Loading...
Minutes-PC 2000/04/10t' ~'~e1MC~`'A CITY OF ANAHEIM O ! F z ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~~GNDED ~'y1 DATE: MONDAY, APRIL 10, 2000 MORNING SESSION: Chairperson Boydstun cailed the Morning Session to order 11:00 a.m. in the Councii Chamber. 11:00 A.M. • Staff update to Commission of various City developments and issues (as requested by Planning Commission) • Preliminary Plan Review PUBLIC HEARING: Chairperson Boydstun called the Public Hearing to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber and welcomed those in attendance. 1:30 P.M. • Public Hearing Testimony • PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge Allegiance was led by Commissioner Napoles. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Arnold, Boydstun, Bostwick, Bristol, Koos, Napoles COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Vanderbilt STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Mary McCloskey Greg Hastings Greg McCafferty Della Herrick Karen Dudley Don Yourstone Alfred Yalda Peter Gambino Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Deputy Planning Director Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Associate Planner Associate Planner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Principal Transportation Planner Associate Engineer Planning Commission Secretary Senior Secretary AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 4:00 p.m. on April 6, 2000, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, March 16, 2000. DOCS\CLERICAUMINUTESWC041000.DOC ~ planninqcommissionCa)anaheim.net 04-10-00 Page 1 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of II Approved March 13, 2000. (Motion) Continued from Commission meeting of March 27, 2000 for revisions. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the March , 2000 Planning Commission minutes. ~~j Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of Continued to March 27, 2000. (Motion) April 24, 2000 r~ LJ 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a) CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061(b)(3) b) CODE AMENDMENT NO. 99-05: ~City-initiated (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, request to amend the Zoning Code requirements for parking lot lighting in order to enhance the safety and security of parking lots and parking garages/structures servicing commercial, industrial, multiple-family and institutional properties. Continued from Commission meetings of February 14, March 13, and March 27, 2000. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby continue this item to the May 22, 2000 meeting in order to provide Planning staff additional time to incorporate revisions. Continued to May 22, 2000 SR1008SK.DOC There was no discussion of this item. • 04-10-00 Page 2 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ B. a) CEQA STATUTORY EXEMPTION - ONGOING PROJECT b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 15 & 172 - REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: Kerry Lawler, K.W. Lawler and Associates, Inc., 2832 Walnut Avenue, Suite A, Tustin, CA 92780, requests a determination of substantial conformance to allow the adjustment of various lot lines, deletion of an approved recreational amenity and to revise the parking space allocation for an existing mobile home park. Property is located at 501 East Orangethorpe Avenue (Rancho La Paz Mobilehome Park). Continued from the Commission meeting of March 27, 2000. Approved Determined to be in substantial conformance Staff and code enforcement take a closer look at it , is not being that that would be an appropriate regular reporting on what is going on. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that this request is statutorily exempt under Section No. 15261 "Ongoing Projects" of the CEQA Guidelines. • Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that this request is in substantial conformance with the provisions of the original approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 15 and 172 based on the following: (i) That the determination of substantial conformance will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses growth and development of the area, but rather will enhance the site design by consolidating small lots into larger lots thereby reducing the overall density of the mobilehome park. (ii) That the size and shape of this site is adequate to allow the full development of this proposal in a manner not detrimental to this area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare. (iii) That no additional traffic will be generated by the proposed modifications to the site layout. (iv) That the horseshoe court is an equivalent recreational amenity. (v) That the Planning Commission recommended that the owners of the park work/meet with the tenants of the park to resolve outstanding issues, that Code Enforcement inspect the property on a regular basis to make sure the park continues to be in substantial conformance with this approval, and fu~ther, that the guest parking spaces identified on the submitted plans shall be properly identified on the property. SR7709VK.DOC Chairperson Boydstun stated, for the record, that she read the minutes from the March 27, 2000 • Planning Commission meeting regarding this item. 04-10-00 Page 3 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated at the last meeting this item was continued in order to ~ provide the Commission with additional parking information regarding guest parking. It was provided to Commission in the evaluation section of the staff report. The project now complies with the number of guest parking spaces. They are providing 64 guest parking spaces, however, 37 of those spaces are not within 200 feet of a mobilehome park unit. The existing Fire Code in Title 25 of the State Regulations would prohibit parking in the drive aisle. Staff is still recommending that Commission determine substantial conformance in that the applicant is providing the required 64 guest parking spaces. Staff is recommending that Commission find that the horseshoe court is a replacement amenity for the shuffleboard court. Commissioner Bosfinrick stated he appreciated the map provided which lays out the spacing and asked the representative for the applicant (architect) about units 13 and 14, on which there is a new home indicated in those spaces. Kerry Lawler, K.W. Lawler and Associates, acknowledged that the reduced copy of the map is difficult to read and referred to a larger copy. Their office prepared the site plan and did a survey of the existing monuments. Commissioner Bostwick explained that there is a new home with a garage on the Spruce side and with aspha{t on the front side. He asked if those spaces are for the tenant to use or could it be made for guest parking which would then bring those homes into conformance. Kerry Lawler stated he was informed by the park manager that it is an existing tenants space for his private use. Commissioner Bosfinrick asked if that was as well as his garage. • Kerry Lawler responded that was correct. Commissioner Bostwick stated next to that is a space that is empty at 12 Walnut and 31 Spruce. If they would install a couple of parking spaces there then they would completely cover Walnut with additional parking. Kerry Lawler indicated if it is the desire to add additional parking spaces beyond the Code requirement of 64, then he thought that they could find some lots or areas that have spaces. Commissioner Bostwick stated in trying to make it conform to the current Code where they have added the new homes and by putting in a new home at that location, then they would have to have parking within 200 feet of it, but that would leave all of Walnut Street without guest parking. He suggested that they install a couple of spaces in those empty lots temporarily or until they have homes, then rearrange it so that it will fit as guest parking spaces. If they could do that then it would be a way to solve the problem. Kerry Lawler agreed that could be done. Larry Weaver, representing the applicant, the 200-foot radius is not an issue related to Title 25, it is an issue related to the City's parking requirement. Title 25 has no such requirement. Greg McCafferty advised Chapter 18.06 of the Code deals with the distance of the guest parking to the unit. Both the Fire requirements and Title 25 address the minimum drive aisle that is needed. Commissioner Bostwick stated then it is the City's requirement and not Title 25. Greg McCafferty verified that was correct. • 04-10-00 Page 4 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Public Testimony: • Clifford Hawk, 53 Pine Via, Rancho La Paz Mobilehome Park, stated he has been at the park for about 1% years. He and his wife previously lived at another neighborhood for 31 years, they are not trouble makers and do not look for trouble. They try to help people. He was on the Garden Grove Emergency Preparedness Team in charge of 200 homes for earthquake preparedness and feels they should do that at this park. He knows that if they work together with the park management they can help make this happen. He learned about a complaint against his diesel truck in February. In June he was informed he had two more complaints then received an eviction notice, all within 6 months of moving in. His wife was arrested for felonious assault. After leaving the tast public hearing he received a call to revoke his free parking for his fifth-wheel trailer. He spoke with the petitioner and indicated that if they work together then they could make this park great. He has studied the plan and referred to the Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 18.06.050, subparagraph .014 which states, 'Mobilehomes shall have two parking space