ail the needs and wants. Staff feels the best use is to have actual enclosed storage facilities built on this site. To do what the applicant is proposing requires major expenses. At some point in the future their plan is to build enclosed storage facilities that staff views as the best use for the property. • 7(c)(iv) states, "That the peace, health, safety and ger~aral welfare of the adjacent residents would best be served by the development of this property with land uses that are contained within enclosure buildings to provide visual enhancement of this property". This ties into the first two reasons. The history of this property is that it was barren with gang activity. Since purchase of the property, they are seeking to develop parcel 2 which has decreased gang activity in this area. They are in the process of working with the police department so tl~ey can train their canine unit dogs on parcel 1. The residents on both sides will not be able to see into the storage facility. The trains passing through that area are very Ioud and, in comparison, their proposed storage yard will be very quiet. Any noise coming from this storage yard will be far less than what the residents currently hear every day when the trains pass through this area. Many of the recommended conditions have already been started or are completed. They had concerns with the following conditions: • Condition No.1. He requested that this use be granted for a 5-year period. This had been discussed openly with staff and agreed to verbally by certain City individuals, rather than a 1-year. One year is economicaily not feasible for the applicant. • Condition No. 7 which states, "That no ingress/egress will be permitted on North Street or Wilhelmina StreeY'. He asked that it be compared to Condition No.14, "That all truck deliveries shall be limited to La Palma Avenue". They will comply to Condition No.14 but the problem with Condition No. 7 is that under the current permit for parcel 1 an easement was granted for ingress/egress off of the two streets cited in Condition No. 7 but it was specifically for regular vehicles and pickup trucks. It has been their understandiny in applying for the CUP for parcel 2 that it would not change, that the ingress/egress would still be there at the streets cited for regular vehicles, including smali pickups and all larger trucks would come in through La Palma. He feels the way Condition No. 7 is written goes against what is currently granted for the use on the two parcels. • Condition No. 9 states, "That any required relocation of City electrical equipment shall be at the developer's expense". He noted that this has already been done. • Condition tJo. 13, requires that plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his review. There have been plans already submitted and approved. What would be done under this CUP pursuant to this condition is the plan w~uld be amended to include the necessary added parking spaces that would be required in parcel 2. Most of the conditions have been done and are continuing to be done, They are generally in agreement with the conditions except for those mentioned above. Since Coorg has acquired the property, there has been much reduction in gang activity and they have received positive feedback from the residents. The propo~ed use is allowzd under current ML Zoning, although in this area to have an outdoor storage yard the City requires a CUP be granted. THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION WAS CLOSEQ. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 7 Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: The developer was not!fied when they were daing the grading permit, there is a opening between the median island in front of the property to close it off by rebuiiding it to make it a solid median island. Their entrance to the site would be only right in and right out because it is too close to the railroad tracks. Cheryl Flores, Senior Pianner: Condition No. 7 came from the Recommendation Committee which was to restrict any other traffic within the residential neighborhood that might be detrimen!al to the neighbors. They would prefer that all of the traffic related to this business enter and exit from La Palma. Commissioner Koos: Asked what type of materials is going to be stored? Mr. Nanda, 2005 Palos Verdes Avenue, Long Beach, CA: Responded it will consist of constr~ction materials, scaffolding materials, forms material all neat~y stacked. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked how high they will be? Mr. Nanda: Approximately 7 feet tall. The line-of-sight will not be seen from the adjacent properties. Commissioner Koos: He was concerned that this being a heavily traveled commuter rail corridor, double decked trains traveling through the City are much higher than 10 feet and therafore they need to be considerate of aesthetic issues. Mr. Nanda: 7hey are also very sensitive to that issue. Commissioner Boydstun: She was concerned if they pian to store RV vehicles which are 10 to 12 feet high which will not be blocked by a 7 foot fence. Mr. Nanda: They have a 10-foot fence there and if it is taller than that then they would not be storing therc. He referred to their model. Commissioner Vanderbilt: Noted that the model does not include any RV's on it. It shows the surface Mr. Nanda: It is a scaled model and the hedge is 10 feet tall. Commissioner Vanderbilt: The issue was that in the case of RV's or boats that are on top of a trailer there are portions that will exten~ beyond 10 feet and be seen. He referred to the photos that were submitted a~d noted that one of the photos showed a window and detail of the house across the street behind the screening mesh because it is translucent and that staff is recommending vines to mitigate that but it will take some time for them to mature. Mr. Nanda: The screen is a temporary device until everything else is filled in. Chairman Bristol: According to Commissioner Bostwick, who is knowledgeable on RV's, the tallest RV would be under 14 feet but fhey are typically 10 to 12 feet. The fence on the east side will not sr,reen an RV. Mr. Nanda: If they are taller than 10 feet then they will not be allowed. Cummissioner Bostwick: Commented it is going to be limited strictly to travel trailers that are about S feet tall which is going to limit his business. He recommended adding verbiage that outdoor storage of any trucks, irailers, or commercial vehicle, non-operating vehicles be prohibited. Mr. Nanda: They could increase the height of the fence to 12 feet.. Chairman Bristol: Asked staff their thoughts of having the fence raised to 12 feet on the east side? City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 8 Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: The Code requires that the fence be the height of the storage. Storage is not allowed to exceed the height of the fence. The required site screening requirement has been advertised and Code requires a minimum of a 6-foot high masonry wall adjacent to the railroad right-of- way, so it can exceed. Commissioner Vanderbilt: It was mentioned that this use would not cause excessive noise compared to the (38) trains. Mr. Nanda: Reference a report submitted showing the decibel levels. The sound of the train horn is over 120 decibels. In comparison, they are nat going to increase the noise level or havp that the much traffic. Commissioner Vanderbilt: His point is that the train noise is going to occur whatever the use of the property is. HP is trying to get some sense for the amount of noise that would be created by, for example, the alarm that automatically goes off when a truck backs up as well as the equipment dropped or the storage of the building materials. Mr. Nanda: Regardless of the rype of business that goes in there, there will be some kind of sound. This is zoned ML. Edward Ballard: He brought up the example of the trains which have sounds in excess of 120 decibels. The noise study completed on idling engines shows the different levels. The decibel readings are !ow and well within the acceptable limits. His point in bringing that up was the use of the parcel is not going to come clase to increasing ihe noise. On the west side of the property there is a combination of a new block wall, fencing, screening and shrubbery which serves as some sound barrier. Comrnissioner Boydstun: Ask?d whether this use is going to be for one company plus the storage of vehicles which they will rent out7 How many trips a day would be generated for construction office? Mr. Ballard: Responded yes the primary use of the two parcels is for one company. Most construction companies have projects off-site and the storage area would have some equipment, etc. Mr. Nanda: Thought there would be approximately 5 trips a day coming from the north side of La Palma Avenue. Commissioner Koos: Asked if they consider this as an interim use? Edward Ballard: in the sense that understanding that the City's best use plan is to have enclosed storage ereas and also understanding that it costs a tremendous amount of money to buifd at one time because this is a small company, interim use in the sense that the long term plan would be to have those types of storage ~acilities. Commissioner Koos: He had a difficult time supporting something that is adjacent to residential and adjacent to a heavily traveled commuter rail corridor. He wondered whether this is tt,a rype of use that they wanted to see there. Commissioner Vanderbilt: Asked if the applicanPs willingness to raise the fence to 12 feet, would that change staffs recommendation for denial of the CUP7 Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Staff would still have concerns on the alley side of the project because there is just chainlink fence there. There is no screening proposed there other than landscaping which will eventually grow to a 10 foot screen but will take time to do so. From the alley, anything stored on the property will be very visible. Nir. Ballard: Mentioned there is a block wall there that they installed City of Anaheim Planning Commissfon Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 8 Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: There is a difference in grade of 5 to 6 feet so anything above ori the property will be visible from the alley. Commissfoner Bostwick: He agreed with Commissfoner Koos. Having an open storage yard is not going to improve the neighborhood or the communiry in that area. If they want to return with a proposal to build a building backed along the tracks to provided the sound deadening and store things inside then he could see that but outside storage does not improve the neighborhood. Mr. Ballard: Asked if they improved the parcel with the fencing that he is suggesting to go around it, what could they do with the parcel? Commissioner Bosfinrick: Suggested they can m~'~e a green belt out of it or buiid a building with indoor storage rather than an outdoor storage. Mr. Baltard: It was suggested to build a park but that would not be a desirable use next to the railroad tracks. Commissioner Bostwick: He feels there is a need for RV storage in the City but does not feel it fits at this site the way it is currentiy proposed. (Commissioner Vanderbilh Requ2sted that hls vote be changed to reBect a yes vote for a denia! of Conditional Use Permit No. ~{089.] FOLJ,.OININGIS A SU.MMARY OF THE f~LANNING GOMMISSION ACTION: ' OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Denied Waiver of Code Requirement Denied Conditional Use Permit No, 4089 based on the following: (i) That the proposed outdoor storage yard will not provide aesthetic improvement to this property which is visible to adjacent multiple and single-family land uses. (ii) That the size and shape of this property is adequate to construct storage buildings which would be more compatible with residential land uses. (iii) That the peace, health, safety and generai welfare of the adjacent residents would best be served by the development of this property with land uses that are contained within enclosed buildings to provide visual enhancement of this property. VOTE: 5-i (Commissioner Napoles voted no and Commissioner Esping was absent) Selma titann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCU~SION TfME: 39 minutes (1:45-2:24) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 10 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 8-16-99 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4130 OWNER: Jon M. Dowell, Nancy E. Dowell, Gabriel Patin, Virginia Patin, Shirley Almand, William U. Almand, Willa Jean Cornett, Wiiton B. Abpianalp, Ruth D. Abplanalp, 3335 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Pacific National Development, Attn: AI Marshall, 1041 W. 18th St. #104-A, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 LOCATION: 3335 - 3345 West Lincoln Avenue - Lazy Livfnq Mobile Home Park. Property is 2,98 acres located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue,1,070 feet e~ist of the centerline of Knott Street. To construct a 96-unit affordable senior citizens apartment complex with waiver of ~a) permitted encroachments in setback areas, (b) minimum number of parking spaces, (c) minimum side and rear landscape setback adjacent to one-family residential developments, (d) maximum structurai height, (e) required elevators, (fl minimum floor area, (g) location of required private storage areas, and (h) minimum required affordable units. Continued from Commission meeting of June 21,1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMI'f RESOLUTION N0. ApplicanYs Sfatement: AI Marshali, 1041 W. 18th Street, Costa Mesa, CA: Stated subject property is currentiy the Lazy Living Mobile Home Park and a single-family home belonging to the Almand family. They are proposing 96 senior apartments to be located on the 2.98 acres, know as 3335 West Lincoln Avenue. The proposed development will be a tax credit proposal. The feel their proposal will be extremely beneficial to the City ofi Anaheim in that it is relatively a low density ser.ior proposal and very affordable. The rents range from 30% of average median incoma and up. Basically they are in the average median income of about 46% for the total project. It is a very low income project. They have met with lhe WAND group, neighbors around the property, mobile home owners living on the property and the Housing Authority staff. They are a density of 32.2 units per acre and an age restriction of 62 years of age and older. Their 96 units will have 112 car parking spaces. The current surrounding uses to the east are a hair piece shop, tviro story offices, condominium complex and the Villa Anaheim Senior Apartments. The Villa Anaheim Senior Apartments are a tax credit development put together in 1994 that is basically 46 units to the acre with a total of 96 parking space or .7 parking spaces per unit. The tax credit program starts at 50% and goes to 60% rents. The adjoining lano uses to the south are restaurant and to either side are high densiry family apartment. The west of the property is a motel. To the northwest are two single-family homes. To the north are six single-family homes and to the northeast is a school athletic field. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 11 The are requesting the following three waivers. • The first is for a one story adjoining single-family. The need t~ be within 150 feet away for their first building and they are 58 feet and 120 feet for their second building. Therefore they are within the 150 feet and require a waiver for it. • The second issue is a setback issue. They are required to have 20 feet of Iandscaping adjoining single-famiiy. They have from 5 feet to 23 fezt due to the parkinq being immediately adjoining, • The additional waiver is for elevators. The Code states that any project over 30 units on the second floor requires an elevator. Giver, that they have 8 two-story buildings it was impossible to put in an elevator in each ot the buildings, particularly because this is an affordable development. They feel the Code was initially written for a singie building. They could combine this as a single builoEng but would lose the "campus" atmosphere that they created by staggering the 8 buildings across the site. The waivers are necessary because without them they would not be able to manage the low density. They would have to go to a lower density and as a result their low rents would no ionger support the possibility of this development. Their requested waivers are mitigated by the one story and the se!hack issue they have developed a tree line surrounding the property specifically designed in the back to screen the single-farr,:ly homes fror;~ any visual intrusion. They have met with the neighbors, two of which live directly behind the property and are the most impacted. They expressed to him their desire in being able to select from the City's list of screening trees. They currently enjoy tne use of a dumpster located against their wall. Therefore this project looks very attractive to them. The elevator issue is a concern from the s!ardpoint that they have 8 separate buildings. It would be impossible to install 8 separate elevators and the cost would not be viable. In comparison to the Villa Anaheim Project, their proposed project has a significantly lower dansity and they are over $100 per month per unit less. Mr. Morger wanted them to joir. his property but it cannot be done at this current date. If it is approved in the future, they would like to bring it in on the one side and the motel property on the other and incorporate them both onto their property. Regarding the mobile homeowners, Mr. Talley has prspared a conversi~n impact report and has submitted it to the City for consideration, it will be on the agenda in August. Brent Schultz, Redevelopment Housing Development Manager: They have issues that they need time to resolve on the site plan, particularly the parking layouts. They can work with the developers, but at this point some of the plans are a little vague in some areas. He would like to work with Planning staff and Kaufman and Broad to resolve the issues. His recommendation is to be allowed more time to meet with their architect, Planning staff and Communihj Development to work through the issues. Harry Geller: He supports this project because if it passes it will take Anaheim out as far west as pessible. The senior projects that have recently been put in have alleviated the gangs and problems that were in the vacant spaces. This will make it a livable and walkable area. Govind Bhakta: Supports the project but has concern about his swimming pool next to the wall and whether it will be too noisy for the seniors, City ofF,naheim Planning Commission Sum,.;,,ary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 12 Judith Ann Gollette, presenting WAND: She felt several issues need to be resoived and requested the project be denied for the following reasons: •"they are concerned about'patchwork' type development in West Anaheim. • Plans show parking is in the north end of the design and for those tenants in the south end it will be too far, especially if there is no elevator. • Only 49% of this complex will be affordable units. • The complex itself is too close to !he residential property lines. • Design problem with size of units and two doors which corflict with ea ~h other when they are open at the same time. • Affordability is only 49% for 30 years then it can be changed. • These are senior homes at a low cost, but was concerned with the quality. • 150 feet versus 58 feet for 8 homes, single-family residences • Landscape of 20 feet versus 5 feet. • Building is going up too fast, should slow down and evaluate first • Mobile home parks have been a good source of affordable living for seniors, has anyone approached the mobile homeowners about getting together to purchase land. Moe Mohanna, Kaufman and Broad: Explained what the group is and what they have done in the past. Advised that it is affordable for a minimum 55 years and is 100°/a affordable, not 49%. Explained presentation elevations and physical aspects of the project by showing a slide presentation of a similar existing projects in Buena Park, 5an Juan Capistrano, Torrance, Bakersfield and Lakewood. This can only operate under the tax credit program and timeline of July 15th is imposed by the State for the 9% tax credit program. If they can not obtain the approvai by then, it is no longer a proJect until the new rules for next year. Applicant's Rebuttal: Mr. Marshall: It was his impression that if they granted Mr. Schultz a right of final review on the p~ operty prior to building permit, Mr. Schultz would be comfortable working through the issues and apologized for giving Mr. Schultz inadequate drawings. Elevators. They have worked with the seniors all the time and all of them want stacked condominium style homes without elevators. Being too close to the property line. If they were a single-family home development, they would be no ~ess than 20 feet from the property line. This development only has 4 apartments on the upper floor that directly face the home.s in the back. Homeowners do not seem to mind because they have been given the opportunity to choose their screening trees. Setback requirements for iandscaping is 20 feet; they have a 5 foot landscape str~~ ;hen parking. In looking at the desic~n problems specifically the door conflict, it is a minor issue, the doors have been turned in therefore do not conflict. Lower units have conflict with doors due to the ADA requirements, so they have ta close a closet door to open the bedroom door, but they are one bedroom apartments and majority of occupants are single people. Mobile home park viab~!iry being offered to the residents. They have the conversion impact report. This park was ope.~ed in 1965 and there only 3 homes that are 20 years old or less, the rest are over 20 years old. This means that they are not an appropriate use for the long term. Residents have very low rent fees now because of Ms. Almond's graciousness and he does not think residents would be able to or be interested in purchasing. Georc~e McClarren, a senior citizen, 323 South Indiana Street, Anaheim, CA: He would demand an elevator if he had to move into the proposed project. He urges Commission to demand elevators because seniors need them. Cfty of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 13 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer: Relative to the Environmental Impact Analysis, that item was not included into the staff report. There is a concem that there may not be capaciry in the sanitary sewer system to serve this development. The Public Works Department is currently studying the sewer capacity in West Anaheim and expects it to be completed by the end of December 1599. The developer can either wait to proceed until Public Works concludes the report or they can do tiieir own study to determine the capacity, or agrea to comply with the findings of Public Works report. Compliance may involve paying a fee or waiting until capacity is available to serve them. Going from 36 to 90 units is a large increase for the area. This project did not go through the normal pre-file process so they did not get a real advanced warning. 7he applicant was not at the inter-departmental committee meeting. This information was passed on to the Planning Department who in tum would turn it over to the developer, but this has been a very unusual process where they have not had any contact with the applicant until this hearing. Commissioner Koos: Asked Mr. Schultz about plans that he has not had time to review. Brent Schultz: Advised pians were delivered to his o~ce that morning but he did not have time to review them in depth. He also requested the plans be sent to their architect (consultant) to the Community Development Department. He feels that there has not been enough time for everyone to review the project to decide if it should go forvuard. The applicanYs architect has admittedly said to the City archite,t that he does not have time to address some of the changes. Mr. Schultz has worked with Kaufman and Broad in the past and feels they could do a much better architectural design than they have shown thus far. Ne understands that the tax credit application is going to put off the developer's ability to get some financing on the project untii the next round but he is not comfortable in recommending that this is the best project that can be done right now. Mr. Marshall: The issue is that they were not dimensioned on the plans. The layout was done by computer, the numbers do work and the corrections show the actual dimensioning all the way down. When staff's architect scaled it, he took the floor plans then made some assumptions and used those dimensions to plot it out and it did not fit. Their dimensions were accurate but were not on the plans. Damion Titano, Manager at Kaufman and Broad: Advised square footage of apartments is 550 which meets City requirements. Elevations have been resubmitted and were modified per the request of Steven Wraight. Regarding the 10-foot bust, the numbers have been calculated on the computer and everything is fine. There is a request for a 6'6" deck but they are proposing a 6' deck. This design has won national awards and he feels the City will be satisfied with what will be built. Brent Schu~tz: Another issue Community Development staff is concerned about is the distance between the parking spaces and the units. In some cases there are 300-foot distances that 62 year olds have to walk between apartment end parking. Chairman Bristol: It appears the everyone is in agreement that this site has waiver problems and the project seems to be rushed due to the tax credit deadline. He walked the site, measured the back wall and couid see directly i~to the houses. He is concerned about the line-of-site for the residents on the north, even if they do put in trees to block the sight into the homes. Parking also needs to be closer. It would be rushing it and a mistake to go forward and approve this project now. Commissioner Vanderbilt: Asked Brent if he was aware of the City's chances of having the tax credits available and the opportunities given. Brent Schultz: Advised there is another round but it has not been announced, it is a State process. There was only one round this year with a deadline of July 15th and there are usually 2 rounds. TCAC revised their rules for prajects, process of obtaining points, and qualifications for funding, They will have to wait until the next round to apply again. City of Anaheim Planning Commisston Summary Actian Agenda 07-07-99 Page 14 Chairman Bristol: Asked if it was construction money or long term debt Brent Schultz: Tax credit money involves large investors and companies that i~uy tax credits, it is equity for the project that they do not pay a retum on. Ail the tax credit program rules must be met, provide affordable rent, put 55 year covenants on the property and meet other rules and regulations. The City itself has applied for tax credits on Paseo Village and received $8 million out of $24 million. Tax credits come up with a portion of the money then they get a construction loan and permanent financing for the rest. Chairman Bristol: Asked if they could get reimbursed if they put in their own money and apply for tax credit later. Mr. Marshall: That is not possible. The back property is 2 feet higher than project so wail is 6 feet from their property line. The balcony drops down 2 feet in relation to it. Chairman Bristol: He advised it ~s wrong to approve this project as it is currently proposed because there . are many unanswered questions. Commissioner Koos: Agreed with Chairman Bristol's comments regarding rushing the project. If done correctly, this would be good for West Anaheim. Commissioner Boslwick: He would like to see the applicant receive a tax cradit. He does not have a concern regarding the elevators issue with a building that has one or two floors. He used Victoria Woods Senior Project in Anaheim as an example of a project approved without elevators. However, he would see a need for a building with three or more floors. He agreed that perhaps a continuance would give time to help facilitate and improve this project. Brent Schultz: Indicated he agreed on a continuance for Community Development to work with Kaufman and Broad and Pacific Development on the plan. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked about the sewer capacity issue of fees? Mr. Marshall: They are willing to do whatever is required. As Public Utilities has indicated, they did not k~ow and investigated more thoroughly. They will have to find aut what the findings state. He reminded Commission that this is a very low income project which can not suffer too many changes because they have not asked the City for money, nor density bonus and their only request has been for these waivers. They are below the affordable housing that is required by the City. Unless they restructure and ask for money, waiver of the fees, then he does not know how else to handle it. Mr. Marshall also has to consider Ms. Almand's opinion, plans and time table which he does not know what they are, he does know that their contract does not extend that long. A continuance to August is good to allow time to work out the issues. It will not tell them the sewer fees because it will not happen until December 1999. Their concern is the unknown in fees, the contact agreement with Ms. Almand and her personai schedu~e and time table. They will obviously miss this round for the year. He ir.dicated that the State has been so unpredictable and unsupportive uf developers. They received the final set of -vles from the State on June 11 th. At this point they would like to have the opportunity to return, if all the unresolved issues fall into place, otherwise this project is terminated for this year. Commissioner Bostwick: Offered a motion for a continuance to August 16,1999, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and motion was carried. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 15 OPPOSITION: 1 person (representing WAND) spoke fn opposition/1 concemed person spoke ACTION: Continued subject request to the Au~ust 16,1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for the Fetitioner to address the following issues: (a) Provid e for adequate buffering to adjacent single-family residential (height, setbacfc & landscape treatment); (b) Provide more reasonable distances from units to trash and parking facillties; and (c) Provide improvements reflecting Community Development Department concerns pertaining to (i) poor vehicular and pedestrian access, (ii) the proximity of parking spaces; (iii) functional ~loor plans suitable for seniors, (iv) inadequate size of the laundry ard recreationa! building, (v) lack of enhancement on the building elevations, (vi) potential loss of architectural elements on the final plans, and (vii) the "formulated" design of this complex. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 9 minutes (2:25-3:34) BREAK (3:34-3:39) City of Anahelm Plannlag Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 16 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE ~BCLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 5b. CONDITIONAL US~ PERMIT NO 3269 (READVERTISED) Denied request to OWNER: Kyu-Ho-Yun,12852 Palm Street, #202, Garden Grove, CA approval nditions of 92840 AGENT: Darren Nguyen, 501-509 S. Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 501-509 South Brookhurst Street - The Ritz Property is 1.92 acres located on the west side of Brookhurst Street, 390 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue. To amend or r.ielete conditions of approval to add three additional holidays to the previously-approved days of operation for a dance hall. Continued from the Comm;ssion meeting of June 7, 2nd June 21,1999 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-121 ApplicanPs Statement: Irv Pickler, 2377 Mall Avenue, Anaheim, CA: The applicanYs have been operating since 1983. They are asking for three additional holidays which they feel will help them in tfieir business. The holidays are New Year's Day, Christmas Day and Vietnamese New Year Day. Some of these days will fall on a Sunday, such as the year 2000. They still maintain the 6 sec~rity guards that patrol the area. They have not received any complaints from neighbors rec~arding no~se which was the key factor. In speaking with Mr. Yourstone, he understands that there was noise the ~avening of his inspection. The reason for that is because of the swamp water cooler on top of the ceiling and the fan that keeps it op~~rated was out of order but is repaired. They are continually trying to keep the noise inclusive to the inside. They have a 10-year lease and he felt once Redevelopment Agency starts working in that area there may be the possibly for a change, possibly a new location. Public Testimony: Judith Ann Gollette, WAND: The Ritz has come before Commission and City Council many times. They have come with different ways to extend their hours, now they are proposing 3 more days. The last time they were present before City County there was definite discussion on what holidays and what nights they were requesting. She has been told that there is a new owner at The Ritz. They have asked for more hours repeatedly which they were given. They requested for times and holidays which they were granted and now they are returning again. She felt they have outgrown the neighborhood and it would be nice if they remained in West Anaheim but in another building and area conducine to this type of operation ~vhich this current site is not. She requested Commission to deny their request. ApplicanPs Rebuttal: Irv Pickler: He felt they are complying with the regulations. Last year they were open on Year Year's Eve, which they were allowed to do. Someone called the police department and indicated they, the Ritz, was opened and only supposed to be open on New Year's Day and they had to get a clarification at that time. The time was set by Councilperson Shirley McCracken to ensure that New Year's Eve, Christmas Eve and Vietnarr~ese Eve were the 3 days granted. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 17 They are not asking for more holidays, they are asking for three additional days a year which will not add up to three additionai days every year, depending on when the holidays fall. They have a 10-year lease and would like to find another place but there was a lot of money spent on the this location. If the Redevelopment Agency comes into this area in the future then hopefully something will come out of this. Esther Wallace, Chairman of WAND, 604 Scott Lane, Anaheim, CA: 7his request 1s for 3 days (operating from 9:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m., Monday th:ough Thursday). This year the days they requested do happen to fall on a holiday but next year is leap year a~d wili fall on a Monday and for the next few years they wili fal! on week nights. They should consider this is a night that they had not been operating on Monday nights through Thursdays. It should be considered t~~at peopte living behind them do need to go to work the next day. She sees inis as just another way of getting a few more extra days. The neighborhood is not happy with this and they do not want to see th~m granted those extra days that they are requesting. Applicant's Rebuttal: Irv Pickler: If the holdiay falls on a Monday or Thursday then they will want to stay open, but if it falls on a Tuesday or Wednesday then it is difficult to keep closing and opening, whereas they stay open for a continuation of the days. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if this is a new owner? Irv Pickler: There is a general manager, Mr. Pham, that they hired but the Nguyen family is still ir~volved. Commissioner poydstun: Asked if they signed a new 10-year lease? Irv Pickler: They are approximately 1 Y: years into their lease. Chairman Bristol: There are ve,ry few opportunities where an issue comes to the Planning Commission, goes to the City Council and then returns to Planning Commission in some form and this is one of those. He is not in agreement to increasing this use. Commissioner Bostwick: One of the days ihat the applicant was given is Easter Sunday and since they are approved to be open on Easter Sunday ther~ tha4 is a non-day or open day anyway. He had a probiem with Christmas Day since it is a time to stay home with the family and the neighborhood needs to have their time and space. He would be in favor of New Year's Day and Vietnamese New Year's Day but not Christmas Day. Commissioner Koos: Generally he views the events of those days of New Year's Day and Christmas Day as day time activities, but the applicant wants nights which he can not support. Commissioner Boydstun: She agreed with Commissioner Koos, she thought it is just adding three days is what they are working towards and those are not days which is looked on as night time activities. Commissioner Vanderbilt: He noted that he was in attendance at the meetings that occurred before and at those times there was strong neighborhood opposition. Chairman Bristol: Asked Code Enforcement to speak on information presented at the morning session. Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer: In Commission's packer stiF included a memo which indicated that Code Enforcement did not have any open cases at the location, however, since that memo was written he was out there on June 5th and 18th, City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Aqenda 07-07-99 Page 1 ~ On June 5th he stood at the back of the parking lot along the west wall adjacent to the residential areas and could hear the music very loud, even though doors were closed. There was a security guard that came back from front through the ailey and walked along the wall to the building, tumed and retumed back to the front. He was back there approximately 5 minutes. An employee was pounding on ttie back door to gain entrance to the building which eventually someone from the inside opened it., He took his sound meter readings and tht decibel readings fluctuated between 56 and 60 decibels which would be a violation of the sound ordinance. On June 18th he was there at 10:30 p.m. As he pulled into the back parking lot he observed the security guard sitting ?n his car against the west wali. Mr. Yourstone b2;k in aiid his car sat there for a few minutes. He got out and took more sound meter readings, again it fluctuated between 55 and 60 decibels, and the music couid definitely be heard coming from inside the buiiding. The rear doors were cl~sed at the time. The security guard got out of his car, walked to the back of the building, talked to a few peopie and returned to his car. The security guard glanced over to him at several occasions but never approached him to ask him what he was doing. Mr. Yourstone finally approached the guard to get the manager or owner. A short time later Mr. Pham came out and he brought to his attention the sound of the music. Mr. Pham agreed that he could also hear the music and went to have them turn it down. At that time Mr. Yourstone issued Mr. Pham a notice of violation for allowing the music to leave the building. Chairman Bristol: Asked whether code is different for the parking lot noise versus noise coming from inside a building? Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer: Responded yes that was correct. The sound ordinance and the Zoning Code prohibits noise from leaving the building itself. • • • • • • OPPOSITION: 1 person (representing WAND) spoke in opposition to subject request. ACTIUN: Determined that the previously-approved negative declarat?on is adequate to serve as the required enviro~mental documentation for subject request. Denied the request for expanded days of operation for a dance hall for Conditional Use Permit No. 3269 based on the following: 1. The expansion of days will further intensify the impacts of this establishment on the adjacent single-family residential.and uses to the west of this property. 2. The Community Development Department indicates that this request to expand the days of operetion for a business with sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption is not consistent with the goals of the West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Pian or the Brookhurst Commercial Corridor Overlay Zone. 3. The Police Department indicates this area has a crime rate 219% above the city average. VOTE: 5-1 (Commissioner Bostwick voted no and Commissioner Esping was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights, DISCUSSION TIME: 22 minutes (3:40-4:02) Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 19 6a. CE(~A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 8-16-99 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 412U (READVERTISED) 6d. RECLASSiFiCATION NO. 98-99-15 OWNER: (CUP 4120) Frank Chu and Linger Chu, 926 S. Beach Blvd., Anaheim, CP. 92804 AGENT: Stephen Lam and Associates, 900 S. San Gabriel Bivd. #208, San Gabriel, CA 91776 INITIATED BY: (Reclassification No. 98•99-15) City of Anaheim (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 926 Sauth Beach Boulevard - Lvndy's Motel and Restaurant. Property is 1.1 acres located on the east side of Beach Boulevard and on the north side of Ball Road, 200 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road and 245 feet easf of the centeriine of Beach Boulevard. Conditional Use Permit No. 4120 - to establish conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption, to expand the existing motel and to construct a commercial retail center on the same property with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ' Reclassification No. 98-99-15 - to reclassify this property from the CH (Commercial, Heavy) Zone to the CL {Commercial, Limited) Zone (or less intense zone). Conditional Use Permit No. 4120 continued from the Commission meetings of May 24, June 7, and June 21,1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. • • • e~ • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the August 16, 1999 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow time for the petitioner to meet with various City departments and WAND, to discuss motel operation and economic viabiliry issues in the West Anaheim area. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absenf) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 20 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT „NN~uvru 7c. CON~ITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4118 Denied Granted, in part OWNER: Susan Manuel, 4314 Marina Ciry Drive, Apt. 516, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 AGENT: Paci ic Rim Builders, One City Eoulevard, Suite 1105, Orarn3e, CA 92868 LOCATION: 5Q"s1 Oranaethorpe Avenue Property is 3.88 acres located at the northwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Kellogg Drive. To establish confonnity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing commercial center, including a liquor store, and to further subdivide this center to add 1 tenant space for a total of 16 spaces with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the Commission meeting of June 21, 1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-122 .DOC ApplicanYs Statement: Jerry Mintz.: Stated he is the shopping center manager and representing Susan Manuel who is the owner of 5041 and 5031 East Orangethorpe Avenue and he is the common area manager for 5051 which is the Tatsis property and Stater Bros. at is 1741 North Kellogg. He is proposing to subdivide this center to add 1 tenant spaca. He addressed the following issues: • Page 4 of the staff report addresses the parking issue. They conducted a parking and traffic study from O'Rourke Engineering which was approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager demonstrating there were sufficient parking spaces. • The Findings are on page 6 of the staff report from the parking study. • Page 6, the Recommendation, is to approve the Negative Declaration. o The major issue is on page 7, Condition No.1 of the resolution of tenant spaces. There were a number of conditions listed on page 9, Ccndition No. 26, which were recommended and they concur that they will complete ihem once the permit is granted. The attachment letter, in the staff report, from Tatsis explained their rationale for opposing this CUP. Opposition: Sofia Tatsis: Stated she is the owner of one of the properties in the same shopping cen!t:r. Mr. Mintz does no4 come to the shopping center very often and does not know what is going on. She is there with her husband which she is also speaking on behalf of. They are notjust the owners oi ine land, they also own one of the hamburger stands on the premises. They open from 6:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. 7 days a week. There is a lot of traffic. There are 184 parking spaces that should be provided which she does not believe it is correct. 7hey have 170 parking spaces and at ieast 10 are occupied by the recycling units that Stater Bros. use. Three restaurants are there and during the peak heurs there is no parking spaces available not even for them. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 21 Graffiti is a major problem. Mr. Mintz does try to paint over the graffiti but it is not just the paint on the walis. Sometimes the graffiti is carved by a sharp object scrapping on the graffiti which can not be taken off. Stater Bros. is the largest store at the shnpping center and occupies at least 20 spaces for their employees and dominate most of the parking spaces with thefr customers. If they divide 184 parking spaces and dividing with the 15 stores in the shopping center then they are only allowed 10 to 12 parking spaces. She has 5 employees. The other two restaurants have at least 3 or 4 employees this means there are not many spaces left for the customers. Chairman Bristol: Asked how many spaces she had on her property? Ms. Tatsis: Responded they have 12 spaces on their property. Chairman Bristol: Asked how many tenants she has? Ms. Tatsis: Responded 3. A hair salon, mail box center and a professional driving school. Chairman Bristol: If she has 12 parking spaces on her property it is safe to assume that there are going to ba people parking on the other two parcels that come to their use. Ms. Tatsis: Responded yes. She does not have any objections for Ms. Susan Manuel to divide the building but Ms. Tatsis is concerned that one of those uses may be a fast fuod restaurant that is going to affect her business. ApplicanPs Rebuttal: Jerry Mintz: He does know what going on at this site since he has been manager there for 18 years because he pays the bills. i he parking spaces is a common area to everyone. The CC&R's basically state thai everyone can use everyone else's area. He can not handlo the graffiti on Ms. Ta!sis' property because it is her problem and not a common area problem. Page F of lhe staff report requires approval from !he owners, which is very difficult to accomplish in this situation. They will be spending a lot of money dividing tlie property. Chairman Bristol: Asked Mr. Mintz to verify that they have identified the tenants as being a Mexican restaurant and possibly a dentist? Jerry Mintz: The dentist is tentative since they do not have a confirmation on that yet. Commissioner Napoles: Asked how far Esperanza High School was7 Jerry Mintz: He could not say but the kids seem to congregate there during the day and they are a problem but there is not anything they can do about. He has spoken with the police department a number of times for patrols. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: He was at a meeting with the neighborhood about 2 weeks aqo and there was indication that sometimes when they have major games or where there are a lot of peopte, they tend to park at the shopping center and walk to the high school. Jerry Mintz: The signs are posted stating illegal parking can be towed and whenever he ~s asked to haul a car away he does. Chairman Bristol: Acknowledc~ed that they ~o need to receive approval from Ms. Tatsis if they intend to split the units and asked if Mr. Mintz wanted Commission to act on this matter now or continue the item? City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 0 T-07-99 Page 22 Jerry Mintz: He is present to see that Commission acts on it either way today Chairman Eristol: Asked Mr. Mintz if there was anything else on the staff report that he wanted to discuss? Jerry Mintz: Indicated he had received the report this morning. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked staff if a CUP can be given on this specific unit or does it have to be given on the 3 parcels? Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Paragraph 15 explains why they brought all of this togefher on the entire complex. Basically, a non-conforming use exists on any Iot which in this case is on the shopping center itself because it does not have a conditional use permit. No other use shall be permitted even though such other use would be a conforming use. Typically this has been used when a new use is brought to the property. In this case by simply subdividing the two there is no new use brought to the property but a rearrangement of the use, Staff felt comfortable in this particular case that the overall conditional use permit for the entire center may not be necessary, however, the Code does require that when there is a split of a unit or ad:is more units to the center then there is a conditional use permit requirement for that. So it can be isolated to simply being approval for a one tenant space addition to the existing center. if the parking waiver is deleted then they can eliminate that portion. It ess~ ntially comes down to approving the split of the one unit into two which requires a CUP. It also just requires the owner of that particular piece of property to consent. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if the applicant drops the dentist use, what do they do when a business comes in there? Greq Hastings, Zo~ing Division Manager: Advised then that would be a parking situation. One way to do that would be for the applicant to add one parking space somewhere on the propcrty because the differ~nce between a retail space, which it is now, and a dentist space is approximately 1 more parking space based on the square footage. Commissioner Boydstun: As long as it was retail that occupied it they would not need that parking space. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Correct and that would not be part af what the request is today. Jerry Mintz: He indicated they would be striping the center the week of the July 12th. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Advised before they do that they may want to get together with their Traffic Engineering staff to see if there is a way to increase the efficiency of the lot. Chairman Bristol: Asked if the shopping center is a legai non-conforming use? Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Currently it is a legal non-conforming use. As example, if the request before Commission today was to bring a bar to this particular facility then it would be introducing a new use. Before they could do that !hey would have to have a conditional use permit for the entire center. 1Nhat is before Commission is simply to subdivide an existing retail use, that use already exists on the property. Staff feels comfortable that there may not be a need if ~ommission also agrees that there not be a requirement that the CUP cover the entire center. In the future it would have to come back if there was ever another new use brought fonxard. Commissioner Bostwick: Since this was advertised as 5031 Orangethorpe Avenue, would they have the conditions for the subdivision of tenant spaces be the oniy two items that Commission would approve wilh the CUP? City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 23 t . .. . ~ .. . .. , .. .' 1 " ~ ~ . ~ . . . ~ . .. . . . ~ Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: In the conditions under the commercial center there are several operating conditions which already occur. Staff suggested that Condition Nos. 1, 3, 4,18 through 24, be deleted and Cond(tions 25 through 28 would retain in place buf 6e modified to reflect the other changes. Staff recomr~ended Condition Nos. 5 through 17 sti{I remain fn place. Thfs would strictiy apply to 5031 Orangethorp;~ Avenue. If Commissfon desires they can also approved the parking waiver. Selma Mann, Assistant City Aitorney: Stated her concern with the waiver, unless they are considering that only on this particular property because the 3 properties are subj~ct to an agreement, in terms of having a fix that wili not involve having the approval of everyone at the sfte. She was not certain what the existing agreement is between the parties. It may ~e that a nominal change like this would really not be impacted but she advised Comniission may be placing the applicant in the position of being in violation of the covenant by having a change without the approval of the other two owners. It may be If there is going to be restriping that may provide an additfonal space and eliminate the need for the waiver completely then that it may be, legally, a cleaner way to go for the applicant. Commissioner Bostwick: So they would deny the waiver and allow the applicant to proceed with the restriping and provide additional space. Ms. Tatsis: The Code requires 296 spaces and they are stating 184 so they are less than the amount of parking space that they should have. If they do have extra parking space then it is going to be extra harder. Ms. Tatsis: Asked if a dentist office is required to have parking for their employees? Commissioner L~oydstun: There is a certain amount of parking allowed for their square footage. Their parking requirem~nt is different from retail so for a dentist office it requires one more parking space than what is already allowed for it. During the Voting: Commissioner Vanderbilt: He asked for a clarification on the trash recycle containers on the amount of parking spaces that it takes up. There was testimony that it took up 10 parking space but he did not think it was that many. Asked if it was possible to move it to the under used parking spaces to the rear of Stater Bros.? Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager; It should be in conformance with the recycling permit that they would have on file. Af one point submitted site plans showing those and perrnits were issued over the years. It has probably been some time ago but staff can cneck that to see if it is accurate. If not then those need to be moved or removed from the properry. Commissioner Vanderbilt: It seems to provide an opportunity for more parking spaces and perhaps ease the issue further. Don Yourstone, 5enior Code Enforcement Officer: In9icated that Code Enforcement would go out to check the recycling center to ensure it is in compliance with Code. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action A~enda 07-OT-99 Page 24 . • • .~ ~ ~ OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition to subject request. ACTION: Approved Negativs Declaration Denied Waiver of Code Requirement Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 4118 oniy for the prope~ty located at 5031 E. Orangethorpe Avenue with the foilowing cFianges to the conditions of approval: Deleted Condition Nos.1, 3, 4, ~d,19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24. Modified Condition No. 26 to read as follows: 26. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year f.~ ~m the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 2, 5, 6,11, 13 and 15, above mentioned, shali be compiied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Added the following condition: That in the event that the subdivision results in a use that has a higher parking requirement than retail, such as a dental office, the parking lot shall be restriped to provide additional parking spaces to offset any increase demand for parking spaces. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 34 minutes (4:03-4:3i') City of Anaheim Planning Commfssion Summary Action Aganda 07-07-99 Page 25 8a. CEQA NEGATNE D~CLARATION Approved 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMR N0.1151 (READVERTISED) Appr~ved, as readvertised OWNER: The Evangelical United Brethren Church at Anaheim Califomia, 800 S. Lemon Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Hope University, Attn: Janice Reyes, 800 S. Lemon Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 800 South Lemon Street - Native American United Methodist ChurchlHode Universitv Property is 1.86 acres located at the southeast corner of South Street and Lemon Street To permit a fine arts school for developmentaliy disabled adults in an existing church facility. Continued from the Commission meeting of June 7,1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC99-123 .DOC (Commissioner Boydstun: Declared a confiict of interest.J Chairman BristoL• Stated, for the record, he listened fo the tape for the Planning Commission public hearing on of June 7, 1999 pertaining to this item.J ApplicanYs Statement: Janice Reyes, 11742 Norgrove Lane, Los Alamitos, CA: Stated this item was continued so she could return to the church whom she has dealt on the use of the property regarding Condition Nos. 2 and 3. She went to the church and discussed these issues with them and they wrote a letter requesting a 1 year extension to comply with Condition Nos. 2 and 3 because their financial resources are very limited. They are in agreement with all the other conditions, it is just thosa two conditions that they had a concern on. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • • • s • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaratinn Approved Conditional Use Permit No.1151, as readvertised, with the following changes: Modified Condition No.11 to read as follows: 11. That Condition Nos.1 and 9, above-mentioned, shall be completed within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of th~s resolution. City of Anaheim Planning ~ommission Summary Action AgRnda 07-07-99 Page 26 s; .. I Added the following condition: That Condition Nos. 2 and 3, above-mentioned, shalt be completed within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Boydstun declared a conflict of fnterest and Commissioner Espfng was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (4:38-4:42) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 27 9a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 9b. VARIANCE N0. 4364 Granted, in part 9c. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0.15837 Approved OWNER: Mark Chapin Johnson, Trustee, P.O. Box 17729, Anaheim, Ca 92817 AGENT: Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc., Attn: 7ed D. Frattone, 3 Hughes, Irvine, Ca 92618 LOCATION: 195 South Heath Terrace. Property is 7.0 acres located on the south side of Heath Terrace, 331 feet south of the centerline of Rio Grande Drive. With waiver of (a) minimum lot width (deleted) and (b) minimum private accessway requirements, to establish an 8 lot (6 numbered and 2 lettered) six-unit single-family residential subdivision. Continued from the Commission meeting of June 7, 1999. VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. PC99•124 051 KP (Chairman BristoL• Stated, for the record, he listened fo the tape for Planning Commission public hearing of June 7, 1999 pertaining to this item.] ApplicanYs Statement: John Head, representing Woodbridge Development, 27285 Las Ramblas, Mission Viejo, CA: Stated when they last met on June 7, 1999 there were some changes to the staff report which they agree with. Some of those changes include the widening of Heath Terrace prior to their project in which they are in agreement. However, with those changes he has had several meetings with the neighbors and they have many concerns and requests regarding that road. They have met with the neighbors and trizd to address their issues. Since the last meeting they have also tried to address Commission's concern regarding parking and their traffic engineer was available to answer any questions regai~ing tra~c and parking within their project. They agree with the recommendation in the staff report to have their CC&R's be the master association that would maintain the road which has been conditioned for them to widen Health Terrace coming into the property. Public Testimony: Steve Scott, 156 Heath Terrace, Anaheim, CA: At the last meeting they had concerns regarding the horse trail. He was one of the original homeowners and it cost him money to have that horse trail installed. There is now discussion to remove the horse trail and he was told there was a 50 foot easement, informed by Mr. Head, that runs through there. He wanted to ensure it was goinc~ to be done correctly. There is an easement that runs across his property for the road ar,d also for the horse trail. He understands that the horse trail is going to be abandoned. The road is going to be widened to 28 feet. There is going to be some changes made to the road. His main concern with this project is the safety issue, not only during the construction process but also after the fact with increased traffic. He was told that the a traffic sign (speed limit sign) can not be installed on a private road. If this is true he feels it is ridiculous and i~e would like to think that safety is the City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 28 most important issue when it comes to approving a project such as this one. One of the things that is going to keep the speed down is probably either a gate in the front or proper speed bumps installed. He mentioned there is traffic from a soccer field that Doug Browne has fnstailed in his property and due to ihat traffic he would like to see no parking on the side of the road. He would also like to see a speed limit sign. Currently there is a i•oad maintenance agreement that was put together by the original home owners. Everyone has ar easement, the people that go across his property have an easement acrass his property b~~t he owns the property and they are responsible for the maintenance of that road. Mr. Head's association offered to pick up the cost of that but they need a new road maintenance agreement and it needs to be put on a priority for al~ the residents that have liens on their property