Loading...
Minutes-PC 1999/12/06SUM~'rIIARY ACTION AGENDA CITY O~ ANAHEIM PLANNIlVG COMI'rIIIS~ION MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1999 10:30 A.M. • COMMUNITY PLAN~IING PROGRAM - PRESENTATION OF NORTHWEST ANAHEIM ACTION PLAN 11:OG A.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • FRELIMlNARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.M. • PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY CHAIRPERSON PRO-TEMPORE: KOOS COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: ARNOLD, BOSTWICK, BRISTOL, KOOS, NAPOLES, VANDERBILT COMMISSIONER ABSENT: BOYDSTUN STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Greg Hastings Greg McCafferty Don Yourstone Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Russ Sutter Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Principal Transportation Planner Associate Civil Engineer Police Sergeant Planning Commission Secretary Senior Secretary P:\DOCSICLERICALIMINUTES1AC12U699.DOC City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 6, 1999 Page 1 ITEMS C'~ PUBLIC iNTEREST: None 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ' A. VARIQNCE N0. 2752 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATI~N: Joseph Terminated Curd, 301 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 460, Long Beach, CA 90802, requests termination of Variance No. 2752 (waiver of permitted uses (Vote: 6-0, and required site screening to establish an automotiva diagnostic Commiss~~ner shop). Property is locatad at 117 South Western Avenue. Boydstun absent) TERMINATION RESOLU i ION N0. PC99-210 ~ SR7546VK.DOC There was no discussion related to this matter. B. CONDITIOiVAL i1SE PERMIT N0.1026 - REQUEST FOR Terminated TERMINATION: Joseph Curd, 301 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 460, Long Beach, CA 908Q2, requests termination of Conditional Use (Vote; 6-0, Permit No.1026 (t~ oermit an automatic car wash with accessoiy Commissioner gasoline pumps), Pro~erty is located at 117 South Western Avenue. Boydstun absent) TERMINATION RESOLUTION N0. PC99-211 SR7547VK.DOC There was no discussion related to this matter. City of Maheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 6,1999 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. 2b. Revoked INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 OWNER: Sycamore Canyon Plaza, Inc., clo GE Capital, Attn: Lisa Mitchelson, Asset Manager, One Boston Place, Suite 1810, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 AGENT: CB Richard Ellis, Inc., Attn: Ivette Barnett, 4141 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite 200, Ontario, CA 91764 LOCATION: 701 South Weir Canyon Road. Property is 11.9 acres located a~ the southwest corner of Weir Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue (Blockbuster Video). City-initiated request for revocation or modification of a previously approved restaurant with beer and wine and outdoor seating where current use is a non-restaurant use. Continued from the Commissioii meeting of November 22, 1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99•212 SR7624DB.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner introduced this item by stating this a city-initiated request to consider relocation or modification of Conditional Use Permit No. 3490 that is no longer utilized on the property where the present Blockbuster Video store is located. Public Testimony: Beverly Crow from CB Richard Ellis, stated she is representing the landlord. The owner is Sycamore Canyon Plaza Incorporated, who became the owner in May 1999. This was an issue that had not been brought to their attention at the time of the sales transaction. They proposed turning that area into a common area that might be a pieasant piace for people to come and sit, as opposed to removing the concrete. She asked that fhis item either be continued or allow the landlord some time to remedy the situation based on the financial implications. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked staff to comment on Ms. Crow's suggestian. Greg McCafferty responded that the outdoor patio area is in conjunction ~vith a restaurant that is no longer being exercised on the property. It is still their recommendation that the area be converted to the original approval. If there is some proposal in connection with an existing business that is there then Commission can consider that at a se~arate public hearing. For aestheiic purposes, staff recommended that Commission terminate this conditional use permit since it is no longer being exercised. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 6,1999 Page 3 Chairperson Pro-Tem~,ore Koos stated this.was p~eviously a rest~urant with an~outdoor patio and asked what the normal procedure would be when a use such as khis is no longer there. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, explained that when a conditlonal use permit is no longer being exercised then the Commission has the authorlty after 6 months to request that a hearing be set to terminate the conditional use permit, ar if the owner of the property requests a termination of another request that they would have had through a subsequent conditional use permit. Other than that, it would be by way of a complaint or observation by staff. This came about because of another request in the center having to do with outdoor seating. Staff looked at the entire property to make sure they are in concurrence with the conditions of approval. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos summarized that this is the normal procedure. Should the applicant want to return after this is revoked and present a proposal then that would be a separate issue altogether. Greg Hastings stated that would be his advice simply because the main purpose of this conditional use permit was for a restaurant which is no lonoer in existence. This was a waiver to encroach in what would otherwise be a landscape area and that is why staff is asking that it be returned as a landscape area. There are probably other locations on site which would be better suited for this common area. Commissioner Arnold asked if staff had any comments on the applicanYs request for more time to come into compliance. Greg Hastings stated if it is revoked what happen typically is that they would nnt be in conformance with the Code and Code Enforcement Divisiun would work proactively with them to remedy the situation. He asked for guidance from the Commission if that i~ the direction that they are headed. Cha~rperson Pro-Tempore Koos wondered if they revoke the CUP how can they make a"formal" intention for the applicant to work with staff. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, responded what the Commission would be doing would be terminating the use as well as the waiver attached. Code Enforcement is under the jurisdiction of the Planning Department and the Planning Corrimission does not direct Code Enforcement to take or not take any particular action. The goal of Code Enforcement is to obtain compliance. Within that goal there is a certain amount of reasonability in terms of working with property owners to provide an appropriate time period for compliance. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 6,1999 Page 4 • s ~~ o s • • OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition to the request. ACTION: Concurted with staff that the proposed project fails within the definition of Categoricai Exemptions, Class 21, as deflned in the State EIR Guidelines and Is, therefore, cat~gorically exempt from the requirements to pre~are an EIR. Revoked Conditional Use Permit No. 3490 (to permit on-premi~e sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a sem~-enclosed restaurant with waiver of minimum landscape setback adjacent to a scer,+c highway) based on the following: (i) Thzt the use for which such approval was granted has ceased to exist for a ?eriod of six (6) consecutive months or more; and, (ii) Ttiat the use for which the approval was granted has been so exercised as to be detnmental to the public health or safety, or so as to constitute a nuisance. VOTE: 6-0 (Chair~erson Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (1;40-1:49) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 6, 1999 Page 5 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4163 OWNER: Marvin Frederick and Vivian Marie Rogers, 321 North State Gollege Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Allen Golden, 2888 East Walnut Street, Pasadena, CA 91107 LOCATION: S21 North State College Boulevard. Property is 0.69 acre located on the west side of State College 8oulevard, 310 feet south of the centerline of Redwood Avenue. To permit a substance abuse recovery center for women and their dependent children. Continued from the Commission meeting of November 22, 1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-213 Granted for 44 occupants for 1 year (To expire 12-6-2000) SR1025TW.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stated it is a continued item. The Commission continued this item from the November 22"d meeting in order for the applicant to consider revising the floor plans and also to consider the total number of persons that would be occupying the facility. He gave some background of what has happened since the last public hearing whereby essentially Building No. 1 which includes the 6 units previously the living areas, were going to be converted into an additional bedroom. The applicant is now proposing to leave Building No. 1 as it is today, making it a total number of 6 units with 1-bedroom per unit. For Building No. 2 the applicant is proposing to convert two of those units from 1-bedroom to 2-bedroom units which would occupy the living area that is existing for those units. Therefore, instead of 2-bedroom units there would be 4 2-bedroom units, two of them with living areas and two without. ApplicanPs Statement: Allen Golden stated he is a consultant working with Southern California Alcohol and Drug Programs Inc. They have been working with the operators of the proposed faciliry. He pointed out a mathematical error. Building No. 1 to the best of his knowledge (page 2 of the staff report) is an existing 4-unit building of 2- bedroom apartments. Explained at one time they were considering a greater density and may have changed the configuration, however, those are 2 existing 2-bedroom apartments. The total number of existing bedrooms as indicated on page 4 of the staff report would be 18 rather than 16. They have discussed the issue of reducing the request of occupancy for the faciliry from 54 with the County of Orange. The County has askad on one hand they have authorized the reduction of the request to a total of 48 persons, however, the County and State of California would like to maintain the flexibility of having a greater number of persons be adults. To the best of their knowledge, there will be 18 legally appropriate bedrooms. Some of which are quite Iarge and could accommodate two adults or perhaps two aduits and a small child. He asked that Commission recall some of the kind remarks made by State and County representatives with respect to the care that this ayency takes in assuring that their facilities are City of Anaheim Planning Commissian Summary Action Agenda December 6,1999 Page 6 not overcrowded and people are not inappropriately housed and aliow the operators the flexibility to accommodate as many people as they can. Currently, the other facility operated by the agency in Orange County has a waiting list of 37 women. There is a theoretical possibility that each of these women possibly have as many as 2 children but the organizational experience is that is not the case. Wnile the children of these women may be victimized by their relationship with alcohol and drugs, the people who need the primary attention are the women and while providing adequate space for them they would like take as many women as appropriately possible. They would like to see a total capacity of 48 with the flexibility to accommodate as many people as appropriately possible. Lynne Appel stated she is the Executive Director of Southern California Aicohol and Drug Programs (SCADP), which runs Heritage House. With 18 bedrooms there is no way that they would in any way overcrowd this faciiity by havina 20 women. A large number of women that come into the program are pregnant and bring no children with then and otliers wil! bring in one child and receive another child through family reconciliation program at the end of their stay. They operate 350 other residential bedrooms in the State of California. They have never exceeded their capacity in a way that would not be correct for the health and safety. This is very expensive undertaking and in order to make it feasible they need to serve 20 women in this facility. Even if they cut down on the number of children they would in no way ever exceed the 48 capacity. It is very important undertaking for SCADP and in order to make it feasible they need to serve 20 women in this facility. It is very fiscally important to serve the primary proponents of the entire program, which is the chemically addicted woman. Sandra Fair, Acting Deputy Director for Alcohoi and Drug Abuse Services for the County of Orange Health Care Agency, stated the last time she spoke she addressed the fact that the County was viewing the need for additional prenatal beds as a very high priority in its strategic plan both for the agency and for the County. She has been doing research of what is available in similar Counties. Currently they operate with Heritage House. There are 16 women that are able to be served in a residential facility. There are 37 women on the waitinc~ list. Over a period of one year there is an average of 20 per month on the waiting list. They have 16 beds available now. The County of San Diego with the same population has 199 beds for prenatal services. It is important that they enable this organization to provide as many beds for both women and their children as possible. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol asked whether staff concurred with the applicant regarding an error on page 4 regarding the total number of existing bedrooms. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, responded the oniy change from this plan to the last plan was that they are not going to be converting the 6-unit a,~artment building which will remain tha same with 1- bedroom per unit. They are still proposing to conven the second building with the 4 apartment units. Two of those units that are existing as 1-bedroom units, co~iverting those living areas in those units to bedrooms, to a total of 8 bedrooms for that 4 unit apartment building, which is detailed in paragraph 8, page 2 of the staff report. Commissioner Bostwick asked if staff felt comfortable with the conditions as proposed. Condition No. 5 is limiting to a maximum occupancy of 44 patrons. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, recommended the deletion of the parenthetical phrase "including a maximum of 17 adult women" on Condition No. 5. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 6,1999 Page 7 During the voting: Prior to calling the vote, Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked Commission if there were any concems. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated in the last meeting he was in favor of the project because he understood there was an attempt to accommodate children and in most cases they would be small children and felt that the number of peopie to be housed would be sufficient. However, due to the change of the recommendation he has concerns with the densiiy. He is not suggesting that Anaheim should not deal with the need but he is suggesting that with this particular piece of property that it is more of a squeeze than he is comfortable with and he agreed with staff on this and would be voting no. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos indicated that the applicant stated that they would need 20 adult women. If the County would be more comfortable with 48 irrespective of what ages they were, and asked if it was a fair statement. He realizes that the City Attorney has a concern with Commission mentioning occupancy numbers. He is uncomfortable with the 48 unlimited for the same reasons that Commissioner Vanderbilt is. Commissioner Bostwick stated the staff report under Condition No. 5 is that the facility shall be ~imited to a maximum occupancy of 44 patrons. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos explained it could potentially be 44 women and that is why he has raised the same concern as Commissioner Vanderbilt. He asked Ms. Mann that given the applicant has stated they want 20 women if this would be considered part of their official amended proposal to the City to create a facility with a maximum of 20 women and perhaps 44 individuals including children. Allen Golden stated they would be happy to make it their request. Selma Mann stated there is a big difference between the applicant making that request and putting that as a requirement of operation on their own and the City making that a condition of approval. She reiterated that the City Attorney's office still recommends that the limitation of the number of adult women be deleted. Allen Golden stated that they would be happy to amend their application and request a maximum of 20 adult women at this facility. Commissioner Bristol stated this is a use next to a residential area and there were no residents present this time or the last time in opposition of this use. This permit will expire in one year at which time Commission will review how the operation has been run. Commissioner Arnold asked for the size of the bedrooms in terms of square footag~a Allen Golden responded that he could not provide that information off-hand. He is confident in reviewing the construction drawings that they are in excess of minimum HUD (Housing and Urban Development Department) requirements. He not~d that the person who put the furniture in their drawings had only a quarter-inch template, which is why the beds are so large in camparison to the rooms. It makes the rooms look deceptively crowded. They are existing bedrooms, appearing to be built with permits. Commissioner Arnold as~ced staff if they had information on how large lhe bedrooms are going to be. Greg McCafferry, Senior Planner stated he could review the floor plans and let him know. Staff did G comparison between what a typical 1-bedroom or 2-bedroom unit would require today and what is currently existing there. A one bedroom requires 700 square feet and 560 square feet is existing. For a City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 6, 1999 Page 8 2-bedroom unit 825 square feet is a minimum requirement i.o today Code, 560 to 660 square feet is proposed. Commissioner Amoid stated his concem is if this was essentially what they would approve as an apartment building, etc. then he would not have any concern about density but from what staff has indicated that these rooms are substantially smaller than what Commission would approve for other multi- family dwellings and in that case he would agree with the recommendation that this be scaled back at least to 44. Commissioner Bostwick stated he would let his motion for a resolution stand. This is a compromise from 48 and 44. How they divide up between the women and the children is the applicant's business. Allen Golden assured that the licensing capacity would not exceed 20 and they would comply with that. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated given his e:arlier statements, he would be more comfortable with their proposal as opposed to leaving it at 44, therefore, he would not be supporting this resolution. • • 9 • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4163 for 44 occupants for a period of 1 year (to expire December 6, 2000) with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Modified Condition No. 5 to read as follows: 5. That this facility shall be limited to a maximum occupancy of 44 patrons. VOTE: 4-2 (Commissioners Koos and Vanderbilt voted no and Chairperson Buydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-dav appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 20 minutes (1:50-2:10) City of Anaheim P!anning Commission Summary,Action Agenda December 6,1999 Page 9 4b. 4c. 4d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part CQNDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4155 Granted, in part DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE Approved, in part OR NECES3ITY N0. 99-07 (READVERTISED) OWNER: Devtech Inc., Aitn: Young Woo Kim, President,1a12 (1 of the ABC licenses will Fairford Drive, Fullerton, CA 92833 expire on 10-1-2001) LOCATION: 500•528 South Beach Boulevard. Property is 1.91 acres located at the northeast corner of Orange Avenue and Beach Boulevard (Sav-on Drug Store). Conditional Use Permit No. 4155 - To permit a commercial retail center, including a drug store with drive-through lane with sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption, and retain an existing convenience market with sales of beer and wine for off- premises consumption with waiver of (a) unpermitted marquee sign, (b) minimum distance between freestanding signs, (c) minimum number oP parking spaces, (d) maximum structural height, and (e) required setback adjacent to a residential zone boundary. Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 99-07 - To determine public convenience or necessity for one (1) additional Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) license (the existing convenience market currently has a license) to permit the sales of beer and wine and alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption within this shopping center. Continued from the Commission meeting of October 11, 1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-214 DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTION N0. PC99-215 SR7636KB.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating this is a request to permit a drug store with a drive-through lane with sales of alcoholic beverac~es for aff-premises consumption and retain an existing convenience market that also now has sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption. That the Commission also determine whether the public convenience or necessity is served by havin3 the additional license granted to the Sav-an Drug Store. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos announced, for the record, 4hat staff prepared a revised page 8 to the staff r~port and was available. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 6, 1999 Page 10 Applicant's Statement: Lon Bike, 14 Hughes Street, Irvine, stated he is the architect for the project. They are proposing a project that will greatly improve that corner. They are in concurrence with the staff recammendations, although there are two items that he wanted to review, items 39(b) a~d 39(d). On item 39(b) it refers to a waiver for the distance between two street signs, a monument sign and an existing pole sign. The existing pole sign is for the benefit of Circle K. They propose to leave it in piace for the balance of the Circle K lease and then at that time taking the pole sign down and replacing it with a monument sign that matches their proposed monument sign for the Sav-on Drug Store on Beach Boulevard. They have lease issues that come into play that they have an existing pole sign and with only some months left on the lease he is not certain how much cooperation they would receive from Circle K removing it at this point. They would be willing at the termination of their lease to replace that with a nice monument sign. He then asked Mr. Abrahms, the developer of the project, to speak regarding item 39(d). Mike Abrams with Diamond Development stated they met on two occasiors with the West Anaheim Neighborhood group (W~ND). Scme of the residents were glad to see that it was not going to be a Rite Aid as originaily proposed but rather a Sav-on Dru~ S!cre. They also asked if they are going to be able to get rid of the Circle K as part of this new development and they explained to the residents that there would be a 15 month period when that laase is going to be in effect and at the ei~d of that 15 months the lease would be terminated. People were happy to hear that it was going to be gone. They were also happy to hear that the donut shop was being reduced in size. There was some discussion from the community that these are generating crime. At the end of the meetings residents were in agreement. They met with the Denny's Restaura ~; ~, ~ Beach Boulevard. They worked with community and staff and have received positive responses. He requested Condition No. 28 be modified to limit their ability to continue operating with iwo licenses until October 1, 2001, which would read, "After the opening of the ne~v drug store this commercial shapping center shall be permit to have two ABC licen~es to permit the sales of alcohol beverages and beer and wine for off-premises consumption until the expir~:ion of the convenience market lease on October 1, 2001. At that time there shall only be one (1) ABC license permitting the sales of alcoholic beverages or beer and wine for off-premises consumption within this commercial shopping center:' THE PUBLIC HE?