which may be in tandem on-site of the mobilehome plus one for every four additional homes and those should be within 200 feet of the mobilehomes.' He measured from the proposed plan every foot from the longest distance and found that many of them are further than the 200 feet. Walnut has no guest parking. They would like to see the possibility of putting more spaces along Cypress Vila, which would accommodate many more of the 200 foot areas, move the horseshoe court up to that area as well. As of 8:30 a.m. today, over 90% of the proposed existing parking spaces on this plan do not have marked "guest parking" on them. On Orange Via the applicant proposes two. The sign states "no overnight parking without permiY'. It is not marked with a"guest" sign yet and does not meet the 200-foot rule. Maple Via near space • 46 counted one. One has an old trailer in it and the sign reads, "no parking with a permit, no overnight parking, no guest signs" (page 3 of the plan). Orange Via on the bottom left hand corner, one existing parking space, but it is not painted off on the street where that space is; there are no signs at all at that one. On page 3, three-quarters of the way down on the left-hand side, five are marked. Until last week they were marked laundryroom parking only which they took a picture of (which Commission has). There is one sign that states no "overnight parking" and no sign stating "guest parking". Driving into the park then you would not know where to park unless you would arbitrarily park at an empty space. If they are petitioning for existing guest parking spaces then they would request that they be marked. Page 4 on the center of the page on Cypress. Two spaces were never marked as parking. One is in the car wash, the other is by the utility electric panel and do not meet the 200 foot requirement. Page 5 on the center, next to space 12. One space has never been marked as guest parking. Outside the main entry it shows 6. The sign on the sidewalk states "handicapped parking only". One marked as "handicapped" and one marked as "manager". There are no "guest parking" signs at all and one sign states "no overnight parking." On the west side of the entry are two existing parking spaces. It happens to be a street in front of a gated entry. If it is to be marked on the fence, so be it, but there are no signs there as of today that it is guest parking. He wondered how soon would all the spaces be marked as guest parking. They need to be identified and wanted to know how soon that will be in compliance. What assurances do they have to prevent this from being renamed after the meeting. John Porter, 29 Walnut Vila, referenced coach spaces where there is only one space available for • cars, he counted 11 of those in the park. The first 4 on Elm on the north side, nos. 50, 40, 36 have only one space. They moved the new coach in on Orange No. 31 has only one space for guest 04-10-00 Page 5 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES parking. The present p~an shows no parking on Walnut nor on Spruce. On Cypress where there ~ were about 4 guest spaces they have been dedicated to residents only. He counted 11 empty spaces on Walnut and Spruce plus the shuffleboard court and restroom area that has been torn up. Since the last Commission meeting they received a letter from Richter Farms, owner of Rancho La Paz, in which he paraphrased the contents of the letter by stating, that any disparaging remarks regarding the managers or the owners that they will take them to court and evict them. This will scare many elderly people in the park that are concerned about this. He requests that the Commission not approve the plan until they have met the Code. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated there seems to be somewhat of a misunderstanding of what is before the Commission. She explained before the Commission is a determination of substantial conformance to determine if these modifications being made and the intensity of use are in conformance with the original approval. That is the matter that is before the Commission. This is a legal non-conforming use. It is not required to conform with today's standards for a mobilehome park. As a Reports and Recommendations Item there really are no conditions that are being imposed upon this. Commission is simply determining whether the proposal is proposed is in conformance. If Commission wishes to modify conditions then that would need to be done under a completely separate procedure by modifying the conditional use permit itself at a noticed public hearing. However, the information with regard to the Code is provided for information. It is her understanding that it was provided for information to indicate that even though it is a legal non- conforming use that it does conform to some of the aspects of the existing Code. Chairperson Boydstun thought it might be helpful to inform the tenants present that when this park was originally built there were no parking requirements. They are not putting in a new park. By combining the lots they are lowering the density which means they will end up in a better parking position than what was there before. • Teresa Jardino, 21 Walnut Via, stated there are no parking spaces on Walnut. The consensus of the people that she has spoken to is that where the applicant wants to put a horseshoe court could instead be parking for the tenants. She pointed out that 12 Walnut was vacant for a long time, that could have been paved and had parking installed, which would cover all of Walnut. Walnut has enough homes there that they could have parking at one end and in the middle portion, if those places would be paved. They do not need a horseshoe court because many of the residents can not even pick up a horseshoe. She suggested the vacant lot on Cypress would be a great place for parking because it is centrally located. Commissioner Arnold stated this is a request for determination of substantial conformance. The Assistant City Attorney stated they can not add new conditions, etc. However, at the time that this conditional use permit was granted there were not only no parking requirements but there was also parking permitted on the street. It seems that the land use conditions related to this park have changed substantially over time. His preference would be to set this conditional use permit for public hearing in order to address this in a more comprehensive manner. Commissioner Bosfirvick stated they would have to go back and apply one standard for part of the park and a new standard for the other part of the park, which will be very difficult to accomplish and was not certain how staff would deal with that. They are basically working towards correcting the problem or creating a better atmosphere by reducing the number of homes in the park. As they do that they are installing the garages and extra parking. What has happened over the years is that those two-car parking areas were filled with sheds and plants, etc. because there was only one car. Some of that was created by the tenants themselves. In the "old" days they parked all over. When they had the shuffleboard courts there they had residents from different mobilehome parks joining in their activities. There would be 25-30 cars parked all over the street, but today the Fire Code will not allow that. He would have a difficult time applying both Codes to the old and new portions of • the park and trying to come up with something that is workable. If they add some parking along Watnut, place some by the horseshoe court and put some others on the other sites he referenced 04-10-00 Page 6 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSfON MINUTES earlier then they would have covered most of Walnut. There is a section at the top end that has no ~ parking and yet there are four parking spaces, but it is on the City of Fullerton property line and they are within the 200 foot-range. Chairperson Boydstun asked the applicant if they felt they could add the spaces recommended by Commissioner Bostwick in order to give Walnut some relief. Larry Weaver stated in speaking with the owner of the park, it is certainly something that might make sense and something that they will certainly look into. He reminded Commission that they are only dealing with those spaces where they have consolidated spaces and they meet the Code with all of those spaces. Since the last meeting they added additionai 3 spaces to ensure that they brought the park into compliance with the minimum requirement of 64. That would make sense and that is something that could be looked at but he did not fee{ that should be a condition that should be imposed as part of this process. Chairperson Boydstun stated that Commission is aware of what they are looking at today but if the recommendations would make it work much better for all of the neighbors then this might be a solution for everyone. Commissioner Koos stated he is in support of this item as recommended by staff because it does substantially conform to the original CUP. However, he understands Commissioner Arnold's concerns regarding the original situation that at one time there was on-street parking allow, and the Code did not really address a guest parking situation back then. Now the issue is before Commission and a concerned populist and a changed Code. While he supports the staff recommendation he would also support Commissioner Arnold if he offered a motion to set this item for a consideration of modification to this CUP as welt. This has alerted them to a situation where they might want to consider modifying a CUP to bring it to the current standards, which the City • Council set forth in 1992. He indicated he would support that if Commissioner Arnold offered that