to be able to be a priority for everyone in the future. In the event there is a foreclosure then it is going to take the responsibility off of the association. He requested that the everything be done properly and to everyone's satisfaction. There are no sidewalks on this private road nor lighting. There is an entrance to the shopping center that is across the street on Rio Grande. The shopping center backs to Rio Grande. Not only does the entrance need to be lit but there needs to be a cross ~~~alk there as well. Dave Nord, 166 South Heath Terrace, Anaheim, CA: Stated Mr. Head has been very cooperative in meeting with them trying to resolva their many concerns which go back to the main concern of safety. They were told that the road would be widened to 28 feet. They were also told that they were not allowed to park on a road that is oniy 28 feet. Some of their concerns are whether they will be able to continue to park their vehicles on that road. In some parts of the road they do not have enough room to exterid it a full 28 feet down the road. At the mouth of Heath Terrace there is no problem but at the end where he is (the iast house), he gets the most action ir terms of speed increasing. There is no way he can get 28 feet in front of his house because he has a small retaining wall that has an easement that goes up behind it that Doug Browne uses often. The road narrows considerably after that. There are two drains there and he is not sure they can get it widened that mucli in thaf area, The proposal that Mr. Head gave to everyone showed the road being widened to 28 feet and when he got to Mr. Nord's property, it showed the widening going into his front yard and encroaching into his property. Mr. Head indicated that it was not their intention but rather to go the opposite way toward the retaining wall. If it can not be 28 feet without coming into his front yard he wondered what would happen. He knows that they would not want to move the retaining wall because it is a major expense. He felt his quality of life is going to change considerably with more vehicles coming in and does not want to live in a place where he is stressed out due to these issues. There is a gate that goes into the new development which they feel is a hazard to them. The gate has been there for many years with Mr. Johnson owning the property, however, for many years Mr. Johnson has not lived there. He has developed a very attractive lot and there is no one there. They have been able to enjoy a quiet environment. Bill Brown lives at the top of the hill; Mr. Doug Browne to their right with two gates; and the Woodbridge Development comes out from their development which creates a"Y" shape. He can see the "Y" as a real possible traffic hazard because there are people pulling out of the development coming down the road and there is Doug Browne who has quite a bit of construction equipment that is brought in and out often. Another concern is the soccer field that Doug Browne has there. There is a professional soccer coach who teaches soccer to all the young people. This deve~opment has brought in sod, lighting, drinking fountains and does not appear to be something that is going to go away very soon. In the past it has caused stress for his family due to the tra~c stacking. Peopie wait and stack up in front of his home waiting f~r Mr. Browne to show up and open the gate. When Mr. Browne has 3 classes going on Monday, Tuesday, a~d Wednesdays which makes a considerable amount oF traffic in conjunction with the new development ccming in, they have a problem with the front gate because if that gate is not open, then traffic is going to siack to the front o~ their house. He stated, for the record that these are truly a problem that are very important to him and a safety issue. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 29 He has been advocati~~ getting a gate in the front of the property. At the last meeting Commissioner Bosiwick had indicated he was opposed to any kind of a gate. He agrees with that but in this instance they spoke with everyone. From a financial aspect not everyone can afford to install a gate in the front. They are willing to partfcipate in a gate, however, they do not war.t it to be a part of their development to keep them from proceeding on this project which he can understand, however, if ttiere was a gate in the front he felt they would eUminate many problems if it was done correctly. They are hoping that Commission will help them get this project completed in a safe environment and where everyone can live in peace. William Brown, 6290 East Rio Grande, Anaheim, CA: His address is a Rio Grande address because Heath Terrace was put in after he moved ln. He is also concerned with the traffic issue and environmental issues such as there will be a couple of houses down below and what will the hydrocarbons do coming up and wondered if this was addressed in the environmental report. Mr. Johnson, his neighbor, put in a beautiful green area and did n~t build a home and he put a wall all the way around his property. He is a great neighbor and hoped this development comes off very well and hoped Commission has a good conservative approach. Steve Scott: He felt everyone that lives on that street would like to see the country look maintai~ed. It is in everyone's best interest including the deve!opment by Woodbridge. Mr. Head has given them their agreement in writing stating that he is going to make ever effort to accomplish that which they appreciate. There are a few m~nor issues that are a concern. Curi ently the residents take their trash do~vn to the front of the street to Rio Grande. He understands that this could change, according to Mr. Head, and the trash truck could g~ down to Heath Terrace, which currently they do not. He wondered where they would pick up their trash. During the construction period, he felt there may be more traffic going on this road during that time than even after the development is completed. The other issue is the mailboxes. They do not know where they are going to be picking up their mail. It ssems that Woodbridge Development's mail is going to be at a different place than where their mail boxes are currently. He reiterated that Mr. Head has been very gracious and cooperative. He seems to have everyone's best interest in mind. Patricia Noor, 166 Heath Terrace, Anaheim, CA: The 28 foot road on the tentative map which shows it going across the front of their property. Mr. Head indicated that it was n~t their intention but she feels the road does need to be 28 feet because being at the end all the traffic merges there. There is a retaining wall across the street, that retaining wall is their property. Th~re is an easement that goes up the back side of Doug Browne's property. Doug Browne was out there once and he suggested moving it, so she did not know if it was an issue but she feels the road probably does need to be 28 feet wide. She is not sure how much that area is in front of their house, on the tentative map. When she comes out of her house she is in the street, so it is a safety issue. On the days that there is soccer, there is a lot of traffic and she has seen them back up down the street if their gate does not open then stacking occurs. These are issues she wants to make sure that are addressed. Applicant's Rebuttal: Chairman Bristol: Indicated that he had compiled a list of issues that were brought up. The first issue is the horse trail which Mr. Scott had a ques!ion about. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer: They did not find any evidence of a public horse trail on this property. It may be a trail of a private nature. There was no evidence of a public trail easement. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Aclion Agenda 07-07-99 Page 30 Steve Scott: (Speaking from the audience.) 'fhey were required to put that in at the tfine of construction Chairman Bristol: Asked if it was a public or private easement? Steve Scott: (Speaking from the audience.) Mr. Head gave him a map that showed a 50 foot easement Mr. Head: That is their road easement. Steve Scott: But that is stiii thraugh the horse trail. Mr. Head: Right. Outside of that easement there was a easement given to the City, He has already spoken to the City about this and it is not being used as a horse trail or never has been. It is fenced off. Steve Scott: Initialiy, they were told that they had to put it in then so his brother, who lives next door to him, went to the City and asked since the horse trail has never been used and the City gave them permission to put a fence, although he did not have documentation to that effect, ali he knows is that at one time it was a horse trail and now it is not a horse trail or at least it is not being used at a horse trail. He asked if the horse trail is abandoned will that becoming back to his property, does he need to give a deed or is th2t easement just run through there and they can widen the road without having to go to that trouble. That was his question at the last meeting. Mr. Head: He suggested checking with the City on this. There is an easement, they would have to fill out an application to vacate that easement but the City has no issue with that. Chairman Bristol: Mr. Scott mentioned a concern about a speed sign. Condition No. 16 on page 9 requires installing a 15 h4PH sign and asked why that could not be done on Heath Terrace? Mr. Head: He agreed. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: Regardless of what type of speed sign the neighbors want to install, it is not enforceable. The maximum point of enforcement would be a homeowners association giving a ticket but it would not be enforceable by the Police Department or Traffic Engineering. Steve Scott: They are looking more for a deterrent, Chairman Bristol: Asked the applicant about speed bumps? Mr. Head: They have agreed to put speed bumps on Heath Terrace that they are widening. They can not put speed bumps within the project for emergency purposes or response time. Chairman Bristol: Asked about a"no parking" sign on Heath Terrace and if there is parking on that street upon widening? Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: Their requirement for a private street is anything less than 32 feet, they do not allow any parking in case of emergency access. Once the street is improved to the 28 feet then it is going to become a private driveway and subject to the standards. They do not consider it as a private street but rather a private driveway. Chairman Bristol: Asked about the new maintenance agreement regarding road? He referenced Condition No. 6 and that is what Mr. Scott was referring to. Mr. Head: That is correct and they would have it priur to recordation. Chairman Bristol: Asked about lighting on Rio Grande? Asked Mr. Head if he had plan of installing lighting on the road? City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 31 Mr. Head: They do not have plans. The lighting was proposed to go within Heath Terrace and not on the comer of Rio Grande but that is something that the homeowners need to get together on to decide and if they would like the applicant to instali then they could probably accommodate this but it would be a point of discussion. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked Mr. Yalda if there could be a sign installed on Rio Vista alerting drivers that there is a crossing as they come over the hill? Alfred Yalda, Principai 7ransportation Pianner: They can certainly take a look at it but unless there are several people crossing everyday they do not generally put uncontrolled crosswalks or signs. Commissioner Boydstun: She felt there should be something to let people know as they are driving towards it that they need to be careful of crossing pedestrians. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transpo~tation Planner: They will definitely take a look at it and whatever appropriate sign is necessary then they could install it. Steve Scott: He emphasized the importance of recording a road maintenance agreement properly. If the homeowners are going to be responsible for getting those things recorded properly then it may not get done correctly. Commissioner Boydstun: The CC&R's need to be recorded with the date before they can do anything and that is included in it. Steve Scott: He is also referring to the subordination agreements that need to be recorded with the County Recorders Office that need to be signed by the existing lean holders in order to make that road maintenance agreement a priority on that easement. Chairman Bristol: Stated it is going to be completed because it is stated in the conditions. Chairman Bristol: Asked about the garbage pickup? Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: She was concerned lhat the developer being asked to remedy neighborhood problems rather than the problems that are the result of the applicanYs development. The Commission is constrained by nexus requirements. To the extent that the applicant acknowledges that he is willing to perform certain things over and above what nexus requires, that is a different thing that the applicant can wil~ingly do but it seems that there is a"laundry IisP' that is being provided. She is not sure that they could make a nexus to this particular project and she was not completely clear about the maintenance agreement. Is ihe maintenance agreement to require the developer to be responsible for off-site improvements that are outside of this particular subdivision. Chairman Bristol: He agreed with Ms. Mann but he was being specific and these are questions he was going to ask anyway. He was asking specifically on page 9, Condition No. 6 where staff is recommending that this developer is agreeing to take care of the road. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer: The applicant is asking for a waiver of code requirement as they relate to private street and the offer to maintain the entrance on Heath Terrace is to accommodate their concerns about the private street so that they are widening it to 28 fe2t. In addition, they have agreed to maintain that area. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if they are going into their property to pickup the trash because they have the turnaround7 City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 32 John Head: Now that they would be putting in the cul-de-sac they would be picking up trash from the residents themselves. Chairman Bristol: Asked about Ms. Nord's request of the 28 feet at her home? John Head: The road will start transitioning by her property to a narrow width, it will be 28 feet as far as they can go. The engineer drew it siight over onto her existing driveway and lawn which was incorrect. It may be 27 feet and then towards the end of her property down to about 26 feet but then it transitions down to a road that is only 20 feet wide. The transition has to be started somewhere, otherwise, they have an area where they nan out of road but they wiil stay off of her property. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked how is the applicant going to handle his mail? John Head: He set up a meeting on July 9th to meet with the postai service. Their cluster box will be installed prior to their gate and he also invited the residents to the meeting to discuss where they would like their boxes. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Bristol: He feels the gate is fine. For the record, he listened to the comments, on the Planning Commission tape for June 7th, regarding stacking. He estimated it would take 4 or 5 truck lengths beFore stacking would occur at that gate. After listening to testimony today regarding Mr. Doug Browne's property being used for soccer, it seems to be more of a stacking issue than the proposed property. Although if the stacking issue ever becomes a concern on that gate, with only 6 properties, then he suggested using another method af opening the gate. John Head: All the residents would have remotes. Chairman Bristol: Regarding the gate at the corner of Rio Grande and Heath Terrace. He could not see how they could install that gate without creating a stacking problem. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked Code Enforcement and staff how Mr. Doug Brewne could put in a soccer field with lights and have a soccer "business" in this neighborhood7 Oon Yourstone, S~nior Code Enforcement Officer: That is currentiy under investigation along with other problems on that property. Commissioner Bostwick: He thought the problem of Mr. Browne, the construction equipment, and soccer is interfering with the neighborhood and he hoped that action would be taken. Chairman Bristol: He asked Mr. Head if he was comfortable with concerns and recommendations that he brought up today? John Head: Responded these were all items that they discussed with the neighbors and have agreed to accommodate as many of their needs as possible. Commissioner Koos: He has the impression that there is an over supply of parking, 49 spaces for 6 homes seems excessive and asked Mr. Head for his opinion. John Head: He agreed with Commissioner Koos. He was showing the maximum amount of parking spaces that they could provide. if all of those spacas are not needed then they N~ould like to preserve more trees. Alfred Yalda: He felt they are adequately meeting the parking which is 3'/: parking spaces per house and they are providing 6 spaces. They do not have any requiremenk for the additional parking. They may City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 33 have an occasion to use the parking for a party but it is a gated community and they could provide parking. Therefore, he was fine with the suggestion of not providing additional parking spaces. Commissioner Bostwick: He did not agree that too much parking was being provided. John Head: He thought perhaps the one space beiween lots 3 and 4, leaves one additional tree and makes it 2 or 3 parking spaces rather than 4 spaces. During the voting: Judy Dadant, Associate Planner: Suggested a modification to Condition No. 3 to substitute the word "CC&R's" in place of "maintenance covenanY' and "covenanY'. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Explained that the reason for the maintenance covenant is so that the City Attorney's o~ce does not need to review the CC&R's but in this case they are going to need to do that anyway. The maintenance covenant requires that the maintenance obligations be included in CC&R's or they remain the obligation of the developer which is an incentive for the developer to ensure that there is a viable financial mechanism to have it in place. In this case since they are going to need tc review the CC&R's anyway it makes more sense to have one type of document that needs to be recorded. ~~~UwING l5•A SUMMARY OF TME PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIC IN FAVOR: 1 person spoke in favor OPPOSITION: None/3 people spoke with concerns ACTION: Approved Mitigated Negative Qeclaration. Granted, in part, Variance No. 4364, as follows: Denied waiver (a) pertaining to minimum !ot width on the basis that it was deleted following public notification and approved waiver (b) pertaining to minimum private accessway requirements on the basis that there are special circumstances appiicab , to this property such as the existing mature poplar trees along the private street, the topography and irregular shape of the parcel which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity. Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 15837 fur an 8-lot (6 numbered and 2 lettered) six unit single family residential subdivision with the following changes: Modified Condition No. 3 to read as follows: 3. That prior to final map approvai, the CC&R's shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section of the Public Works Department and approved by the City Attorney's o~ce. The CC&R's shall include provisions for maintenance of private facilities including compliance with the approved Water Quality Management Plan, and maintenance exhibit. The CC&R's shall be recorded concurrently with the final map. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) Selma Mann, Assistant Ciry Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights for Variance No. 4364 and the 10-day appeal rights for Tentative Tract Map No.15837. DISCUSSION TINiE: 56 minutes (4:43-5:39) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 34 10a. CEQA MEGATIVE DECLARATION Continu 10b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREPdENT 8-16-99 10c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 4122 OWNER: Vito and Josephine Bucaro, Fred Kimura, Yoshiko Kimura, Allen Wattenberg, Richard and Enriqueta Wattenberg, Kathy J. Wattenberg, Eugene Pardella, Marie Pardella, William Keough, Patsy Keough and Thakor Desa, 8300 Lexington Road #10, Downey, CA 90241 AGENT: Pacific National Development, Attn: AI Marsha11,1041 West 18th Street #104-A, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 LOCATION: 2240 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 1.92 acre located on the south side of Lincoin Avenue, 515 feet west of the centerline of Brookhurst Street. To construct a 2-story 56-unit affordable senior citizen's apartment complex with waiver of (a) permitted encroachment into setback areas, (b) minimum structural setback, (c) minimum private recreational - leisure area, (d) minimum floor area, (e) required private storage areas, (~ minimum pedestrian access and (g) minimum required affordable units. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. ApplicanYs Statement: AI Marshall, 14041 West 18th Street, Costa Mesa, CA: They are requesting une waiver for the proposed 56-unit senior apartments which is the minimal structural setback. This was an architectural error which has been corrected and submitted today. Therefore that waiver is not necessary. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Read into the record a letter received from Judith Ann Gollette from WAND which stated, "Due to conFlicting schedules, Esther Wallace and myself can not stay today to respond to Item No. 10 on behalf of WAND. It is our desire to request Kaufman and Broad a cnntinuance to August 16th to respond to the needs of West Anaheim residents, as with Item No. 4 on today's agenda which is another rush project for West Anaheim. We deserve better than this. Thank you for your representation. Judith Ann Gollette". Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: They have a concern with the design af this project because the applicant is not providing a gated community. He therefore strongly urgea Commission to have the applicant redesign the project to provide for a gated community. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun: Due to the footage across the front, they are allowed two driveway but asked Mr. Marshall whether they needed the lwo driveways because if they eliminated one driveway they could shift the design around where they would have room for a gate? AI Marshall: When they met with Steve Wra:ght, the architect for the Housing Authority, they indicated they were concerned because of the adjoining driveway, which is actually on their property and a covenant to the adjoining property. They suggested a one-way in and one-way out. Given that there is no break in the median it would be a right turn in and a right turn out only which would help significantly with their two driveway issues. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 35 When they looked at Mr. Yalda's request to do a tumaround, they could ac~omplish it and install a gate by eliminating 4 parking spaces but then they would need a parki~g waiver. They spoke to Kaufman and Broad at len3th and they fndicated that thoy were against requestir,g the waiver. He agreed with Commissioner Boydstun that it could accompifsh the front turnaround by eliminating 4 of the parking spaces. Currently fhey have 2 parking spaces for each 2 bedroom unit, which is 16 parking spaces, and they have 1 parking space for each 1 bedroom. Therefore, they felt that they do have an adequate number and it would be easy to accommodate losing 4 parking spaces. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked the applicant if they closed one driveway would that add any parking spaces? Ai Marshali: Even if they closed one driveway they woutd still have to eliminate the 4 parking spaces and then it would be a loop around. Commissioner Vanderbilt: Asked about the covenant with the adjacent neighbor, could they utilize that driveway? A~ Marshall: They were advised by staff that it is not a possibility given that the engineering of that is not satisfactory to the City. It is a s;eep driveway that creates othEr issues. Commissioner Boshvick: Asked Mr. Schult~ his opinion on this. Brent Schultr: They feel the same on this project as in Item No. 4(Conditional Use Permit No. 4130). They would like more time to ~~+ork with the applicant on their elevation plans. He concur~ ed with Mr. Ya~da on the gate issue. They also have concerns with long distances for walking between the parking lot and the units. He felt they can work with the applicant to achieve a design that achieves the goals. Commissioner Soshvick: He agreed with Mr. Schultz. It couid be achieved if the applicant places a building on the east property line and moves the parking tc the center c~ the projer.t through one driveway with a gate and eliminate the pool. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: Asked if the easement that fhey have for the driveway is recorded to be 24 feet or are they providing the 24 feet? AI Marshall: Responded it is recorded as 24 feet. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: Then 20 feet would be adequate. They could gain another 4 feet but that would depend on how their easement is. They did an extensive parking review with the Redevelopment Agency a couple of years ago to review this type of housing and feel very comfortable that their parking code is very adequate. Ther2fore, the Traffic and Transportation Manager does not recommend ar.y variation from the existing parking code. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer: Nuted that two of their recurr~mended conditions did not make it into the staff report. The first is related to some existing public utilities easements that would need to be abandoned before the development goes forward. The second is related to sewer deficiency of fees that would be due on the property, that fee is a~proximately $1,200 per unit. Commissioner Bostwick: Offered a motion to continuance to August 16,1999, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and motion was carried. City of Anaheim Planning Commission S~mmary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 36 ACTION: Continued subject request to the August 16,1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to address the fo~lowing issues: (a) Provide detail plans identifying: colors and materials for the exterior of the building, building footprint of the first versus second floor, fencing materials (inciuding height and location), pedestrian gates, exterior lighting, and detailed mechanicai equipment information pertaining to this complex. (b) Revise the plans to eliminate the requested Code waiver pertaining to minimum structural setback adjacent to Lincoin Avenue. (c) Submit detailed landscape and open common recreation area plans reflective of a qualiry residential neighborhaod with attractive landscape, hardscape, and recreational amenities and features. (d) Submit plans indicating an adequate amount of trash enclosure location(s) to serve the entire complax and trash enclosure features. (e) Submit plans consolidating the proposed driveways and address staffs c,,.cems over the location of proposed parking and its distance to the dwelling units. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 12 minutes (5:40-5:52) F~REAK: 5:52•5:57 City of Anaheim Planning Commfssfon Summary Action Agenda • 07-07-99 Page 37 ~ _ _ : 1 n ~~ .. : ~ . . . ' ~ Y<. .. - . . . ~ . . . . . . . . ~. r, ' ~:': 11a. Cf~QA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) Contin 11b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 2090 (READVERTISED) 8-2-99 OWNER: Harvey Owen,11061 Huntington Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92705 AGENT: AOUN Inc., Attn: Harvey Owen, President, P.O. Box 308, Buena Park, CA 90621 LOCATION: 1160 North Kraemer Boulevard - The Shack Property Is 0.~ •e located on the east side of Kraemer Boulevard, 242 i~~t south of the centeriine of Coronado Street. To consider reinstatement of this perrn?t which currently contains a time limitation (approved on August 3,19S ~ntil August 27,1999) to retain an existing restaurant with pubiic dance hall and sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption and live entertainment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. ' SR • • • • e • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the August 2,1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for staff to'meet with the properry owner and/or business manager and for the business to show compliance with all conditions of approval. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item N/as not discussed. City of Anaheim Flanning Commission Summacy F.ction Agenaa Q7-07-99 Page 38 12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 12b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT August 2,1999 12c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4100 12d. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENGE OR NECESSITY N0. 99-05 OWNER: R. Mark Shidler, Sheryl A. Shidler, Robin Shidler and Sally Shidler, 20880 Little Canyon Lane, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 AGENT: K. W. Lawler and Associates, 2832 Walnut Avenue #A, Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION: 905-985 North Weir Canyon Road Property is 3.34 acres located at the southwest comer of Old Canal Road and Weir Canyon Road. Conditional Use Permit No 4100 - to construct a service station and auto care complex consisting of four buiidings including auto rental, lube facility, automated car wash, service station/fast food restauranUconvenience market with retail sales of beer and wine for off- premises consumption, and roof-mounted equipment with waivers of (a) permitted commercial identification signs, (b) permitted number of wall signs, (c) maximum structural height abutting a residential zone, (d) minimum landscape setback abut!i;,g a residential zone, (e) required site screening abutting a residential zone and (~ minimum structural and landscape setback abuttir,g a freeway. Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No 99 05 - to Determine Public Convenience or Necessity to allow the retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption within a proposed convenience market. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTION NO. Chairman Bristol: Stated, for the record, a letter was ~Iso received from Mr. Patrick Pepper representing Concerned Citizens' of Anaheim Hills. Mark Schidler, 20880 Little ~anyon Lane, Yorba Linda, CA 92886: 8tated he is the applicant requesting a continuance to August 2, 1999. Chairman Bristol: Asked the audience if there was anyone present to speak on this item. (There was no response from the audience.) Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: In 1992 when Hillman's property sold all these parcels, there was a tra~c reimbursement agreement between K-Mart and the property which was recorded with the County of Orange. This parcel which is parcel no. 5 was identified to pay 5% of the total cost of the traffic signal that was installed at the intersection of Pullman and 8avi Ranch Parkway. Therefore the applicant is responsible to pay 5% of the total cost which was $122,694.00. He had a copy of the original agreement which he gave to Mr. Schidler. City of Anaheim Planni~g Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 39 Commissioner Bostwick: Offered a motion for a continuance to August 2,1999, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and motion was ca~ied. • • ~ ~ • • . • OPPQSITION: No one was present in opposition/A letter with concems was received. ACTION: Continued subjecE request to the Auyust 2,1999 Planning Commission meeting fn order for the applicant to address the following outstanding issues: (a) Prepare complete elevation pians of a Spanish Colonial or Mediterranean architectural style. These plans should be clearly labeled to identify the specific elevation including proposed materials. Building heights should be reduced to be more in scale with the building square footage and function. (b) Prepare a site plan with enhanced decorakive concrete pavement located through-out the site and denote locations of ground-mounted equipment including proposed screening. (c) Prepare detailed sign plans and square footage calculations for all proposed signs. (d) Prepare landscape plans that meet code requirements and the requirements of the Savi Ranch Master Landscape Pian. Such plans should also reflect landscaping adjacent to all building walls except where building ~penings occur. (e) Prepare labeled, line-of sight elevations including the scaie that depict the new architectural elevations, and proposed landscaping. (~ Prepare detailed wali and fencing plans indicating the rype of material proposed and landscape features to screen the wall. (g) Reduce the signage. (h) Provide plans showing the visibil!ty of the car wash iunnel and service bays to the adjacent roadways. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (1:36-1:38) CSry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 40 13b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4133 ~~ 9-27-99 OWNER: Lawrence A. Greco, P.O. Box 6605, Woodland Hilis, CA 91365-6605 AGENT: Richard Garcia,1687 VVest Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 1695 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 0.44 acre located at the northeast corner of Euclid Street and Lincoln Avenue. To permit an auto repair, auto body and paint facility CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO Chairman Bristol: Stated for the record, a letter was received from btorrison & Foerster attorneys at law representing their client Ms. Jeanette Hemmerling expressing their concem for allowing this conditional use permit for one year. ApplicanPs Statement: Richard A. Garcia, 522 Bregante Drive, Diamond Bar, CA: Concerning Condition No.1. He is the tenant and he will be the one doing all the expenditures for the improvements and requested a three year time instead of one year on the conditional use permit. He operates an auto body, maintenance and upholstery shop in the building adjacent on this property. His main business involves collision repair. Cars are towed onto his property which he prepares, estimates and w2its for insurance companies to inspect them in order to give him authorization to do the necessary repairs. Condition No. 2 will severely limit him from conductuig his business. Condition No. 12 refers to a trash truck turn-around. There is not enough room for a trash truck to turn around. Currently the trash truck pulls in the first driveway and exits the second driveway. They plan on putting up their trash container so they pull in, load the trash and exit through the driveway which is closest to Euclid. This brings up Condition No. 13 of only having one driveway on ihe property. Condition No.18. He understands Caltrans is going to be installing a 10-foot block wall along the side of the property off of Euclid. If he goes through the expense of installing a biock wall 2 or 3 feet from the 10- foot block wall that Caltrans is installing, bordering his property, his concern is that they would be hiding space between the two walis. He requested to be allowed to wait until Caltrans installs their block wall before installing his so he could match the type of fence. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: He did not believe there was a block wall required since they ~re prohibiting outdoor storage in this Commercial Zone. Staff prefers that there not be on a block wall so it does not encoursya outdoor storage on the property. If there is anything to be stored it should be stored inside of a building. Richard Garcia: Unfo~tunateiy many cars are towed in and can not be moved in every night. He does have the address at 1685 which is the adjacent building which is permitted for an existing body shop. He could park all his non-moveable vehicles on that lot which is almost the same piece of property, He works on approximately 140 cars a month and works on approximately 80 cars at a time . It would be difficult for him to conduct business withou! being able to park cars there. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 41 Commissioner Boydstun: The building that he was referring to is also zoned Commercial, technicaliy outdoor storage is not allowed there either. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if he has space behind his buildings? Richard Garcia: Responded yes. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if the applicant is going to have a 10-foot wall all the way around him with the new on-ramps? Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: There would not be a need for a sound wall because it is not residentially zoned, however, if there is work to be done by Caltrans it would necessitate a retaining wall, which would be installed by Caltrans. There was further discussion among Commissioners about the outdoor storage. Chairman Bristol: Asked Mr. Garcia how long he has owned the building that he has expanded to the west? Richard Garcia: He has been there for 3 years. He has improved on that ca: ~er when the bus stop was there he put a trash can out there. He use to have his employees clean the off-ramp that was there. There is a condition that he plant sod which he did at one time and then the telephone poles were pulled out and it is been dug out 4 or 5 times. He does plan on redoing that. He indicated he would like to continue to keep his business in Anaheim. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos: Asked if this area is being evaluated due to the use versus general plan and zoning consistency because there are varied uses in this area? Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: This is in the Plaza Redevelopment Area and the Redevelopment staff has indicated they are nowjust beginning to look at this particular area. They are interested in what the transformation is going to be in this area after Caltrans is finished and after the City is finished with the intersection area. Redevelopment is very interest in looking at for possible change in use. Chairman Bristol: Explained to thF applicant that staff is recommending Commission to reevaluate the classification of this site. The reason staff is recommending one year is because that it is very unsightly and a real concern. Richard Garcia: Acknowledged he did understand and unfortunately the letter received was generated by one of his competitors. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: There is another component, there is an ongoing effort for street beautification on Linco-n Avenue. Apparently there is a plan being prepared which could possibly go to City Council in the next few months in conjunction with what is going on with the Caltrans widening and all the other efforts along Lincoln Avenue, which will change the look of Lincoln Avenue to the point where there may be other users interested in going into this area who would be less of the industrial type and more of the commercial, retail or office type of use. That is another reason why they would like to keep this on a short time period. Chairman Bristol: Asked Mr. Garcia if he was not abie to store outside overnight could he still continue to operate? Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 42 Richard Garcia: No, because he would not have room to park all the vehicles inside of the buflding. Chairman Bristol: Informed Mr. Garcia he is using that facility to the west illegally and asked if he understood that? Richard Garcia: Yes, he did. Commissioner Bostwick: The fundamental issue is that Mr. Garcia can not store outside unless he built another building on the property that would house the vehicles inside. Commissioner Koos: Asked would there be any value in discussing a zone change given the proximity to other ML Zoned properties in the vicinity7 Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: The two changes tha~ they face would be the General Plan that shows this property as Commercial and secondly the proximity to Anaheim Plaza. The Redevelopment staff is very interested in this becoming a key commercial area. Commissioner Koos: But until that time are they going to force this applicant out of business until they decide what they want to do with this area7 Chairman Bristol: Suggested continuing this item to give the applicant time to expiore his options on becoming a legal use with some type of structure that wouid satisfy everyone for the time being. Commissioner Bostwick: Suggested that they direct Mr. Garcia to Redevelopment staff that might find another location that would work for him? Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: If this item is continued he suggested continuing it for a long enough time period because they will probably need a parking waiver because the area that he is currently storing is a parking lot and therefore the parking availability will need to be reduced with a parking study or letter. Commissioner Bostwick: Offered a motion for a continuance to SeptEmber 27, 1999, seconded by Commissianer Boydstun and motion was carried. ~ ROLLOWING IS.A SUMMARY O~ THE PCANNING COMMISSION.ACTION. . OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the September 27,1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for the appiicant to consider the possibility of constructing a structure that would enclose the outdoor storage of vehicles and/or to meet with Redevelopment staff to help him find another location for his business. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 23 minutes (5:58-6:21) City of Anaheim Planning Cammissfon Surrimary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 43 14a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATiON Approved 14b. COlVDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4134 Granted OWNER: The Clifford Companies (CSIC), Attn: Loren Brucker,1451 Quail Street, #210, Newport Beach, CA 92660 AGENT: CDL Associates, Inc., Attn: Carolyn Doyle, 28201 La Brisas Del Mar, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 LOCATION: 8095 East Crystal Drive. Properry is 21.62 ac~es located on the west side of Pullman Street, 38 feet west of the centeriine of Crystal Drive. To permit a retaii and wholesale flooring company within an industrial complex. CONDITIONAL USE PERMiT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-125 SR7479KB.DOC ApplicanYs Statement: Carolyn Doyle, 28201 Las Brisas del Mar, San Juan Capistrano, CA: Stated she is representing the tenant and future building owner, as the applicant. She is in agreement with the conditions and staff's recommendations. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: He notified the applicant regarding the traffic signal reimbursement and read a condition into the record. ~• r~i,[,~wiN~15 A SUMMARY OF THE FLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. ' ~ OPPOSITION: None ACT~ON: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4134 with the following added conditiori: That within a period of ten (10) days from the date of approval of this project, the property owner shall make a check payable to K-mart Corporation in the amount of thirty eight thousand five hundred eighty seven dollars and twenty seven cents ($38,587.27) per the agreement that has been recorded in the County of Orange. JOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) Selma Mann, Assistant Ciiy Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION T1ME: 2 minutes (6:22-6;24) Ciry of Anaheim Planning Cammission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-98 Page 44 15a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLAFtATION 15b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 4136 Approved Granted for 5 years OWNER: RRM Properties, LTD, 6830 Van Buren Boulevard, (To expire 7-7-2004) Riverside, CA 92509 AGENT: Nextel Communications,17275 Derian Avenue, Irvine, CA ~ 92614 LOCATION: 201 East Commercial Street - Robertson's Read Mix. Property is 2.69 acres located on the north side of Commercial Street, 375 feet west of the centerline of Patt Street. To construct a telecommunications facility monopalm. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-126 SR1126TW.DOC ApplicanYs Statement: Chris Glass, representing Nexte( Comm~n~~,tions: Stated the proposed design will have little visual impact on the City. The proposed palm tree has been designed to be aesthetically appealing. There will be two trees planted in the lease area and one outside the lease area nearby on the property. THF PUBUC HEARING WAS CLOSED. G•~ ;- rlastings: Staff supports this request, however the only concern staff has is a triangular shaped palm tree trunk which is unusual. Chris Glass: It is actually a square pole. The other is a steel pole with an imitation fiberglass bark that goes around it but it tends to buckle and fade with time. Commissioner Koos: Asked if the materials used on fake palm trees are safe for birds? Chris Glass: Responded it is safe for birds and they have not had any problems. Greq Hastings: Advised that there is a time limitation on this request and should there be a problem in the future it will be return to Commission. • • • • • • OPPOSITION: ACTION: VOTE: None Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4136 for 5 years (to expire July 7, 2004) subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report (approved the square-shaped monopole trunk as proposed). 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 45 DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (6:25-6:30) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 46 16a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATiON (PREVIOUSLY•APPROVEQ) Approved 16b. ~ONDITIONAL. USE PERMIT N0. 3468 (READVERTISED) Approved amendment to conditions of OWNER: Faith Lutheran Church, Attn: Patricia L. Olson, 2219 West approval Orange Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804 _. LOCATION: 2219 West Orange Avenue. Property is 2.36 acres located on the north side of Orange Avenue, 200 feet west of the centeriine of Brookhurst Street. To amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to the maximum number of children permitted for an existing day care center in conJunction with a church facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESaLUTION N0. PC99-127 ApplicanYs Statement: Bob Dovermack: Requested to increase capacity of the daycare program at Faith Lutheran Church from 50 to 75 children. There will be no changes in construction, playground or other things. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt: Asked where children were dropped off? Bob Dovermack: Responded they pull in behind building and are dropped off. • • s • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved the request. Amended Conditi~n No. 9 of Resolution No. PC91-183 to read as follows: "9. That a maximum of seventy-five (75) children may be enrolled in subject child care center at any one time:' VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (6:30-6:32) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 47 I 17b. OWNER: Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 393 East Walnut Street, Pasadena, CA 91188 AGENT: Sprint PCS, Attn: Cindy JolIy,18200 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92612 John Murphy, 3150 Bristol Street, Suite 250, Costa Mesa, CA 92Fi26 LOCATION: 441 North Lakeview Avenue - Kaiser Permanente Pruperty is 9.45 acres located at the northwest corner of Riverdale Avenue and Lakeview Avenue. To construct a roof-mounted telecommunications facility on an existing hospital bui!ding. CONDITIQNAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC~9-128 Granted Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Stated the applicant asked him to read a letter into the record which stated, "Cear Planning Commission, I Je~ ry Ambrose on behalf of Sprint PCS concur with recommended actions and conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 4132. I had to leave due to a time constraint. I would ask that you approve this request as presented. If questions arise and necessitate a continuance I would request a two ~eek continuance. Sincerely, Jerry Ambrose, J~1 Consul!~~n Group." Ghairman Bristol: Asked the audience if anyone wanted to speak on this item. (No one came forward.] • • ~ • e • • CPPOSiTION; None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. ~1132 subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (6:32-6:34) City of Anaheim Plannfng Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 48 18b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT •~rr~~~~~ 18c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMI'i NO. 4135 Approved, in Qart Granted, in part OWNER: Joseph and Emma Kung, Roger and Randy Kung Trust, Attn: Joseph T. Kung, 20866 East Quail Run Drive, ~iam•md Bar, CA 91789 LOCATION: 5555-5665 East Santa Ana Canyon Road,~ Im eriai Canyon Shonaina Center. Property is 5.03 acres located at the northwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway. To construct a 1-story retail pad building with a roof-mounte~ equipment, ~. an expansiun to an existing restaurant, an outdoor dining area in conjunction with the conversion of rNO retaii;u`fice units !nto a restaurant, subdivide 3 units i~to 3 retail units and 9 office units for a totai of 55 units in the commercial center, and construct four monument signs with waiver of (a) permitted commercial center identification signs and (b) minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITII~NAL USE i'ERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC99•129 Chairman Bristol: Stated, for the record, a letter was received from the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition requesting a continuance. ApplicanYs Statement: Joseph Kung, 5581 Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim Hills, CA: Stated he met that morning with Ms. Kwok to work out details. The Tra~c Engineer is present tu clarify parking and traffic. incoming tra~c from the new driveway will make a left or right turn instead of going through because the only reason to bypass the intersection is to visit Don ~ose Restaurant, the bank and proposed building. He discussed the direction of the traffic that goes to other cites in the vicinity. The one way traffic is for the ATM users who will leave the center when they are done with their business. The design was made to carry the traffic left turn. They have two speed bumps designed on each end of that driveway per Mr, Yalda's advice. Alfred Yalda: Stated he does not advise anybody ta put in speed bumos on private property. Joseph K~n~: Apoiogized. Advised they ~vant incoming traffc to come off of imperial Highway as smooth as possible. The left or right turn has a wider turn than City code requires. Right turn is 28 feet and left is 34 foot. They have more parking spaces than the required by ov~r 20 spaces. Regarding the traffic volume, this rpw entrance will carry approxirnateiy 1/2 of the tra~ic coming into the Santa Ana Canyon Road. Patrick Lang, Director of Operations for Associated Traffic Consultants: Parking has been addressed in the parking restudy using existin5 counts of what is currently happening there and a shared concept use for all the uses. They find there is sianificant parking on site to m2et all the demands that ~hey have. Concerns about congestion on Old Santa Ana Road and ~a~ta Ana Canyon Road is probably caused by the post office and not the actual development. There is a new delivery area that has been added to provide delivery space. Width of drive isles is 24 feet per City standard, and the two drive areas right off of the r~adway are 29 and 30~f feet wide, which are much wider. The one way road coming in can be widened and they will speak to City Traffic Engineer to see what width thev want. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 49 Commissionar Koos: Asked Mr. Yalda if he was comfortable with the one way beiween the bank and the building? Alfred Yalda: Responded hs is comfortable with that because the one way is right off of Imperial Highway that would be used by the bank or restaurant. If someonE is going to the other side they will probably use the free right hand tum and move in instead of going through the shoppir,g center. The parking study took '~to consideration, on Santa Ana Canyon Road, the number of employees that were parking there, however, if Commission wouid like to consider a condition to change the timing to 2 hour parking which would eliminate some of the all u+ay parking on Santa Ana Canyon Road and create more tum around so it would be less congested. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked how many employees the Post Office had. Alfred Yalda: Responded he did not know because the post office is part of the United Siates government, and are not required to provide parking per City code. They have thei~ own code, but that post office is very busy. He suggested the City could limit the parking to 2 hours between 7:00 a.m. until 6:U0 p.m. Commissioner Koos: Asked Mr. Yalda if he was concerned about the one way even though the staff report mentions concerns. Joseph Kung: They have two existing problems, if they allow traffic to go the other direction as he suggests, it will he head on collision with the left turn of the ATM customers. Another critical problem is the curbside parking. If you make it two way, people will park there and walk to the ATM. They are instal;ing the one way only sign. If needed they will install one way spikes. He made a suggestion to Mr. -.ower to speak to the post office master regarding the parking. They are paying costs to maintain cleaning and landscaping on that street. The City approved abandonment of the street, but the owner did not want them to take it. it is not fair to say there is no parking allowed there. Commissioner Koos: Asl;ed Mr. Kung if he was maintaining public landscaping? Joseph Kung: The~ are maintaining all landsca~+in~. His property ends at the eucalyptus tree and from the tree to the curb, approximately 20 to 30 feet, is maintained by Mr. Kung. 7hey also maintain landscaping on Old Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway and as they were widening it, his ground wire was cut resulting in the sFrinkler being down. TFi~ PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked about the signs? Joseph Kung: Advised he is reducing the 2 signs to 3 feet high to accommodate staff s desire. He would still prefer the other iw~ signs to be 5 feet. Commissioner Boydstur: Askad staff if the applicant still needs a waiver for the signs? Judy Dadant: Advised he will because he stiU has signs that are dauble sided an~ Code only permits a single-sided sign, unless he removes one of the signs alor.~ the Santa Ana Canyon Road frontag?. He (~ only permitted to have one sign ~;~r frcntage. The current proposal has 3 on Santa Ana Canyon Road. Commissio~e~ Boydstun: Asked if they still need to deny Waiver B so that staff can work with the applicant on the signs in order to meet that meet code. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-95 Page 50 Judy Dadant: Staff is recommending that Waiver B~ertaining to the monument signs be denied so that the applicant can provide signs that meet Code which means they cannot exceed 36 inches in height, 26 square feet in sign area, single-sided that are built as part of a decorative type wall. Joseph Kung: Advised that today's letter states that he accepts all those requests but he would like to have a 5-foot sign at Hughes Center. He wants two 3-foot signs on the comer then two on the street entrance 5 feet high. Commissioner Boydstun: Advised that was not advertised so they need to deny this. Judy Dadant: Advised that Wai~~er A is a request for a sign waiver. Staff s concems with the 2 signs on Santa Ana Canyon Road is that they may be redundart. Traffic will already clearly see one sign no matter which dirsction they are traveling, sa they do not need 3 signs. Greg Hastings: Intent of the code is to identify thP name of the center, since the name of fhe center is sometimes identified by a major tenant, there is a code amendment which allows major tenants along with the name of the center. Joseph Kung: Agreed to drop one sign on the corner of Imper~al and Santa Ana Canyon, so there will be one 3 foot sign at Avenida Margarita and the other at Imperial and Santa Ana Canyon Road entrances at 5 feet double sided. Judy Dadant: Ciarified that waiver will be for hnro five foot double sided monument signs on Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway. Greg Hastings: Stated, for the record, Condition No. 20 will be revised to reflect the new sign request. • • • • • • OPPOSITION: None/A letter was received from the Anaheim Hills Citizen's Coalition requesting a continuance. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement as follows: Approved, in part, waiver (a) pertaining to permitted commercial cen~er identification signs, as follows: Approved 3, 3-foot high signs [a single-sided sign on the corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Avenida Margarita oriented diayonally on the corner, a double-sided sign at the driveway of Santa Ana Canyon Road and a double-sided sign at the driveway of Imperial Fii~hway]. Approved waiver (b) pertaining to mir.imum number of parking spaces, as proposed. Granted, in part, Ccnditional Use Permit No. 4135 as follows: Approved (1) the request for the expansion of an existing freestanding restaurant with roof-mounted equipment, (2) the conversion of two units into ~ restaurant, and (3) the subdivision of existing units based on the following: (i) That the proposed modifications to the existing restaurant, subdivision of units, and outdoor dlning area, as proposed are permitted uses in the CL(SC) Zone, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. (ii) That the proposed modifications to the existing structures are minor and will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses provided that the property is well Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 51 ~a .. _ _i, ~ !;` ~ .~ . ", ; _ maintained and fhe conditions of approval are complied with. (iii) That the granting of this request wiil not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the aitizens of the City of Anaheim. Denied the request for a freestanding retail pad building with roof-mounted equipment based on the following: (i) That the siza and shape of the site for the proposed addition is not adequate to aliow the full development of the proposed retail building as avidenced by ihe cfrculation pattems and potential for congestion around the building. (ii) That the proposed freestanding building will intensify a commercial center which is near or at its maximum development capacity. (iii) That the proposed new building may adversely 3ffect the adjoining land ~~as and the growth and development of the area by creating an opportunity for circulation conflicts which may not be present without the addition. Modified Condition No. 20 to read as foilows: 20. That revised monument sign plans for Signs A, C and D as approved by the Planning Commission, showing decorative enhancements and an opaque background for the sign face shali be submitted to the Planning Qepartment for Commission review as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. That Sign D may not be constructed until the new driveway on Imperial Highway is completed. Said information shall be shown on plans submitted to the Planning Department. Any additional signage shali be subject to approval by the Plannin~ Commission as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. VOTE: 6-0 (Cammissioner Esping absent) Seima Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. ~ISCUSSION TIME: 32 minu;es (6:35-7:07) City of Anaheim Planning Commission ~ummary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 52 1 19b. OWNER: Pierre Ces and Claudia Ces, 385 Bayside Drive North, Long Beach, CA 90803 AGENT: Manuel and Delfina Corona, 708 North Buttonwood, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1811 West La Palma Avenue. Property is 0.30 acre located on the north side of La Palma Avenue,124 feet east of the centerline of Onondaga Avenu~. To permit a convenience grocery market within an existing retail space. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC99-130 Granted ApplicanYs Statement: Mario Limon: Stated he was present to answer any questions on project. Judy Dadant, Associate Planner: Recommended that Condition No. 2 be modified to in the event that the fence is removed that a minimum of 5-gallon shrubs shall be planted to screen the existing above-ground utiliry device located in the front setback. Phillip Ces: Advised that is not a problem and they will screen it off as proposed. • • . • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4137 with the following change: Modified Condition No. 2 to read as follows: 2. That minimum 1-gallon, fast growing vines shall be planted on 3-foot centers and maintained on the chain link fence adjacent to La Palma Avenue, ~r the fence shall be removed. That in the event that the chain link fence is removed, minimum 5-gallon shrubs shall be planted to screen the existing above-ground utility device located in the frert setback. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner ~sping absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (7:07-7:10) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 53 ADJOURNED AT 7:15 P.M. TO MaNDAY, JULY 19,1999 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMIN4RY PLAN REVI~W Submitted by: ~~~ Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary • ~So~.,~.....~ O~ . Simonne Fannin Senior Office Specialist Received and ap proved the July 7,1999 Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda on 8-a-99 City of Maheim Planning Commission Surnmary Action Agenda 07-07-99 Page 54