~RING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Abrahms how they would know for a fact that the Circle K lease is going io expire. Mike Abrahms responded that they sent a copy of the lease to Brad Hobson and Ramona Castar~eda from the Community Deve~opment Department last week for their review. Commissioner Bristol was concerned with what assurances that there are the Circle K lease is going to expire and asked if Mr. Abrahms if he is the owner of the property. Mike Abrams verified he will bp the owner of the property. Commissioner Arnold stated he had thought about the guidelines regarding public convenience and necessity, especially in the situation where they ,vould be considering approving the concurrent opera!ion of two for 15 months and then the termination of one of those. In this particular circumstance it seems that a reasonable and appropriate set of standards would be required. Experience will be able to :ell use more about the nature of the public convenience or necessity requirement as in this case whether City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 6, 1999 Page 11 permitting the temporary operation of two licenses at the same time is appropriata. There is evidence in the record that this paRicular proposal will improve the overall land use pattems in the area and has been supported by the local neighborhood. Both of those reasons are sufficient reasons to support a temporary situation of two certificates op~~~;~ating simuitaneously. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked Ms. Mann to assess Commissioner Arnold's interpretation of the temporary issue. Selma Mann felt it is appropriate that there has been sufficient justification stated, if that is the Commission's wish to do the usual situation of determining public convenience or necessity, it is based upon the specific circumstances of this case whereas it was indicated that it would provide an interim period and an opportunity to see how this operates. It is also providing a benefit to the community. It is a trade off for the interim period. Regarding their discussion of the lease, Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos felt those are really not issues that factor into their decision making process. Given that Ms. Mann indicated this is a uniyue situation, he was concerned it might be setting a precedent for a future situation. Commissioner Arnold stated his reasons are not be: ~=J on the leas~ per se, it is based on the particular land use situation there, the public pa~ticipation indicating what the local neighborhood believe is appropriate for the surrounding community, and the fact that the •15-month period gives them the opportunity ;o evaluate on the bas;s of experience. It is a close call and they need not establish hard and fast standards. His justification is not based on the lease per se. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos indicated that it should be stated for the record that they are basing the comfortableness of the neighborhood on the applicanYs statement that the neighborhood is comfortable and he has not seen anyone giving testimony and support or opposed to this project. Commissioner Bristol asked if this is going to be a 24-hour Sav-or,. Mike Abrams responded the company makes their determination about 90 days prior to opening. They send out a marketing team before the store opens and evaluate the surrounding area and make a determination of what the hours of the store wil! be. There will be limited hours for the drive-through. They informed the residents at the meetings of this and they understoed. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked Mr. Abrams if there was any attempt on their part to secure letters of support or petition. The only letter on record was from the school district dated December 1, 1999 and they were objecting to the beer and wine license. Mike Abrams responded they did not think to obt~in any but after they met with the representatives from the Denny's Restaurant, they wer2 very supportive. ~ Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated they have spoken on the issue of public convenience or necessity and Comrnission has directed staff to investigate the issue, which is ongoing. Given the high quality of this proposal and until they have more information regarding the public convenience or necessity issue, he is not going to make a major issue of it at this time. He is therefore supoort~ng this project. Commissioner Bostwick stated they are asking that the applicant remove all of the pole signs and install the two monument signs. The applicant wants to leave the one on Orange Avenue until the Circle K lease is expired and asked whether that could be conditioned as well. Greg McCafferty stated it is stafFs recommendation and that it is not as critical an issue as the beer and wine licens~ because Circle K that could be identified on a monument sign just as they can on a City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 6, 1999 Page 12 freestanding pole sign that is currently existing. if there is an expectation by the community that this is going to be an improvement to the center then staff would still stand by their recommendation that it be two monurr;ent signs. Commissioner Bostwick stated the only one that they see on the plans is the Beach Boulevard sign at the driveway closest to Orange Avenue. The other mon~ment sign is not identified on the plans and asked if they are anticipating it be on the side street or on the corner. Greg McCafferty responded that it would be on Orange Avenue, subject to Commission's review and approval as a Reports and Recommendatians item. There would be one on Beach and one on Orange. CommissionQr Bostwick stated the project deserves some special cbnsideration since it is going to improve the entire corner neighborhood and go a long way to cleaning up that area. Greg McCafferty read into the record revised verbiage for Condition No. 31 (see below). • • • • . • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Appr~ved, in pa~t, Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows: Approved waiver (b) pertaining to minimum distance between freestanding signs and waiver (c) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces; and, denied waiver (a) pertaining to unpermitted marquee sign, waiver (d) pertaining to maximum struclural height, and waiver (e) pertaining to required setback adjacent to a residential zone baundary. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 4155 with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Modified Condition Nos. 28 and 31 to read as follows: 28. That signage for subject faciliry shall be limited to that shown on the exhibits submitted by the petitioner and as approved by the Planning Commission. Any additional signage and the hours of operation for the drug store shali be subject to approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 31. That after the opening of the new drug store, this commercial shopping center shall be permitted to have two (2) Alcoholic Beverage Controi (ABC) licenses, one to permit the sales of alcohoiic beverages and one to permit the sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption until the expiration of the convenience market lease on October 1, 2001. At the time, there shall be only one (1) ABC license permitting the sales of alcoholic beverages or beer and wine for off-premises consumption within this commercial shopping center. APPROVED, IN PART, DETERMIPdATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY N0. 99-07, as follows: This commercial shopping center shall be permitted to have two (2) Alcoholic City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 6,1999 Page 13 , _ _ _~ ,. Beverage Control (A8C) Ifcenses, one to pennit the sales of alcoholic beverages and one to permit the sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption until the expiration of the convenience market iease on October 1, 2001. At the time, there shall be only one (1) ABC license permitting the sales of alcoholic beverages or beer and wine for off-premises consumption within this commercial shopping center. VOTE: 8-0 (Chairperson Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 25 minutes (2:11-2:36) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda flecember 6,1~J99 Page 14 ,. . . . . . , 1 . : . . . . . :: . : ... ...: .... . . .. .:: .. : . .. .. .:: .. ., . .;.,: , ~ 5a. 5b. 5c. Contin~ January 3, 2000. OWNER: Vietnam Ministries, P.O. Box 4568, Anaheim, CA 92803 AGENT: Hammill and Associates, 414 Fernhill Lane, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 1100 North Paradise Street. Property is 1.99 acres located at the southerly terminus of Paradise Lane, 370 feet south of the centerline of Balsam Avenue (Issac v.'alton Recreation Center). To permit a church with accessory living quarters and recreational facilities with waiver of minimum setback of institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone boundary. Ccntinued from the Commission meeting of October 11, 1999. COIdDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. KB.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating that the applicant is requesting a continuance to January 3, 2000 in order to allow the applicant additional time to submit revised plans, a parking study, and to readvertise tne request to include a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces for the proposed church/community faciliry and its accessory recreational uses. Commissioner Bristol offered a position for a continuance to January 3, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and mo;ion carried. • • • o • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 3, 2000 Pfanning Commission meeting in order to allow the petitioner additional time to submit revised plans, a parking study, and to readvertise the request to inciude a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces for the proposed church/community facility and i!s accessory recreational uses. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Boydstun absent) DISGUSSION TItvIE: This item was not discussed. City of Anah~im Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 6,1999 Page 15 6b. COND(TIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 244 & 564 (READyERTiSED) OWNER: Ritz Realty, 2030 Arden Way, Sacramento, CA 95825 AGENT: Louise Whitworh, 460 Pacific Coast hlighway, Laguna Beach, CA 92604 LOCATION: 1800 West Lincoln Aver~ue. Property is 0.84 acrP located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue,1,202 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street (Ha Penny Inn). To modify the conditions of approval to facilitate the renovation of an existing 52-unit motel. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-216 Modifiad (To be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an R&R item in 6 months) SR6987DS.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, irtroduced this item by stating this is a readvertisement of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 244 and 564 to renovate an existing 52-unit motel and modify conditions of approval. Applicant's Statement: Steven Jones, 530 South Grand, Los Angeles, stated he is representing the owners. Advised they are removing kitchens from units, but will be providing small microwaves and refrigerators and asked if this was acceptable. Also, the cost of Code Enforcement inspections are to be paid by owner, but once everything is cerrected and in compliance with the Code, will th~2 owner still be required to pay far inspections. Condition No.12 gives the Police Department the right to impose a full-time security guard. He would like it to be a power that the Commission imposes and not the Police Department. Condition No. 4 stating that no room can be occupied by anyone for more than 30 days in any 90-day period poses a prublem. They would like to see, in both of these instances, that the Police Dep~~tment requests a new hearing before ihe Planning Commission in order to correct the situation if there are problems. He requested the Police Department records for the last three months because he feels that there have only been two calls for service. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, explained the intent of the condition is that they be allowed to have a small refrigerator like the chain hotels but no microwaves. Sgt. Russ Sutter, Police Department, Vice Detail, stated when this report was prepared there was no specific request for service call for the last three months. Commissioner Bristol stated he was at the property that morning and a good portion of the parking lot on the west side was full of furniture and asked why. Don Yourstone, Senior Cdde Enforcement Officer, advised they are making substantial repairs to the property so some of the f~rniture is being stored in the Iot on a temporary basis. Commissioner Bostwick asked Ms. Mann if there was any way to condition it so that it return for a hearing if the Police Department asks for it. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commiss~on Summary Action Agenda December 6, 1999 Page 16 Selma Mann stated the applicant is objecting to what they consider a vague condition wPiere they ~re not sure if they do or do not have to have a condition. Gode provides for modification of a Gmditional use permit, and that modification can be instituted by staff at any point, it would be up to Commission. The applicant indicates they will pay for the cost of modification hearing so that the matter would need to come to the Planning Commission before any conditio;i for a security guard would be imposed. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated microwaves are different than a hot plate because the hot plate represents a fire hazard and he understands why it would not be allowed in a room. Microwaves do not present the same problem and suggested possibly placing microwaves in the lobby area to accom~ ~iodate the guests. Commissioner Bristol explained Condition No. 4, Cornmission will not allow any one to stay there for more than 30 days in a 90-day period because this is not an extended stay motel. Commissioner Bostwick indicated the payment of inspections goes away when Commission feels the property is being operated appropriarely. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Mana~er, stated there does not seem to be any timing mechanism attached to any of these conditions so Commission may want to ask applicant what the timing is f~r the irnprovements G.o that':;~y can tie them down in the resolution. Skeven Jones advised it is six months. Chsirman Koos asked staff how the language regarding the occupancy relates to the one imposed on a property at the last meeting Greg McCafferty explained this is the same language that was attached to the Seville inn. Chairman Koos stated even though City Council has not heard that project yet, Commission is going to remain consistent with that language until there is some other guidance. U~LOWING 15 A SUMMARY OF THE.PI:ANNING COMMISSION:ACTIC OPPASITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Approved request as readvertised. Modified Resolution No. 1142 adopted in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 564, as follows: Amended Condition No. 1 to read as follows: That subject property shall be daveloped substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Revision No. 1 of Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 ancl Exhibit Nos. 3 through 5, provided that trees 15-20 feet in height shall be planted on the westerly property line to shield the single family development from the proposed two-story motel development, as stipulated by the petitioner, and as conditioned herein." City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda Decem4er 6,1999 Page 17 Added the foliowing conditions of approval: "3. That hot plates shall not be permitted in the guest rooms. 4. That guest rooms shall not be rented, let or occupied by any individual for periods of less th2n iwelve (12) consecutive hours, nor shall guest rooms be rented, let or occupied by any individual for more than thirty (30) days within any ninety (90) day period, excluding one (1) manager's unit. Guests vacating the premises shali be required to remove all personal belongings from the guest room. 5. That the property owner shall pay the cost of random Code Enforcement Division inspections as often as necessary until the subject properry is brought into compliance, or as deemed necessary by the City's Code Enforcement Division to gain and/or maintain compliance with State and local statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations. 6. That as required by the Urban Forestry Division of the Community Services Department, one (1) 22 foot brown trunk Washingtonian Robusta hybrid street tree and one 24-inch box Tipuana Tipu street tree, both with an on-sit~ irrigation shall be installed by the property owner within the public right-of-way adjacent to Lincoln Avenue as specified on ths plan per City of Anaheim Tree Planting Specifications and as specified in the Lincoln Avenue Corridor Master Plan. 7. 7hat a finai landscape plan 1or the entire site shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department indicatinq type, size, and location of existing and proposed refurbished landscaping and irrigation for revie~v and approval. Once approved, the landscaping and irrigation shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the plan. 8. That final elevation plans shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planninc~ Department indicating proposed colors and materials for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 9. That smoke alarms in the guest rooms shall be hard-wired rather than battery operated and shall therefore be maintained in good working order at all times. 10. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum 1-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. City of A~aheim Pianning Commission Summary Action Agenda Decembar 6,1899 Page 18 11. That any existing or proposed ground or roof-mounted equipment shall be subject to the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code. Said information shall be specificaliy shown on the plans submitted for Zoning and Buiiding Division approval. 12. That if deemed necessary by the Anaheim Police Department a minimum of one (1) state licensed bona fide uniformed security guard, shall be provided upon the premises at all times specifically to provide securiky, and to discourage vandalism, trespassing and/or loitering upon or adjacent to the subject property. 13. That the ownedmanager shall maintain a completo guest registry or guest card system which inciudes the full name, address, and verified driver's license or legal identification and vzhicle registration number of all registered guests, date of registration, length of stay, and room rate, and shall be made available upon demand by any police officer, code ~nforcement officer, or license inspector of the City of Anaheim durin{ ~ reasonable business hours. 14. That every occupied guest room shail be provided with daily maid service. 15. That the owner and/or management shall not knowingly rent or let any guest room to a known prostitute for the purposes of pandering, soliciting or engaging in the act of prostitution, or any person for the purpose of selling, buying, or otherwise dealing, manufacturing or ingesting an illegal drug or controlled substance; or for the purpose of committing a criminal or ir~imoral act. 16. That no guest room shall be rented or let to any person under eighteen (18) years af age, verified by a valid driver's license or other legal identification. 17. That all available room rates shall be prominently displ~iyed in a conspicuous place within the office area, and that the prope~ty owner and/or motel management shall comply with the provisions of Section 4.09.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the posting of room rates. 18. That the property owner and/or motet management shall comply with the provisions of Section 2.12.020 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the operator's collection duties of transient occupancy taxes. 19. That this property and thase buildings and accessory structures shall be brought into compliance with the statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations of the State of California, as adopted by the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Housing Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Piumbing Code, National Electric Code, and Uniform Mechanical Code, and permanentiy maintained thereafter in compiiance with such statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations. 20. That on-site landscaping shall be refurbished and permanentiy irrigated and maintaired, including regular removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 6,1999 Page 19 21. That a statement shall be printed on the face of the guest registration card to be completed by the guest when registering, advising that the register is open to inspection by the Anaheim Police Department or other City of Anaheim personnel for law enfcrcement purposes. 22. That any :ree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 23. That an on-site trash truck turn-around area shall be provided per Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 and maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. Said turn-around area shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 24. That 3-foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the view of the street or adjacent properties. 25. That a photometric plan shall be submitied to the Police Department and Zoning Division for review and approval. Said plan shall show lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernable the appearance and conduct of persons on or about the parking lot. When instalied, said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the windows of nearby residences. 26. That no kitchenettes (including microwaves) shall be provided in the guest rooms and the number of units shall be limited to fifty (50) and one manager's unit in conformance with approved plans. 27. That plans for refurbishment of the freestanding sign and any other on site signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. All signage shall be kept in compliance with signage approved by the Planning Commission. 28. That prior to issuance of a building permit Condition Nos. 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, abave-mentioned shall be complied with. 29. That prior to finai building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos.1, 6, 9, 19, 20 and 24, above mentioned, shall be compiied with. 30. That the changes that have been specified to by the owner in the attachment to the staff report dated December 6, 1999 and as depicted on Revision No.1 of Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 shall be accomplished within a period of six (6) months frcm the date of this resolution. 31. That this motel shall be reviewed for compliance with conditions of approval a;~~+ other Ciry arid State laws and regulations as a Repoits and Recommendations item within a period of six (6) months from the date of this resolution. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 6,1999 Page 20 32. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the propased request only to the extent that it complfes with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Gode and any other applicable City, Stafe and Federal reguletions. Approval does not include any action or findings as to complfance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement" VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 19 minutes (2:37-2:56) City of Analieim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December6,1999 Page 21 I 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.1550 (READVERTISED) OWNER: John Pedicini, P.O. Box 15033, Newport Beach, CA 92659 AGENT: Alex Burrola,1747 South Douglass Road, Suite B, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1755 West La Palma Avenue. Property is 0.4 acre located on the north side of La Palma Avenue, 650 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street (EI Rey Del Marisco Restaurant). To permit the expansion of an existing restaurant with the sale of beer and wine for on-premises consumption. CONDI710NAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC99•217 Approved expansion for 1 year (To expire 12-6-2000) SR7629VK.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stated this is a readvertised request to expand an existing restaurant into an adjacent 1,377 square foot tenant space which includes on sale beer and wine. ApplicanYs Statem2nt: Alex Burrola, 1747 South Douglas Road, P.naheim stated he was representing applicant. H found all conditions of approval acceptable but questioned the plans that need to be submitted to Mr. Yalda. They have not determined how the driveway issue will affect their project. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if there was any intent to serve beer in a draft form because individual containers could leave the premises plus it couid be cheaper in draft form. He is impressed with the fact that there are no issues with the Police. He noticed there was a Mariachi band on his visit on Friday night and asked about entertainment. Alex Burrola responded they plan to keep selling beer in individual containers. They do not have entertainment it must have been an informal band. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, stated it is a standard condition that is placed to make sure that they meet the City standard for parking spaces. They must provide handicapped parking and there is none in the plan. There must be one handicap space, over 25 spaces, two are needed. Alex Burrola advis2d there is one space on the si;e plan and they will address that concern to alleviate the problem. Greg McCafferty recommended amending Condition No. 3, item 21(c) ~see verbiage on page 23) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 6,1999 Page 22 • • e • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved request to expand the existing restaurant with the sale of beer and wine for on-premises consumption. Modified Resolution PC75-150, adopted in connection with Condit~onal Use Permit No. 1550, as follows: Amended Condition No. 3 to read as follows: "3. That the subject prope;ty shall be deveioped substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1 and Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No. 2." Added the following conditions of approval: 5. That the approval for the 1,210 square foo; restaurant expansion shall expire on Decemher 6, 2000, (1) year from the date of this resolution. 6. That the hours of operation for the restaurant shail be from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m, daily. 7. That sales, service and consumption of beer and wine shall be permitted only between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., Sunda~~ through Thursday and between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 a.m, on Friday and Saturday. 8. That trash storage areas shall be refurhished to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 9. That the roof-mounted satellite dish shall be remaved or replaced with a satellite dish of 2 meters or less in diameter. 10. That window signage shall not exceed 2Q percent of the totai window area. 11. That the proposal shall camply with all signing requirements of the Commercial Limited Zone unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the Ciry Council, Planning Commission orZoning Administrator. 12. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to fhe Public Works Department, Streets and Senitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highv~~ays. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum 1-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 6, 1999 Page 23 13. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection and a plan for recycling shali be submitted to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division for revlew and approval. 14. . That an on-site trash truck tum-around area shall be provided per Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 and maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. Said turn-around area shall be specifically shown on plans subrnitted for building permits. 15. TFiat 3-foot high address nurnbers shall be displayed on the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the view of the street or adjacent properties and shall face the street to which the businESS is addressed. 16. That the parking lot shall be resurfaced and the parking spaces restriped to the satisfaction of the Traffic and Transportation Manager. ~ 7. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation iUlan~ger for his r~view and approval in conformance with the current versior. of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driverray location. Subject property shali thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. 18. That the establishment shall be operated as a"Bona Fide Public Eating Place" as defined by Section 23038 of the California Business and Professions Code. 19. That there shall be no bar or lounge maintained on the property. 20. That food service with a full meal shall be available from opening time until either 10:00 p.m. or closing time, whichever occurs first, on each day of operation. 21. That there shall be no pooi tables maintained upon the premises at any time. 22. That subject beer and wine license shall not be exchanged for a public premises (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premise as defined in Section 23039 of the California Business and Professions Code. 23. That the sales of beer and wine shall not exceed 40% of the gross sales of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of bear and wine and other items. These records shall be made available, subject to audit and, when requested, inspection by any City of Anaheim official during reasonable business hours. 24. That there shall be no live entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted on the premises at any time without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. 25. That there shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advehising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of beer and wine. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 6,1999 Page 24 26. That the parking lot serving the premises shail be equipped with light(ng of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discemible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the windows of nearby residences. 27. That the business operator shall comply with Section 24200.5 of the Business and Professions Code so as not to employ or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, sa!ary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. 28. That all doors serving subject restaurant shali conform to the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and shall be kept closed and unlocked at all times during hours of operation except for ingress/egress, to permit deliveries and in cases of emergency. 29. 7hat there shall be no public telephones on the property that are located outside the building and within the control of the applicant. 30. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, anc' removai of graffiti within twenty-four (24) huurs frorn time of occurrence. s1. That the activities occurring in conjunction with the operation of this astablishment shall not cause noise disturbance to surrounding properties. 32. That Condition Nos. 9 and 10, above-mentioned, shall be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of this resolution. 33. That prior to commencement of the activit;y authorized by this resolution or prior to issuance of a building permit whichever occurs first, Conditior, Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 17 above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 34. That ~rior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or prior to final building and zoning inspections, whichever occurs first, Condition No. 3, 8, 15, 16, 26, and 28, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 35. That approvai af this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and a~y other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairpersc:~ Boydstun absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (2:57-3;07) A BREAK WAS TAKEN AFTER THIS ITEM (3:07-3:17) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda Decembpr 6,1999 Page 25 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIQUSLY-APPROVED) 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4002 (READVERTISED) INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim (Code Enforcement), 200 Sauth Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 OWNERS: Roilins Properties, Inc., 1 Rollins, Plaza, Wilmington, Delaware 19803 AGENT: Hertz Equipment Rental Corp. 225 Brae Boulevard, Park Ridge, New Jersey 07656 LOCATION: 1801 East Bail Road. Property is 1.52 acre focated on the north side of Ball Road, 490 feet west of the centerline of State College Bouievard (Hertz Equipment Rental). City-initiated request to consider revocation or further modification of this permit for a large equipment storage yard which contains a condition of approval requiring a six month review (~riginally approved on May 24, 1999). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-218 Modified CUP 4002 by deleting Condition No. 26 of Resolution No. PC99-88 Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating this is a readvertised public hearing item. On May 24, 1999 the Planning Commission imposed a condition on this Conditional Use Permit No. 4002 that required it to return for a 6-month review. ApplicanYs Statement: Philip Anthony, 14101 LaPatt Place, !Nestminster, stated he is representing Hertz Equipment Rental. There have been no problems or violations since May 1999. The branch manager has been on-site to make sure everything was operating praperly. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLUSED. • • • • • • OPPOSITION: ~lone A~710PJ: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Modified Conditional Use Permit No. 4002, as follows; City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 6, 1999 Page 26 .1. - _ Amended Resolution No. PC99-88, adopted in connection with Conditional Use Aermit No. 4002, by deleting Conditlon No. 26 in its entirety on the basis that the ~ permit, as previously conditioned, is being exercised in a manner not deMmental to this area and surrounding land uses. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (3:18-3:21) City of Anahefm Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 6,1999 Page 27 9a. 9b. {READVERTISED) ~ ~ Approved reinstatement u OWNER: Michael R. A. Bagguley, 701 Concord Street, Glendale, CA ~(To expire 12-31-2001) 91202 AGENT: Carol D. Cushing, 701 Concord Street, Glendale, CA 91202 LOCATION: 3010 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 1.58 acres located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard (Numero Uno Piueria). To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (originally approved on July 6, 1998 to expire on July 6, 1999) to retain a restaurant with retail sales af beer and wine for on-premises consumption and an amusement arcade with up to sixteen amusement devices. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-219 DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating it is a request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4041, to permit that contained a time limitation to expire on July 6, 1999. ApplicanYs Statement: Jack Cushing, ?01 Concord, Glendale, gave history on restaurant. He asked if there had to be a time limitation and could it be extended until 2003 instead of 2001. Chairman Koos informed Mr. Cushing that this is a standard condition especially with alcohol related uses. it allows Commission an opportuniry to revisit properties to access the situation. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol advised he visited the location and there were two alcohol signs on the window. They are not suppose~i to have any alcohoi related signage on the windows and this is one example of why there are time limitations on conditional use permits. • e • •i ~ ~ OPPOSITION: None City of Anaheim Planning Gommission Summary.4ction Agenda December 6,1999 Page 28 . . . ... : Y . . ... ~,., . . .. . . :i~. ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative dectaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentatlon for subject request. ~ Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4041. Amended Condition No. 22 of Resolution No. PC98-105 to read as follows: "22. That subject use permit shall expire on December 31, 2001 " Added the foliowing ~ondition of approval: "28. That all non-conforming signs shall be removed within a period of seven {7) days from the date of this resolution " VOTE: 6-0 (~hairperson Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant Ciry Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 8 minutes (3:21-3:29) Ciiy of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 8,1999 Page 29 10b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT •"~r•~•v~ Denied 10c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Nfl. 4165 Granted, in part, for 5 years OWNER: Southern California Edison, P.O. Box 800, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770 (To expire 12-6-2004) AGENT: Ryan Young, SDS Wireless for Sprint PCS, 26522 La Alameda, Suite 170, Mission Viejo, CA 92691 LOCATION: 1200-1400 West Audre Drive,1650 South Ninth Street and 1651 South Walnut Street. Property is 5.02 acres located on the south side of Audre 6rive between Walnut Street and Ninth Street (Southern California Edison Easement). To permit telecommunication antennas on an existing electrical transmission tower with waiver of minimum landscape requirements (deleted). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC99-220 SR7638KP.DOC (Chairman Koos declared a conflict due to his re/ationship with the ;elecommunications industry and turned meeting over to Commissioner BrisfoLJ Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stated this is a request to permit telecommunication antennas on existing electrical transmission tower (Southern California Edison easement). ApplicanPs Statement: Ryan Young on behalf of Sprint PCS stated they are seeking approval to co-locate onto the existing SCE lattice tower to provide wireless communication service. They are requesting to attach antennas at three sectors on Southern California Edison (SCE) tower and to place cabinets at base of tower. He explained purpose of site and why that particular site was chosen. Primary purpose is to provide wireless service to customers in the Disneyland Hotel as well as to the surrounding residential and commercial areas, in particular to the west of Interstate 5. It would enhance also the weak areas to the north at Cerritos Avenue, Katella Avenue and Orangewood Avenue. The location is at the southwest corner of Audre and Walnut, which is across from the Disney properties. The location is not only th~~ best site for Sprint to meet its coverage objectives but they also feel it is good from a Community standpoint because the co-location on this tower has the least visual impact to the community. Their proposal is to attach the antennas onto the existing utilities use. Attaching the antennas onto the lattice tower has a minimal visual impact to the area. The antennas would be painted to match and would blend in with the background of the lattice tower. Ne stressed the co-location on the tower eliminates the need to construct a new freestanding facility. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. City of Anaheim Pianning Commission Summary Acti~n Agenda December 6, 1999 Page 30 Acting Chair~erson Pro-Tempore Bristol req~ested Mr. Young to comment on the conditions of approval in the staff report. Mr. Young commented on Condition No. 4 of staff report. The landscaping requirements have been eliminated because they did submit a document from Southem Califomia Edison stating that they do not allow them to add any additional vegetation or landscaping within their right-of-way and that is why they requested a deletion of that condition. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that Mr. Young referred to a memo that may had been submitted from Disneyland and asked staff if they received a copy of it. The Planning staff verified that no memo was received. He asked what the results to the Sprint customers would be not having this site. Mr. Young responded that there is a major need that they have for the Disneyland Hotel, the expansion in that area as well as their customers. During peak times the signal is going to contract and the customer would experience a drop on their call. Therefore there is a major need for thern to have it. Commissioner Arnold asked about the applicanPs concern with Condition No. 4. Mr. Young responded that they can not provide landscaping underneath the tower because there is a transmission line located there. Commissioner Arnold asked how that relates in a statement in the staff report that the waiver of landscaping has been deleted. Greg McCafferty explained that the proposed fencing for the ground-mounted equipment is wrought iron so there would be no requirement to screen that. This condition refers to a perimeter fencing and landscaping or fencing materials that would screen the equipment from the public right-of-way. Outdoor usage such as the equipment are required to be screened by Code. Commissioner Arno~d asked if there would be a need for a waiver as the applicant is indicating. Greg McCafferty stated there is a way to accomplish it without getting in the way of Edison's requirements that there not be landscaping under their towers. Staff recommended amended that condition to bring plans back as an R&R showing a method in which they would screen the equipment from the public right- of-way. Commissioner Bostwick stated the self storage on State College and Cerritos has landscaping in front which is underneath the rght-of-way, with groundcover. He thought they could have the same type of landscaping. Greg McCafferty agreed. In that situation, Edison did allow trees as long as they did not reach a certain height. Commissioner Bostwick felt that makes the best location. He wanted to see the groundcover between the sidewalk and the fence, which would improve the area. Mr. Young indicated they are willing to cooperate with the City, however, they do not own the properry and could not guarantee what landscaping would go in there. It is going to depend on what Edison allows. Commissioner Bristol asked if there was another use (possibly a nursery) being discontinued under those wires jusf west of their use. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 6,1999 Page 31 Mr. Young stateu west ~~f the facility there is a nursery but the difference is that those plants are rem~ved and soid. He did not know the plans that are being made in terms of that nursery. Commissioner Bristol thought this item may need to be continued because when he was at the site at Audre and Walnut he parking at the dirt area at Walnut and walked around the site. There seemed to be some activity (possibiy a nursery) down Audre to the south part behind the tower that they are cutrently discussing that could impact the drive on Walnut. He noticed a gate at Walnut that looked like it had been traveled on. If it is traveled then it might affect the landscaping in front of Walnut in the right-of-way. Commissioner Bosfinrick stated he thought they have been using it as a nursery off of Ninth Street but if they use the gate off of Walnut he was not certain of this. He was suggesting landscaping from the chain link fence to the sidewalk to have it landscaped with trees and to improve the whole visuai affect along Walnut. If the applicant is willing to do that then they are going to have to obtain an agreement with Southern California Edison and the can return as an R&R item for review of the landscape plan. Commissioner Vanderbilt concurred and felt an R&R would be a way to a~low this to move forward but also give Commission another change to review the landscape issue. Commissioner Bostwick thought that Edison would be receptive to this since the applicant and willing to pay for it and maintain it. Commissioner Arnold stated his preferred to approve this proposal then return as an R&R item. This would give the applicant more time to negotiate with Edison and come to an agreement. During the action: Greg McCaffer~j read into the record revised wording the end of Condition No. 4"(see below) ' FOCLOWING IS A UMMARY OE TIiE PL:ANNING COMMISSION ACTION. •. OPPOSITION: Rone ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Denied Waiver of Code Requirement on the basis that the waiver was deleted following public notification. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 4165 with the following change: Modified Condition No. 4 to read as follows: That fnal plans shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department indicating existing and proposed fencing and landscaping for the areas adjacent to Walnut Street, Audre Drive and the single-familu homes to the south where the accessory ground-mour~ted equipment and GPS-type antenna may be visib!e. Said plans shall include adequate fencing and landscaping to thoroughly screen tha proposed equipment location and shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. This information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 6, 1999 Page 32 OISCUSSION TIME: 20 minutes (3:30-3:50) City of Anaheim Pianning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 6, 1999 Page 33 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 11b. WAIVER OF COD~ REQUIREMENT Denied 11c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4166 Granted, in part OWNER: International Sangha Bhiksu Buddhist Association, 8752 Westminster Avenue, Westminster, CA 92683 AGENT: Paul Kott,1225 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 610 South Sunkist Street. Property is 1.07 acre located on the east side of Sunkist Avenue, 400 feet north of the centerline of South Street. To construct a cultural meditation center with accessory caretaker residence with waiver of (a) minimum rear yard setback (deleted), {b} permitted encroachments into required yards (deleted), and (c) maximum fence height in front yard. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-221 SR1027TW.DOC Greg McCafferty introduced the item by stating that this is a request to construct a cultural meditation center with accessory caretakers residence with waivers. ApplicanPs Statement: Paul Kott, 1225 West Lincoln Avenue, stated the petition is from the Ming Dang Quang Cutural and Meditation Center and request that the permit be granted at the site located at 610 South Sunkist Street. The site consi~ts of three lots, which are over one acre. Several year: ~go the property was sold contingent upon the approval by the Ciry of Anaheim for the construction of some type of I-~uusing which was opposed by the Ciry at that time and the transaction never closed. Today the construction of a single-family residential project on that site is unlikely given the economics of today's market place and the fact that this site is on Sunkist Street, which is a busy street. They did not feel that a church or religious center is an unreasonable use given the fact that there are four other churches in close proximity. The mediation center exists for mediation, prayer and teaching purposes. The mediation sessions would occur daily from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and they have Vietnamese and English language courses that would be given from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Sundays, usually attended by approximately 25 members. The general service which occurs on Sundays from 12:00 Noon to 1;00 p.m. is typically attended by approximately 150 members including children. The purpose of the cultural and meditation center is to: 1) preserre the cultural heritage of VieEnamese Americans in Orange County; 2) to assist their own members and non-members adapt and adjust to a new life style and environment in the United States; 3) to promote the teachings of Buddhism philosophy to all Vietnamese and American believers; and 4) ta help people of all faiths with meditation sessions to purify and tranquilize their mind for their own physical and mental well being. A project of this msgnitude requires 49 parking spaces on-site and they propose 66 space ~ wh~,:h i~ ~ significant amount more parking spaces. City of Anaheim Planning Commission S~smmary Action Agenda December 6, 1999 Aage 34 . .. . . . . . .. 