motion. Commissioner Bristol stated all three Commissioners have good suggestions but he mentioned that this park was before Commission approximately 1%2 years ago with substantial conformance and there were no objections at that time. Something has happened in the last 12 to 18 months. This is a"grandfathered" use. Is this in substantial conformance with what existed from 1958 to 1961 and on and the answer is yes, it does. The fact that density is going down, it would not be appropriate to put restrictions on a piece of property that is in compliance with what it was 40 years ago. It appears something has happened in the last year or 18 months. He suggested the park owner look at what is happening today and do something about the parking situation that is being mentioned here instead of rehearing the whole CUP. Mrs. Hawk, 53 Pine Vila, in Fullerton, asked why there were no guest parking places until after the meeting that they had on the March 27, 2000. Until this week if any car would park in one of those spaces they would have been towed away. It has happened many times. They want to see no more cars being towed off, where it says "guest parking." The guest parking in the front of the park by the office indicates that all those are guest parking. One of them says "manager". Going in the gate, to the right, the fence on that side states, "manager" on it also, yet the applicant is stating that it is guest parking. There is no sign in the whole park outside of the Fullerton area other than the very front of the park that has guest parking at all. Following the action: Commissioner Bostwick stated he truly admonished the owner of the park and his legal representatives to work with the tenants to find a solution to getting the spaces marked. There is an animosity that has been built up between the management and the tenants and there needs to • be some PR work done to create a better atmosphere within the park, which he felt is the major problem more than the parking places. 04-10-00 Page 7 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ The letter that was sent out to the residents was not a good public relations move and felt they really need to work with the tenants to make the park a better. That was a 5-star park when it was built in 1958 and it is still a very beautiful park. They have done some wondertul things with the new homes there. They now need to work on the human aspect of it to make it a place where people want to live. Commissioner Arnold made a suggestion that staff and in particular Code Enforcement take a close and ongoing look at this and if it appears that the plan presented today, which was determined to be in substantial conformance, is not being observed on a regular basis then that would be an appropriate point for which they could set this item for public hearing. Perhaps there could be regular reporting on what is going on at the park, which might also help facilitate compliance. Jill Richter, one of the owners of the park, stated they realize they do have some problems with disgruntled tenants at the park. They have over 700 residents at that parking and the group of disgruntled tenants is approximately 30. They are trying to deal with it in a dispassionate way as possible. It has been ongoing for several years. She believes that these types of inter-park problems that they are having are not being ignored, however, she did not feel that this is the forum where they should be aired. Most of their tenants enjoy the park and are very happy with the way it is. Chairperson Boydstun stated it was a very strong letter that was sent out. She would have been unhappy to receive it if she were living there. Commissioner Arnold stated they need to identify the guest parking spaces. They are going to be looking at that since that is what was presented to Commission. ~J ~ 04-10-00 Page 8 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r ~ U C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1722 ~ 3233 - REQUEST FOR Terminated TERMINATION: Dr. Melvyn L. Henkin, 1300 Quail Street, Suite 106, Newport Beach, Ca 92660, request for termination of Conditional Use (Vote: 6-0, Permit No. 1722 ( to permit sales of beer and wine for on-premises Commissioner consumption in a proposed restaurant) & Conditional Use Permit No. Vanderbilt absent) 3233 (to permit sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces). Properties are located at 5626 East La Palma Avenue (CUP 1722) and 5636 East La Palma Avenue (CUP 3233). TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-40 SR1149JD.DOC During Commissioner Bostwick's offering of the resolution he noted, for the record, a correction on page 2 of the staff report which referenced Variance No. 4863, but it should read Variance No. 3863. • D. a) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 311 (PREV.-CERTIFIED) Approved b) FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 00-07 - REQUEST REVIEW AND APPROVAL Approved Final OF FINAL SITE PLANS: The Walt Disney Company, Attn: Doug M. Site Plans Moreland, 500 South Buena Vista Sfreet, Burbank, CA 91521, request review and approval of a Final Site Plan for a portion of The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-01 Hotel District and Theme Park District setback areas adjacent to West StreeUDisneyland Drive. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified EIR No. 311 and its Addendum are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the subject request. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Site Plan (identified as Exhibit Nos. 1 through 9 on file in the Planning Department), on the basis that the Final Site Plan is in conformance with The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1. SR7716DH.DOC • Della Herrick, Associate Planner, stated this is a request for approval for the Final Site Plan which sets forth the landscaping design for a portion of the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 Hotel District and Theme Park District setback areas adjacent to West Street/Disneyland Drive. To date two Final Site Plans encompassing the northern and southern portion of the West Street/Disneyland Drive setback areas have been previously-approved by the Commission. This Final Site Plan encompasses the last portion of the West Street/Disneyland Drive setback area that remains to be reviewed. Staff has reviewed the plans and finds that they have been prepared in conformance with the Specific Plan. Staff recommended that the Commission determine that the previously-certified EIR No. 311 and its Addendum are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for this request. Staff also recommended that the Commission approve the Final Site Plan based upon the finding that the Final Site Plan is in conformance with the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1. Staff, as well as the applicant and landscape architect, were available to answer any questions. 04-10-00 Page 9 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ E. a) CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) Approved b) FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 00-01 - REQUEST REVIEW AND Approved Final APPROVAL OF FINAL SITE PLANS: B.U. Patel, c/o Tarsadia Hotels, Site Plans 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1720, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 and Mike Gallen, 2525 Cherry Avenue #310, Signal Hill, CA 90806, request review and approval of a Final Site Plan to construct a 4-story, 124-room extended stay hotel (Extended Stay America). Properties are located at 1742 Freedman Way, and 1733 and 1743 South Zeyn Street. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bosfinrick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Site Plan (identified as Exhibit Nos. 1 through 21 on file in the Planning Department) on the basis that the Final Site Plan is in conformance with the Hotel Circle Specific Plan No. 93-1. SR7705KD.DOC Karen Dudley, Associate Planner, stated this is a request for review and approval of a Final Site • Plan to construct a 4-story 124-room extended stay hotel with in-room kitchettes. The subject property is located within the Hotel Circle Specific Plan Area of the Anaheim Reso~t which permits a maximum density of up to 300 guest rooms for this property including guest rooms with in-room kitchettes. The architectural design of the building is contemporary in style which provides a natural stacked stone veneer finish applied to the base of the building at the first and second floor levels and a stucco finish on the upper elevations. The roof will be finished with a concrete slate roofing material and the windows systems include a built-in HAVAC heating and air conditioning system unit, which is built-in and flush with the exterior wall of the building. It will be painted to match the exterior building finish. There is a private drive connecting Freedman Way, which was formerly Clementine Street to Zeyn Street as proposed along the south side of the building providing access to the hotel and on-site parking areas. This is a provision of the private drive as a requirement of the Hotel Circle Specific Plan. There is a po~te-cochere that is located on the south side of the building, which will have a maximum vertical clearance of 16 feet, 8 inches. After reviewing the submitted pfans and information staff finds that the projecYs environmental effects will be within the perimeters of the mitigated negative declaration previously-approved for the Hotel Circle Specific Plan No. 93-1. The projecYs specific mitigation monitoring plan incorporating all those applicable mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 0079 which was adopted in connection with the Hotel Circle Specific Plan has been created for this project and all those mitigation measures that are required to be completed prior to final site plan and approval have been completed. Staff further found the plans in conformance with the development standards and the site development guidelines set forth in the Hotel Circle Specific Plan and recommended that the Commission approve the Final Site Plan. CJ 04-10-00 Page 10 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 323 Continued to 2b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 370 (READVERTISED) May 8, 2000 2c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 99-00-10 2d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4171 2f. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 2a. 2c. 2d, and 2e OWNER: California Drive-In Theaters, Attn: John Manavian, 120 North Robertson Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048 LOCATION: 1500 North Lemon Street. Property is 26.34 acres located at the southeast corner of Lemon Street and Durst Street. General Plan Amendment No. 370 - An amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate the subject property from the General Industrial designation to the General Commercial designation. Reclassification No. 99-00-10 - To reclassify subject property from the ML (Limited Industrial) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. u Conditional Use Permit No. 4171 - To construct a 294,632 square foot commercial retail center including a home improvement store, health club, three (3) drive-through fast food restaurants, two (2) full-seroice restaurants, a multi-tenant pad building, and a freeway-oriented sign with waiver of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) minimum parking lot landscaping, and (c) required dedication and improvement of right-of-way. Continued from the Commission meetings of December 20, 1999, January 19, and January 31, and February 14, 2000. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. • 10DS.DOC Commission Napoles offered a motion for a continuance to May 8, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Bosfinrick and motion carried. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the May 8, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow adequate time for the petitioner to complete the recirculation process and to respond to comments received on the draft EIR. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 04-10-00 Page 11 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 21 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.1043 (READVERTISED) Continued to May 22, 2000 OWNER: Ben Karmelich, 30 Harbor Sight Drive, Rolling Hilis Estates, CA 90274 AGENT: City-initiated (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 2748 West Lincoln Avenue - Lincoln Inn. Property is 1.7 acre located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, 670 Feet east of the centerline of Dale Avenue (Lincoln Inn). City-initiated request to determine compliance with conditions of approval and consider modification of conditions of approval including the length of stay limitation for Conditional Use Permit No. 1043 (to permit a 129-unit, 3-story motel with waiver of maximum structural height). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7720G Commission Bostwick offered a motion for a continuance to May 22, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and motion carried. ~ FOLLOWI{VG IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the May 22, 2000 Planning Commission meeting as requested by staff. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 04-10-00 Page 12 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES \J 4a. CEQA CATEGORICA 4b. VARIANCE NO. 1229 Continued to (READVERTISED) May 22, 2000 OWNER: Gregory Parkin, 2500 West Orangethorpe Avenue, Suite V, Fullerton, CA 92833 AGENT: City-initiated (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 823 South Beach Boulevard. Property is 1.3 acre located on the west side of Beach Boulevard, 975 feet north of the centeriine of Ball Road (Covered Wagon Motel). City-initiated request to determine compliance with conditions of approval and consider modification of conditions of approval including the length of stay limitation for Variance No. 1229 (to construct and operate a 70-unit motel and coffee shop). VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. SR7721GM.DOC Commission Napoles offered a motion for a continuance to May 22, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and motion carried. • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the May 22, 2000 Planning Commission meeting as requested by staff. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 04-10-00 Page 13 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~~ 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Continued to 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4187 April 24, 2000 OWNER: Islamic Institute of Orange County, 1220 North State College Boulevard, Anaheim, Ca 92806 AGENT: Dr. Gamal E. Nour, 1221 North Placentia Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1220-1230 North State College Boulevard. Property is 1.93 acre located north and east of the northeast corner of Placentia Avenue and State College Boulevard (Islamic Institute of Orange County). To permit and construct a church with an accessory private elementary school with waiver of (a} institutionai uses adjacent to residential zones, and (b) minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7714KP.DOC (This item was inifially trailed, since the applicanf was not present, and was later heard following Item No. 6.] ~ • ApplicanYs Statement: Steven Phillips, architect with FTR Corporation, 6 Jamboree, Suite 1240, Irvine, stated currently the Islamic Community has been operating in this space since 1994 and have tried to be good neighbors. They would like to now upgrade their property and beautify that corner. They prepared a model (located in front of the Commissioners) which shows the project. They thanked staff for the thorough job analyzing the project. They have no objections to any of the conditions recommended by staff, but had a request that on the existing conditional use permit they have a provision for a caretaker to be on-premises and do not want to lose that right. They are establishing a day care and school facility, beautifying the sanctuary, alleviating problems that exist by restructuring the uses that are there for better circulation around the structure, better parking and more upgraded facilities all the way around. This is quite an improvement over their existing facilities. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Steven Phillips stated there would be a play area with play equipment to the side of the building surrounded by a wall. Chairperson Boydstun asked where would they place the preschool children. Steven Phillips responded that would be the yard for the preschool. Chairperson Boydstun asked about the play area for the elementary children. Steven Phillips indicated they calculated a certain square footage of area for the preschool which is required, but there is no requirement from the State for the elementary school children. Chairperson Boydstun asked to clarify his statement that there is no requirement for any outside area for elementary school children. 04-10-00 Page 14 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Steven Phillips deferred the question to Tim Caballero since he met with the representatives from the State. Tim Caballero stated the proposed play area for the preschool would be in the back of the building. They also have an interior space which is a playground inside which is shown in the floor plan. The proposed playground for the older children would be the parking lot area between the alley and the building, which would be closed off. Chairperson Boydstun asked how they are going to load and unload the children. Tim Caballero indicated that they are proposing to have the entry for the facility in the back by the alley, facing Placentia Avenue, there will be a long queuing line for the cars. Placentia Avenue is basically a drop-off location. Chairperson Boydstun stated that they would basically go in one driveway and out the other. Commissioner Bristol asked if they are proposing to have the Kindergarten through 6th grade children play in the back area where they are striping for parking. Tim Caballero confirmed that was correct. Commissioner Bristol asked if the playground area is the only area where they are going to have any outside activity for K through 6th grade. Tim Caballero indicated also the driveway that is going towards Placentia, they are proposing to have a gate surrounding the whole complex. • Commissioner Arnold asked how the play areas are going to be covered. Tim Caballero responded those areas are going to be grass. Commissioner Arnold asked if there is going to be play equipment. Tim Caballero responded there is some play equipment on the playground area adjacent to the building. Commissioner Arnold stated in their letter of operation it states that the interior play area is 800 square feet but the plans indicate 975 square feet and asked which was accurate. Tim Caballero responded 800 square feet is accurate. Following the IDC meeting they were required to have a 15-foot setback to the north of the property which meant they had to cut down on the building. Commissioner Arnold stated what Mr. Caballero stated is that the plans that Commission has are not exactly an accurate depiction. Tim Caballero stated he thought they have been revised from what Commission has. Commissioner Arnold stated the plans indicates 975 square feet for indoor play area. Tim Caballero advised it is actually 975 square feet. He indicated there is a fence around the prope~ty. (There was further discussion between Mr. Caballero and Commission as they were reviewing the plans.] Tim Caballero indicated they have a multi-purpose room inside the building, which they can also use, as a ~ play area. 04-10-00 Page 15 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairperson Soydstun asked about the outside area on the roof. • Tim Caballero responded that would accommodate 40 elementary children at the school. Commissioner Arnold asked whether the indoor multi-purpose area is the auditorium. Tim Caballero confirmed that was the auditorium Commissioner Arnold asked if all of that will be available for play because if it is an auditorium wouldn't it have seating. Tim Caballero explained it would have a folding chair cut into the wall. Commissioner Bostwick noticed that there is no mention on the plans for any living facilities for the groundskeeper. Tim Caballero stated looking at the plans on the southwest corner there is a guest room there. Commissioner Bosfinrick stated it indicates "administration" as 937 square feet. Tim Caballero stated there is a guest room that goes out to the sideyard. Chairperson Boydstun asked if they are installing a kitchen in there. They have a commercial kitchen proposed inside. Commissioner Bosfinrick stated Mr. Caballero is referring to this room as "administration" but the plans show a bedroom and a bathroom but no kitchen, living room, etc. ~ Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated that it is something that the staff should take a look at because there are minimum requirements for both parking and square footage of any on-site caretaker living facility. Staff was not aware nor was it clear in the plans that it exists. Commissioner Bostwick agreed. It is marked as "administration" rather than a"caretaker". Tim Caballero explained it is not really a caretaker that lives there all the time. He will only be there occasionally. Chairperson Boydstun suggested continuing this item to see if there are any waivers if that room is used as a living quarters. Greg Hastings stated it can probably be redesigned where there are not any waivers, however, there does appear to be a few features of this that staff is just now being made aware of and they would need some clarification on the landscaping. Chairperson Boydstun asked if they could also get some clarification on the State requirement regarding playground equipment for children. Commissioner Bristol asked if they could also receive more cfarification on the drop-off area. Commissioner Bostwick suggested regarding Condition No. 5 to make it more definitive as to the vines on both the north and east walls if there is going to be playground equipment, and asked if they could receive elevations of what it is going to look like including fencing. Chairperson Boydstun stated she felt fencing is required for preschool children when it is connected to a • parking lot. 04-10-00 Page 16 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES \ J Commissioner Arnold stated he thought that Commission's consideration of this would be substantially enhanced by much more clarity and preparation before the next hearing, which would be helpful to Commission. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Caballero whether they were planning on getting rid of the north wall. Mr. Caballero responded he did not know if that wall is part of the apartment complex. They have a 15 feet setback requirement from that one. Greg Hastings suggested during the 2-week continuance perhaps the applicant could work with the property owner of the apartment complex to see whom that wall belongs to and if they are willing to make any changes to it. Chairperson Boydstun asked about the vine pockets along the wall on their side for coverage. Greg Hastings explained on the east wall they were hoping to get vine pockets, on the north wall there is sufficient area to have landscaping and/or vine pockets. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion for continuance to April 24, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Koos and motion carried. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the April 24, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order for: • (1) The petitioner to submit revised plans showing the drop-off area, the playground area and the caretaker's unit; (2) The petitioner to submit elevations of the proposed fencing and playground equipment; (3) The petitioner to meet with property owner of the apartment complex to the north of the property to determine who the existing wall belongs to and if they would be willing to make any changes to it; (4) Staff to provide a clarification of the state ~equirement on playgrounds for children; and (5) Staff to modify Condition No. 5 to require vines on both the north and east wa11s. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 16 minutes (3:38-3:54) (This item was trailed and later heard after Item No. 6) ~ 04-10-00 Page 17 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~J 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4188 Denied OWNER: Delilah E. Johnston, Trustee, c/o Paul Kott, 1225 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Ca 92805 AGENT: Paul Kott, 1225 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1609 West Cerritos Avenue. Property is 1.15 acre located on the north side of Cerritos Avenue, 650 feet west of the centerline of Bayless Street (Vietnamese American Buddhist Center). To permit and construct a cultural and meditation center with accessory caretaker's residence. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-41 SR7711 KB.DOC Chairperson Boydstun asked the audience how many people were present for this item. There were approximately 20 people who raised their hands. Applicant's Statement: Paul Kott, 1225 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, stated this petition involves an regularly-shaped lot • approximately 1.15 acres in size, which is currently zoned RS-7200. He was surprised that the staff report was recommending denial of the proposed development. At the IDC meeting there was no discussion about opposing it. It was implied by staff that it was going to be a positive support of the project. The other surprise was how many people were concerned with the proposal. He knows that it is not the intent of this group to upset a neighborhood. He is certain they are going to have issues discussed and they hope to have a chance to answer any comments that they might have. The proposal includes the development of a new 1-story, 9050-foot 8uddhist cultural and meditation facility. It will be comprised of traditional Buddhist design and lush landscape grounds. Contrary to some of the rumors that are circulating, according to the letters received, many neighbors had indicated that they did not want to hear a loud "gong" every hour. He did not know where that came from; it is an erroneous assumption. There will be no loud gongs; the facility will be a very quite and peaceful place suitable for meditation. It would be open from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily, when most residents are at work. There will be four caretakers residing on the property, which is very typical and common place in this type of facility. They do celebrate three holidays per year. Two holidays are the Tet festivals and one is Buddha's birthday. Two of the holidays end at 3:00 p.m. and, therefore, do not go late at night and only one for the entire year is scheduled to end at 2:00 a.m. This is one of the fastest growing groups in the County and they are looking for places where they might have worship and meditation facilities. Their purpose is to preserve their Vietnamese heritage, provide assistance to the needy, and be a place of ineditation not just for themselves but to the community at large. Land use of this nature is fairly typical in Anaheim. He could easily recall a dozen sites where worship facilities are located in residential neighborhoods in Anaheim. For example, the one on West Street near La Palma Avenue. Down from that facility is a Korean Temple around the corner and there is a Jewish ~ Temple on Cerritos, near the corner of Euclid and Cerritos. So it is certainly not an unusual circumstance. Their plan exceeds the minimum parking requirement and is in the process of making arrangements for their parking needs on their holidays, which would only be three per year, of circulating traffic in and out. 04-10-00 Page 18 APRIL 10, 2000 PI.ANNING COMMISSION MINl7TES Very seldom would they all appear at one time. The group is willing to comply and conform to the ~ conditions set forth in the staff report and ask Commission for approval of their proposal. Public Testimony: Tim Dean, 1604 Cerritos, Anaheim, stated he is a resident of 23 years directly across from subject property. He is an employee of Disneyland, and is in knowledge of proprietary information that Cerritos will be reopened again very shortly. Everyone wearing "red" name stickers in the audience has submitted letters. This is being driven by money. This is a residential neighborhood, and should remain as such. They encourage diversity as seen by their group present today. His living directly across the street from the 44 parking spaces is ridiculous. He works the graveyard shift and is a day sleeper. There are no apartment complexes; there are no houses that have more than 3 or 4 parking spaces. He appreciates the design and the development that the applicant has put forth, but it does not belong in this neighborhood. He stated that the woman who previously resided at the location of the proposed site he knew very well, and knows that this would not