1.. . .. .. ~ . The services a~e very quiet and there is no music of any kind. It is strictly for prayer and mediation. It is not a temple. ,4s a paR of their religious observance they have four annual festivals associated with the center. The festivals include the Tet Festival whfch is celebrated one weekend in late January or early February; the Buddhist Commemoration Day which is celebrated for one day in th~ beginning o~ March; Buddha's birthday which is celebrated ane day in mid May; and Memorial Day which is celebrated one day in mid August. These observances can not be heard from the exterior of the property. Outside of the exterior of the facility is just as quiet as it wouid be under normal circumstances. Gommissioner Arnold asked whether those festivals are religious festivals related to the religion. Paul Kott verified that was correct. They are sensitive to the adjacent neighborhood and want to make sure that their qualiry of life would not be threatened in any way but perhaps even enhanced with their presence. Over a month ago letters of introduction went out as a courtesy to the immediate neighborhood, and to provide them of their existence and to answer any concerns they may have had. There was a number to call on the letter. To the best of his knowledge there were no responses received negatively or positively. The festivals will not impact 4he adjacent residential neighbors with noise or traffic. They have ~ufficient parking on-site for the festival parking should there be a need for overflow parking, which th~y do not anticipate. Even on festival days the members are not there at the same time, as they cor,ie and go. They are sensitive to lighting and how it would affect the immediate neighbors. The liqh;mg will be shielded and directed away from any neighbors. There will be five Buddhist monks that will be residing on the property acting as caretakers and will be working at the cultural and mediation center full-time on-premises. They feel that the project does not have any adverse affect or place an imposition on the community but would actually enhance the immediate area with a beautiful new structure. Public Testimony: Jan Myers, 2443 East Alden Avenue, stated she resides at the cul-de-sac across the way. Her major concern is the parking situation. Sunkist is very busy with traffic, especially getting out of their cul-de-sac. She understood it would be open from 10:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. under the development proposal but on page 6 of the staff report it indicates that the church activities shall only occur between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. She was not certain what the hours would be. She is concerned that the center will grow and create a major traffic problem. Francis X. Nutto, 621 South Jambolaya Street, stated he is approximately 100 feet south and east of subject property. The existing land uses around this property are overvvhelmingl:~ single-family detached along with some churches, public schoo;s and a child care center. This property is the only remaining undeveloped property in the neighborhood. While he would prefer it be developed with single-family detached housing, that use does not appear to be economically feasible. Since there are already four churches in the neighborhood a church would seem to be an appropriate use. Paragraph 20 of the staff report discusses the proposed waiver of maximum fence height in the front yard. Staff recommends on paragraph 26(b) a denial of Waiver C, which he agrees. A 3-foot fence would provide sufficient safety for the property. (For the record, Mr. Nutto submitted a letfer dated December 6, 1999.] James Colburn, 511 South Coit Street, Ariaheim, stated in terms of notification, he asked if he should have reasonably expected some kind of notification of this item. Greg McCafferty responded State law requires that property owners be noticed within a 300-foot radius of the property. City of Anaheim Planning Commission 5ummary Action Agenda December 6,1999 Page 35 Mary Bush stated she owns the property at 626 8outh Sunkist, which is directly south of the subject property. She has a concem about the block wall that separates her properly. The first 45 feet of her property has a block wail that is only 3 feet high, the rest of ~ropeRyr has a higher block wail. The applic?nt indicated that the;~ will be instailing a 6-foot wall on the north side of their property. However, there is a block wall that already exists on the south side of the property. She did not feel that the 3-foot high wall towards the front side of her propeny would be high enough For separation from the parking lot of subject property to the front yard. She ~~Iso tiad a concern about the parking lot lights being on all night. Otto Larsen stated he resides at 2466 East Virginia Avenue, adjacent to the property on Sunkist. His side yard faces to north end of the property. Looking at the view of the drawings, he feit that architecturally it does not match the neighborhood. His tract has T& C's that limit tiim to the color schemes, the roofing, the yards, etc. the same as my neighbors. I~ the Orange County Record Book Na.11712, page 1414, it states in Article 2 that they have to preserve the architectural and landscape in harmony with the development of the area. He does not feel they are doing this by allowing this use. He does not want people parking on the ~ide of his yard. He would prefer that a red zone on both sides. Darryl Cottrell stated he lives at 2458 East Virginia Avenue. Regarding the 300-foot radius notification, he did receive a notice since he is within that boundary. Many residents did not even know of this pe~mit. Therefore, after discussing this with many of the residents in this area, once they found o~t about the project they were ~xtremely upset to learn that the Planning Commission is considering Conditional Use Permit No. 4166 to construct a Buddhist Cultural Meditation Canter at subject property. Sunhist is extremely busy and often used as an alternate route to traveling on the busy 57 Fwy and or State College Boul~~vard. One has oniy to travel on Sunkist sometime of the day or we~k to realize traffic conditions in this area. It is inconceivable thE Commission would allow this situation to become intolerable by adding more traffic on Sunkist. A meditation center of this nature would draw from outside the area of Anaheim and bring more congestion in and other related problems. He is certain that this land could be used for something that would not impact the area as described above. It his feeling, as ~vell as his neighbors, and people oppo~ed to this proposal that this residential area should be kept for that use. A project of this type would be b,~st located in a less populous, less congested area and feel this project would be more of an expense ~o the City as far as public services are concerned. He asked that Commission have consideration for the neighbors who will be affected this project, if approved. He strongly urged Cornmission vote again this project. Dr. John Bell, 580 South Reynolds Place, stated he has been in the City since 1976 and moved into this tract when it was built in 1976. They are the only two-story home that looks down on Sunkist. He was concerned with the look of this proposal. His bedroom looks right down on the site. He was told that they would have a drum at the meditation eenter that they wi!I be beating on every couple of hours and he is concerned wiEh this noise, particularly at night. He is also concerned with increase~+ tra~fic that will result. He worked on State College Boulevard for over 30 years and he would not like to see Sunkist becoms "State College EasY' congested with traffic. Applicant's Rebuttal: Paul Kott stated they are definitely concernee+ the with neighborhood and want to become a part of it and not be looked at as an outsider. He addressed the following questions raised: City of Anaheim Planning Comrr~issian Summary Action Ac~enda December 6,1999 Page 36 • What if the center becomes more poputar and the need far more parking arises? This could be applied to any use. If they are in a positlon where their growth interferes and becomes an problem to the neighborhood then they are not being a good neighbor and shnuld not be allowed to continue to do that. Red curbing in front of the site would not assist them in that area. • The fence issue. When the City of Maheim widened Sunkist they had to place the 3-foot retaining wali and created that situation where that property is at an incline. The proposal is to have a 3-foot retaining wall, 7 feet beyond that in front would be landscaping and vines as well as the new 6-foot high fence that would go around the perimeter of the property. That would be to create the environment in the interior that would be one of tranquility. • He addressed Ms. Bush's question regardin~; the lights in the parking lot. They can adjust the lighting to whatever Commission allows. This can ~e worked out. • He indicated Mr. Larson felt that this center does no: blend in with the architectural design of this neighborhood. Keep in mind that there are four other churches that are very close by and are architecturally very different from each other, as weil as the two pre-schonls and the two elementary schools nearby. • He addressed Dr. Bell's concern of his rnountain view to the east of his property and did not want to hear drumming all night. There is actually no drumming. This is a one-story structure and there is currently a one-~kory skructure in place at the site. Therefore, Dr. Bell should still be able `~ view the mountains after the improvement is completed. • Mr. Cottrell indicated that there would be further expense to the City as a result of this improvement. He did was not specific of the further expense. He also indicated that Y~is would draw people from outside of the c.ommunity. One of the greatesk things about Anaheim and America is that we aliow the representation of all faitns. He concluded by n~questing Gommission to approve the cenditional use permit as submitted. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos was about to close the public hearing when someone from the audience came up to the podium. He explained the prncedure to him and asked if he had any new information to offer. Ed Duran, 560 South Reyno~ds, indicated he had a question to ask. Currently they indicate there are 130 r,hurch members and ~sked what happens in a year or two if it the amount increases. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated Mr. Kott answered the question earlier. Currently the Code is in place for parking requirements on any type of use in this City. Mr. KotPs response was that there is no way of predicting this. If this was applied to every project then there would never be any standards. Ed Duran stated the reason he asked is that you see a!I these other churches ;,eing built in resident neighborhoods. There is one in Placentia where they are parking in the sireets in front of residents. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated they cannot speak for projects in the City oP "lacentia. There are parking standards in place and they ~~o their best to try to foresee the future. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Arnold stated that he intends to offer a resolution for the approval of this with the modification of Condition No. 2 to allow all four festivals referred in item no.11 on page 2 of the staff City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda ilecember 6,1999 Page 37 report. He feit the applicant, as well was those who would use the meditation center, have a constitutionai right to exercise their religion. He is concemed about the potential for discrimination against certain re~igions. There are clearly other religious institutions and uses that have major events that have increased attendance such as Christmas, Easter, Thanksgivfng, etc. The allowance of other religious practices is critical to the freedom of all religfons and that these sorts of normal impacts of people using religious facilities from time to times would somatimes result in parking and traffic is the price that we pay t~ live in a free society. Commissioner Bristol asked staff about the south wall that Ms. Bell mentioned. Greg McCafferty responded that the south wall can have a 6-foot high block wall but within the front setback which is 25 feet measured from back of the ultimate right-of-way would only be 3 feet. Commissioner Bristol stated this is a better use for the traffic and a meditation center ~ot impact neighbors. Commissioner Vanderbilt agreed with Commiss~uner Arnold's statements. He felt a fence suggests separation and that landscaping may create a more neighborly feeling. Asked the applicant for his raticnale on height of fence. Mr. Kott thought they had to provide a 6-foot blo~k wall fence as many projects are required to do. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that does exist on certain sides, but staff indicatas 3 feet is allowed in the front. Greg McCafferty stated on the west property line which is the front of the project, Code only permits a 3- foot high block wall on top of the retaining wall and not the 6 feet that the applicant is suggesting. Commissioner Bostwick suggested the applicant look at the Buddhist Monastery on Ninth and Katella Avenue. They installed 3-foot cement pilasters with wrought iron in between which turned out to be an aesthetically pleasing project giving it a more open and friendly feel. Mr. Kott agreed. Greg McCafferty recommended the monument sign shown on Exhibit 1, should Commission wish to approved the project, be approved without the monument sign since that would require a waiver from the Code. Commissioner Bostwick asked about the hours of operations. Greg McCafferty advised the hours of operation should be 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Bristol asked if there were any outside activities at the facility. Mr. Kott advised everything is indoors. Commissioner Bostwick stated churches in the area overflow onto other streets during large services, which are about four times a year. This project should also be allowed to have their four religious events a year. During the action: City of Anaheim Planning ~ommission Summary Action Agenda December 6, 1999 Page 38 Greg Hastings advised that a special event permits wili not be required for those activities unless they were outdoors. • • • • • • IN FA~'OR: 1 person spoke in favor of the proposai. Correspondence was received In favor of the proposal. OPPOSITION: 5 people spoke in opposition to the proposal. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Denied Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows: Denied waiver (a) pertaining to minimum rear yard setback and waiver (b) pertaining to permitted encroachments into required yards on the basis that they were deleted following public notification; and, denied waiver (c) pertaining to maximum fence height in front yard on the basis that it would cause a detrimental aesthetic impact and the size and shape of the lot would allow for the construction of a 6-foot wall behind the required setback area. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 41Fi6 with the foliowing changes to the conditions of approval: Amended Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 25 to read as follows: 1. That church activities shall onfy occur between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m., as indicated in the submitted letter of operation. 2. That all church related activities shall be conducted entirely indoors. 25. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 4, with the exception of the monument sign depicted on Exhibit No. 1, and as conditioned herein. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson B~pdstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant C~ty Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 47 minutes (3:51-4:38) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 6, 1999 Page 39 12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 12b. VARIANCE N0. 4292 (READVERTISED) Approved, in part OWNER: Tuna Puna Marital T~ust, Attn: Ronald C. Douglas, Trustee, (Denie~ relocation of 12651 Newport Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780 wall sign) AGENT: Janice Renne, 2915 Red Hill Avenue, Suite C-101-A, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 LOCATION: 5481 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is 1.2 acre located at the northwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Maude Lane (Seven Gables Real Estate). Requests approval of revised alans pertaining to enhancements to the exterior of the existing office fouilding, including lights, awnings and relocating the existing wa~l sign to the second floor. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC99-222 SR7633KB.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating this a readvertised item requesting approval of revised plans to enhance elevations that are facing Maude Lane to install decorative lights, awnings, and relocate existing wall sign that is on Santa Ana Canyon Road frontage from the first floor to the second floor of the building. ApplicanYs Statement: Ronald Douglas, 72 Plaza Questa, San Juan Capistrano, stated they are requesting to change awnings for energy conservation reasons; moving sign is to improve visibility. They concurred with all of staff's recommendations. Rosalind Perell stated she resides at 119 Maude Lane adjacent to office building. Three year~ ago she asked that the office building not be built and is now asking that no changes be mada bE+cause they have not lived up to the prior restrictions inat were imposed. One is parking, usually there is one car parked in front of her house. There is a floodlight that shines directly into her kitchen w~ndow. "fhe office is supposed to be closed at 6:00 p.m., but people are there later than that on many uccasions. She is concerned that sign being moved up, along with the lighting that goes with it, will be a disruption. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Ronald Douglas stated the light was installed because they had a burglary and screening wzs provided so that no light went into her property. In addition, taii growing trees were purchased to block light to her property. Her property faces away from the property and her garage back up to their building. They feel they handled the issues quite adequately. He felt Ms. Pereil has tried to prevent the project from the beginning and hEr concerns are groundless. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos stated for the record there were two letters received (via fax) from the Gauthier family dated December 6, 1999. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 6, 1999 Pago 40 Commissioner Bristol asked if there were any lights on the sign and if approved would they impact Ms. Perrell or any other residents. Mr. Dougias responded the sign is 6 feet wide and there would be 3 smali lights on the sign and they would not impact any residents. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, clarified that there will be some awnings on Maude Lane. Commissioner Bristol asked if this matched the Tustin facility. Mr. Douglas stated somewhat but not totally. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked why he wanted to raise sign, was it because people were having a hard time finding the location. Mr. Douglas stated they want to improve the look of the building. Commissioner Bustwick stated he drove to the property and he feels the goal was achieved because the building iooks like a house. He does not have a problem with the awnings given the conditions that are in the report. He would rather leave the sign down where it is less obtrusive and keep the rural look of the Canyon. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos concurred with Commissioner Bostwick. Asked if staff had any concerns with the flood lights. Greg Hastings stated he will have Code Enforcement check because there are Zoning Code requirements, but it sounds like it has already been mitigated. • • ~~ • I ~ r , ~ ~ • • • OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition to the request. 2 letters were received in opposition to the request. ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved, in part, the revised plans for Variance No. 4292 permitting the awnings on the east and south elevations and denying the relocation of the existing wall sign. Modified Resolution No. 96R-208, adopted in connection with Variance No. 4292, as follows: Amended Condition No. 14 to read as follows: "14. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which pfans a~e on file ~,vith the Planning Department marked Revision No. 2 of Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, and Revision No. 1 of Exhibit Nos. 3 and 4, with the exceptions of those changes required by these conditions of approval." Added the following Conditions of Approval: "22. That there shall be no advertising permitted on the awnings, that the awnings shall be a hunter green, and that any request for modifying the awnings (including color) shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for Planning Commission review and approval as a Reports and Recommendations item. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 8, 1999 Page 41 ,.. . ,, . _. , _ . , ; : . _ _ ,. . .: , _ 23. That the prope~ty owner shall ~~aintain these awnings and that damaged, tom or stained fabric awnings shall be repaired and/or replaced within forty-eight (48) hours. 24. That should the atvnfngs be removed, the supporting ~rame shall also be removed and the building face shall be refinished to its original condition " VOTE: 6-0 (Chai~person Boydstun absent) Seima Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 13 minutes (4:39-4:52) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 6, 1999 Page 42 13b. OWNER: Pacific Homes, LLC, 2760 ~pring Street, Suite 220, Long Beach, CA 90806 AGENT: Phil Bennett, 5535 East Cerritos Drive, Orange, CA 92869 LOCATION: 1312 West La Palma Avenue. Property is 0.56 acres located on the south side of La Palma Avenue,1310 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Street. Waiver of (a) minimum lot depth, (b) minimum lot size, (c) minimum lot width, and (~) orientation of residential structures, to construct three detached single family residential homes. VARIANCE R~SOLUTION N0. PC99-223 SR6985DS.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner introduced this item by stating that this is a variance req~esting waivers of minimum lot depth, lot size, lot width in orientation or residential structures to permit three single-family homes. Phil Bennett architect for praject and the representative for Pacific Homes LLC, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol asked if they are planning on building any two-story homes Phil 8ennett responded they are single-story homes ranging from 2000 to 220~ square feet. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked what the homes would be selling for. Phil Bennett responded he was not certain. Homes built at similar sites and locations range behveen $189,000 to $240,000. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos asked staff to clarify whether this item can return as an R&R item Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated there is a recommendation because they will not be able to make any changes to the conditions unless it is readvertised. Since applicant has indicated that these are single-story perhaps Commission may want to place a condition on the variance. Staff will remember when it comes through as a parcel map, probably before the Zoning Administrator, if the applicant is willinc~ to do that realizing that this zone does allow for two-stories in this zone and surrounding properties. Staff did not have a concern with the two stories as long as the elevations are done in such a way that they are not overly obtrusive, they can work with the applicant on that. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos explained to the Mr. Bennett that if it gets approved today, it will come back before final building permits can be pulied on the detailed designs of the homes. City of Anaheim Planning Comrnission Summary Action Agenda December b, 1999 Page 43 Phil Bennett asked if it would be necessary to do that if they agree io build only one-story homes. Chairperson Pro-Tempore Koos staked they want to look at the consistenay with the sunounding homes Phil Bennett asked if it could be done concurrently as it is going through plan checli. Greg Hastings advised that it could. It is a very short tum around period. Phil Bennett stated they have a concern on Condition No. 5, which states that the developer shall construct a sidewalk and landscape parkway along the frontage of La ~alma Avenue. They have no objection to doing that. That portion of La Palma where their property is located is elevated up. From his initial conversations with Engineering they want him to drop the sidewalk down to where it is ievei with the properry to the west of them, which they have agreed to do. The only problem is where the daycare center next door, his property is still going to be 4 or 5 feet higher. Wants to know what will happen to the sidewalk as they lower it to match the property to the east. Commissioner Bristol advised property o~~mers to the east of project were concemed about the hAight of the 6-foot block wall that separates property. Asked what the grade differential was between his property and the west property. Phil Bennett advised it is a difference of 3 to 4 feet and they would be levei with the property to the east of them but uneven with the property to the west. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer stated it will present a challenge with the daycare center to the west. Their driveway is very close to the property line so that will be a challenge too. They could delete the condition from the variance. It is a condition that will need to be placed on the tentative parcel map. It will give them additional time to do research and determine what is appropriate for the site. Phil Bennett advised owner of daycare center is concerned with it too, but had to leave. ~ • • rULLOWING ls A SUMMARY OF THE PL.ANNING COMMISSION ACTION: : - OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Variance No. 4381 with the following change: Deleted Condition No. 5. VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Boydstun absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorn~~y, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (4:53-5:00) City af Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda December 6, 1999 Page 44 . . : ~. ;.. . ADJOURNED AT 5:00 P.M. T~J MONDAY, DECEMBE~4'20,1999 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Submitted by: ~ w,a,~st~ ~ Ossie Edmundson Scmior Secretary ~~t~rx.an~.~c.R~ ~~",rJ Simonne Fannin Senior Office Specialist Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~~-~~ - y°i City of Anaheim Planning Commissfon Summary Actian Agenda December 6,1999 Page 45