be her desire. Bob Mitchell, 1590 West Cerritos Avenue, stated he lives directly across the street from the proposed site. He appreciates the significance and the religious nature and architectural significance of this structure that is proposed and does not feel that anyone has a criticism regarding that. What they do have a concern is the planned scope of the project. The applicant has indicated that they would be willing to comply with all of the conditions that were set forth. In reviewing the conditions one of the most important one is Condition No. 2, that all church related activities shall be conducted entirely indoors. He wondered how they would distinguish educational or cultural types of activities from church related activities. They are trying to set up a standard that would almost be impossible to enforce and is rather misleading to the residents of the community. On Condition No. 3, that no other private schools shall be operated in conjunction with this facility. He ~ wondered how there could be a cultural center and not have an educational component. He felt culture implies education. In this particular case they have already started their school; it may be a very informal school or what is known as a Sunday school where individuals get together and discuss history, tradition, etc. Therefore, he felt that the statement in Condition No. 3 that no private school shall be operated in conjunction with this facility, he felt that they have already crossed that if Commission would approve this particular facility. The neighborhood is made up of all single-family homes. They do not have trash truck turnaround areas, or any trucks coming in to pick up from dumpsters at odd hours of the morning, nor do they have lampposts that keep parking spaces lit. Those are things that are inconsistent with their neighborhood. They applaud new members of the community to come in and try to establish centers. The proposed site does not accommodate the center as it is currently drawn. He had an opportunity to go down to the parking lot of the center on Ninth and Katella. If you are in the parking lot of that particular center you can immediately see that the boundary perimeter fencing has been reached in two sections by a very nice gate into the adjoining residential structures. In essence, the residential structures adjoining the temple on Ninth and Katella has already incorporated those structures into the Temple structure. He wondered what would happen in their neighborhood. Would they have the same situation? Would they see that the center as proposed would not only expand to the adjacent lot? How would they deal with the situation if they were used for housing for other assorted purposes, how would that be controlled? They need to understand the size and scope which he applauds, but it is simply the location of this particular facility that concerns him. Linda Owen, 1602 West Buena Vista, Anaheim, stated she lives almost immediately behind the proposed facility. The problem the neighborhood has is the use of Cerritos Avenue. School children pass up and down Cerritos to cross to Palm Lane Elementary with a crossing guard, Bafl Junior High is afso used by children who must cross there, Loara High School has children from condo's that come up and down ~ Cerritos and there have been many close calls. The changing of the zoning to facilitate a worship center of any kind is one thing, but the congestion, additional traffic, additional lighting, this use in a single-family 04-10-00 Page 19 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES residential neighborhood and possible further endangering of the children that live in that area. She ~ asked that this request please be denied. Kim Medlin, 1625 West Cerritos, stated she lives two doors over from the proposed center. As a resident on Cerritos, it is extremely difficult to come and go in the driveways because of the traffic there. Children are the main concern. This will impact people coming and going into that facility. John Dalham, stated he is the principal of Loara High School at 1765 West Cerritos. He wanted to reiterate the problems with the students walking up and down that particular street. In addition, also wonders where the overflow parking will go when they have celebrations like the Tet festival. He hopes that they do not park in their school parking lot, it will be impossible because there is no room. They also have a lot of children that go that way on their way to Jeffrey and he is concerned with any area that is opened up as a parking lot area. If a parking lot is provided, it becomes an area that has to be checked and becomes a concern for the children. Bob Messe, 1523 South Bayless, stated he lives around corner from development. Agrees with the Principal of Loara High School. Asked about the staff report stating 100 members and wanted to know if it means families or individuals and what is the potential for growth of the congregation. He is very concerned about the parking and the impact it would have on Cerritos Avenue. Asked if there were any elevations that went along with the plan. ~Mr. Messe was provided with the elevations to view as he requested.] Bart Fiquero, 1445 Loara, states he lives in back of the Temple. The elevation is a concern because it will affect his privacy and that of his neighbors. It appears that there is a block wall and he wants to know how that will affect him because he already has a block wall. He is concerned that visitors will start using the storm drain that goes out from his house out to Cerritos to walk through on overflow days. John Papa, 1614 West Buena Vista Avenue, stated he lives behind the site. He was drawn to this ~ neighborhood because of the large separation between the houses on Cerritos and Buena Vista. The plan comes within 15 feet to the back of the lot with high roofs and large tower in the middle that would obstruct what is now very peaceful. Mary Fennima stated she lives across the street from subject property. She opposes this because it impacts traffic and parking on the street. The plan only show 44 spaces for the parking lot, the entrance and exits will directly face her property and she does not want headlights facing her house. She is in opposition of the proposal and indicated she had forwarded a letter to Commission stating her opposition. Chairperson Boydstun acknowledged to Mrs. Fennima that her letter was received. Chuck Lippencod, 1580 West Cerritos, stated he is less than 300 feet from the proposed project. He visited other Buddhist Temples in Anaheim, specifically the one at Ninth and Katella and talked to a priest there. That location has 100 parking spaces. The priest advised that they had to stack cars in the parking lot on worship days. The neighbor also consented to allow overflow parking on his property. Parking is his main concern and the church does not fit in the neighborhood. He feels overflow will go west and north on Cerritos, which does not have that many available spaces on it. The membership will probably also increase. The Buddhist Temple on Dale and Ball has 175 spaces and other property available for parking. Jerry LaMar stated he has lived in the area for the past 35 years. He is a retired Anaheim Police Sergeant who patrolled that area. Statements made by previous people are true, the street is extremely dangerous and traffic congestion can cause a serious accident and is a continuous problem for children in area. He hopes that Commission will look at it closely before approving it. Jim LaMarca, 1625 West Cerritos, feels if this is approved, owners of project may purchase the property • next to the project and expand into that area which wili end up being right next door to his house. He is in fear that it will expand and grow beyond what they expect it to. 04-10-00 Page 20 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Linda Owen stated there is only one lane each direction on Cerritos. It is a residential street. Applicant's Rebuttal: Paul Kott stated it appears as though there are a few misperceptions, which is the root of controversy. He does not know what the first speaker was referring to when he made the comment that this is "driven by money". It is not driven by money, but by the need and desire of the group to worship and meditate in their cultural activities. Regarding traffic, he feels misconception of the amount of traffic to be generated . The church will close at 7 p.m. so headlights will not affect residents. Only 15 people per day (who may come together) will visit this site throughout the day. Traffic utilized by this location is minimal. If someone were to develop this with RS-7200 zoned single-family residential project, the tra~c would be much greater than this church. Several people spoke of how dangerous the neighborhood was, if it was, there would be more accidents there. The fact that the principal of Loara High School would offer his parking to one facility and tell someone else that there was no room without investigating whether or not there could be some help, acts as some sort of favoritism. Another speaker visited other facilities, but what one facility does has no bearing on what this facility does. This facility would be under certain conditions and guidelines that they would have to abide by. This is a similar circumstance to the one that was approved on Sunkist, by a street that is comparable. Mai Dang, 1531 Dory Lane, Oxnard, stated she supports the project. Vietnamese came here 25 years ago and have contributed to this country and neighborhood. They strive to benefit for themselves and community as a whole. Would like to see an approval. The nature of this project is meditation. Meditation in itself is very quiet and they welcome everyone. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • Chairperson Boydstun asked if 100 was families or individuals and was it the same type of church as the one on Dale. Paul Kott advised it was 100 individuals. He has never been to the church on Dale and so could not respond to that, but they would have to adhere to the activities described and the conditions imposed. Ms. Dang stated there are two main celebrations, Tet festival and Buddha's birthday, then the other activities are meditation. They do not have regular services, 15 to 20 people go to the church daily to meditate. The Tet festival is a one day celebration and is similar to Dale. Commissioner Arnold stated in the descriptions of functions and operations it states that there will be 50 per day during the week, 100 on Saturday and between 200 to 300 on each main celebration. Asked why there is a discrepancy. Paul Kott advised he was told that there are between 15 and 20 people for this type of facility. Ms. Dang explained usually on the New Year festival, people go from one temple to another and usually rent a bus. Chairperson Boydstun asked how many people attend dinners there. Ms. Dang responded dinners are given once in a white to celebrate with about 50 to 100 people. Paul Kott clarified that the letter of operation indicated that "the number of permanent members who come to the temple on a regular basis on weekdays is 1/4th of the total member of 50", that would be about 15 people. ~ Commissioner Arnold pointed out page 2 indicates 25 persons participating in the first meditation session. Saturday indicates 50 and 150 to 200 for each festival. 04-10-00 Page 21 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Paul Kott explained there is a discrepancy on the numbers but, in either case, this facility can more than Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated to clear public record, Mr. Kott indicated at IDC that staff did not tell him that staff was going to recommend denial. In fact, they did tell him that they did have concerns about the land use and the parking and at that time the recommendation was going to be for denial. accommodate this number of patronage. Even if 25 people come two to a car, there are still 44 parking spaces. The total number of people that are involved in worship will not all be there at the same time. This is no different than someone who lives on Cerritos having a wedding reception or party in their home. Visitors would come two or four to a car and would legally park on Cerritos where there is legal parking. The only time the church would need additional on-site parking would be on the additional holidays and during those holidays, they shuttle people in. Commissioner Arnold asked Mr. McCafferty about the relationship of this particular proposal to other religious institutions that have been approved elsewhere in terms of land use impacts, parking and traffic. Greg McCafferty responded stafif recommended approval on Sunkist and South because they felt the existing land use patterns in the area, including other churches in that area lent itself to the fact that is was on Sunkist. Most of the residents in that area reared onto Sunkist. Staff felt that establishing a church there, with the existing land use patterns and the fact that there are existing churches there, and they are complying with parking, that they would recommend approval. With regards to the one Mr. Kott mentioned on West Street, that one was approved in 1994, but staff did recommend continuance through redesign because they had concerns about some of the waivers that they requested. On West St., that church was fairy close to La Palma. Setween the church and La Palma was some commercial office uses that fed off of Anaheim Memorial. Staff is not opposed to the church; they are just opposed to putting it right in the middle of an existing established neighborhood. ~ Commissioner Arnold stated the Coptic Church that was recently approved was on arterial streets and had a lot more parking. Greg McCafferty advised it was on the corner of State Collsge and Vermont and in the event that it did overflow, it was next to the park. Commissioner Bristol felt he has advantage over the other Commissioners present because he bought his first house directly across from this site. He moved from that area due to the safety issues on the street. Residents are upset about the tra~c and parking not the church itself. He is in favor of keeping the integrity of the single-family residential use. This street is different from Sunkist because there are a lot of driveways that go right onto this street, whereas on Sunkist that is not the case. Commissioner Arnold stated he believes that religious uses in a residential neighborhood are part of the price that we pay for religious freedom in this country. However, it does not mean that every parcel of land is appropriate for every religious use. This is a great project, but not the right location given the traffic and parking and safety of school children and hope they can find another place in Anaheim for the center. Commissioner Bostwick stated there is a day care center, commercial use next door, so they have changed the integrity of the neighborhood, it is not pristine. This has no waivers, it is not a change in zoning, and it is simply a conditional use permit so the underlying zoning remains RS-7200. There are churches on Wagner. Cerritos has an impact on Loara High School because it is much larger and a more intense use. This is not the right location, but where would you put it? It will provide a beautiful landscaped area, will bring back the sidewalk, curb and gutter to where it belongs with widening the street, which will make it an easier drive. He did not have a problem with it. Commissioner Koos agreed with Commissioner Bristol and Commissioner Arnold, he thought they should ~ maintain the residential nature of this area. Anaheim does have areas where residential uses are adjacent to non-residential uses and generally those areas do not thrive as much as areas that are kept 04-10-00 Page 22 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES and maintained as completely residential. He would like to see an in-fill housing development of single- ~ family homes or stay the same. He will not be supporting the development. Paul Kott stated, for the record, he does not remember any audible articulation of any negativity towards the project, in fact, staff seemed helpful on how they could work to make it happen and that is why he was so surprised to hear the opposition and recommendation. It was not criticism of staff, simply his surprise of their recommendation. Neither he nor anyone in his group recalls hearing anything in opposition. Commissioner Napoles stated he lived in that general area for almost 40 years. He used to travel Cerritos and Walnut and recalled traffic was heavy at that point in time and he understands that it is heavier now. He took a ride there this morning to see if this was a good project for the area, and felt that if he had a home there; he would not want to a church there. Paul Kott stated he wants to believe that everyone who has spoken in opposition, in their heart of hearts, would look at themselves and really say that they strongly believe that this project would create a dangerous traffic condition and doubts that they would answer that question in the affirmative. OPPOSITION: 12 people spoke in opposition to the request. 30 letters were received in opposition to the request. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration. Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 4188 based on the following: 1. Even though the proposed cultural and meditation center is a conditionally permitted use within the RS-7200 Zone, the use could adversely affect the ~ adjoining land uses and the growth and devefopment of the area and could negatively change the land use patterns of the surrounding residential area. 2. That the size and shape of the property is not large enough to contain all of the activities on-site. The submitted letter of operation indicates three specific holidays that would draw additional visitors to this cultural and meditation center, and the overFlow parking would affect the nearby single-family residences on Cerritos Avenue. 3. That the traffic generated by the cultural and meditation center, especially during the special holidays, will impose an undue burden upon Cerritos Avenue and create competition for on-street parking with the existing single-family residences which front on Cerritos Avenue. 4. That the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 4188 (for a cultural and meditation center with caretaker's quarters), regardless of the conditions imposed, will be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. VOTE: 5-1 (Commissioner Bostwick voted no and Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 4 minutes (2:16_ 3_2Q)_ ----------------------------------------------------- - - -------------------------------------------------------- A BREAK WAS TAKEN AFTER THIS ITEM (3:21-3:37) • 04-10-00 Page 23 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES C~ 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 99-00-19 7c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 7d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4189 OWNER: Bel Air Enterprises, Inc., 1205 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA 92866 AGENT: Robert Achin, 39 Dunn Street, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 LOCATION: 2871-2895 West Lincoln Avenue. Property i 1 ~ acre located at the northeast corner of Bel Air S reet T~1fi and Lincoin Avenue. Granted, unconditionally Approved Granted (Beer and wine sales portion of the request was approved for 2 years, to expire on 4-10-2002) Reclassification No. 99-00-19 - To reclassify subject property from the CH (Commercial, Heavy) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 4189 - To permit sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption in conjunction with the expansion of an existing restaurant and to establish conformity with existing Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing commercial retail center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ~ RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-42 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-43 SR7719VK.DOC (This item was initially trailed and later heard following Item No. 10.] Applicant's Statement: Steve Sheldon, 695 Town Center Drive, Suite 410, Costa Mesa, 92626, apologized for being in the Iobby and not hearing this item called initially. His client has just had a chance to read the staff report and fully understand the conditions of approval and the underlining zone reclassification for the applicant's center. The application is to expand the restaurant for 1,000 square feet. The applicant can live with all the conditions of approval which would include purchasing 20 trees to wrap around Bel Air and Lincoln and to landscape that area every 20 fineal feet and there is 380 lineai feet around the center on Lincoln Avenue and turns and goes north on Bel Air. That is at a cost of approximately $8,000 to $10,000 for landscaping for landscaping requirements. He would like to work with all the conditions of approval except for one and does not want the center rezoned from the CH to CL Zone. He purchased the center with the CH Zone and it adds value to his center and will loose value in a sale. He is operating the center under the CL Zoning as a matter of practicality. The CH Zone has uses that he may never use, but the fact that they are there gives him additional economic value to the center. The applicanYs other concern is that his time limit on the alcohol CUP runs out in two years and he would have to reapply for an extension. His existing alcohol use is a legal non-conforming use and runs indefinitely. This causes a problem where the tenant in the center may sell the restaurant and he could lose all of the entitlements there for the alcohol use because of this condition of approval. ~ The applicant is willing to landscape the center and live under a conditional use permit for the center itself and a conditional use permit for the restaurant. The City gains the additional landscaping, control of 04-10-00 Page 24 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES having a CUP for the entire center, and a CUP for the restaurant. They are asking to maintain the CH ~ zoning and not have the two-year termination of the CUP. Chairperson Boydstun understands that it is only on the additional square footage and would not affect what is already there. Regarding the CH to CL Zoning, it is being done on all the properties throughout the City so they can obtain landscaping. That is the main difference between the two. Steve Sheldon asked for a clarification on the CUP that the applicant is getting under the CL Zoning and the additional 1,000 square feet. Chairperson Boydstun explained the CUP is for the whole center but the beer and wine license was just for the additional 1,000 square footage. Commissioner Bostwick referenced Condition No. 29, on page 10. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, explained the CUP for the center as well as the alcohol sales. They are bringing the first unit into conformity; however, the two-year limitation is on the expansion. Steve Sheldon indicated that if the two-year limitation is only on the expansion then they could live with that. In regards to the CH Zoning, they can live with having the implementation of the additiona~ landscape. They understand that landscaping and setbacks are the two main policy reasons why they would want to change from CH to CL Zone. Commissioner Koos asked Mr. Sheldon what potential uses they thought they are being deprived of under the CL Zoning. Steve Sheldon responded the Code has an assortment of uses in the CH Zone that are not found in the • CL Zone. He may not use those uses, but the fact that they are there gives him additional property rights, additional value to his center that he doesn't want to loose. He is willing to live under the Conditions of Approval with putting a CUP on entire center and CUP on the addition to the restaurant. Chairperson Boydstun stated if the CH Zone is still there, could someone else come in and buy it and take out all out landscaping because it is not required. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated that is correct, and through the Community Planning Program, the City is recommending (and the Commission and Council have adopted), rezoning ofi all CH and CG zoned properties as they get to those areas as a City-initiated action. Whether the City or the owner does it, it ends up being the same result. Steve Sheldon stated, as he understands it the center needs a CUP under the revised CH zoning, to get a CUP for a restaurant the applicant has to apply for a CUP for the entire center, so under the CUP for the center, landscaping could not be removed if the center was sold. Conditions run with the sale of the land. Greg Hastings explained since this is being conditioned on this Conditional Use Permit, if the alcohol sales goes away, the owner of property technically does not have the obligation to comply with the conditions of approval for the center. The center at this point is "grandfathered" in, and the only reason it is before Commission today is because there is an additional CUP being requested. Anytime an additional CUP comes on this property, there will need to be compliance with the requirement that there be a CUP on the center itself and staff will always recommend that there be proper landscaping. Steve Sheldon stated absent the restaurant not changing it's alcohol sales, the applicant is still subject to the CUP for the entire center under the CH zoning and could not take out the landscaping. • Greg Hastings advised that is correct because the CUP includes the landscaping. 04-10-00 Page 25 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairperson Boydstun asked if they would still be required to keep it if the CUP was dissolved to do ~ something eise. Greg Hastings explained there would be nothing to hold the conditions together unless they came in for another CUP because the prerequisite would be that the center itself have a conditional use permit. Chairperson Boydstun advised this is something being done in West Anaheim to clean it up so all properties that are CH are going to eventually be posed with this problem. Nobody has objected yet. Steve Sheldon stated what they are suggesting does clean up the center. Chairperson Boydstun explained that they want the zoning to be all the same for retail uses. Commissioner Koos further explained that the zone is being phased out altogether. Steve Sheldon stated when the applicant purchased the center he perhaps paid extra money because the center had a CH Zone. Commissioner Arnold added that the zone is being phased out altogether. It is always a risk when property is purchased that that particular zoning may be phased out. He realizes it is a difficult situation for the property but that is the policy direction for Anaheim. They need to treat all properties similarly to maintain a consistency requirement. Greg Hastings pointed out that they have added uses to the CL Zone under the CUP section, which they have not done with CH Zone. Staff can sit down with the applicant and go over the entire list to see what the concerns are. ~ Steve Sheldon stated he is simply indicating what the applicant would prefer to have and he feels that he is going to have an economic Ioss from the rezoning which they would prefer not to have that rezoning. The CL has a negative connotation to some people because the use is limited. Commissioner Arnold stated as the City improves the quality of land use in the area that he will see actually an increase in property value associated with the policy as a whole. Steve Shefdon agreed. Commissioner Bostwick asked about the hours of operation. Steve Sheldon deferred Commissioner Bostwick's question to the agent for the restaurant owner. Bob Achin, 39 Dunn Street, Laguna Niguel, 92677, responded regarding Condition No. 13, they asked that this condition be waived. They would like to come back to get an approval for areas directly in front of the restaurant; there is an indentation between suites that could be used for outdoor seating for smoking. Commissioner Bostwick asked staff if there needs to be a separate CUP for that. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, advised outdoor seating has to be advertised. Greg Hastings further explained that this CUP could be utilized for that, but as Mr. McCafferty mentioned, it was not advertised for outdoor seating. It probably would not be a problem, but needs to be on record. The Tra~c Engineer would be in agreement due to the parking waiver and this would increase the parking demand with the increased square footage. ~ Bob Achin stated this would be for customers that already have seating inside the restaurant, this seating would only be used for consumption of tobacco. 04-10-00 Page 26 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Bostwick asked if there would be food service. Bob Achin indicated it is essentially a smoking patio. Greg Hastings advised it could be done with a revised plan for the file. Staff would be concerned with any areas utilized for that that should be utilized for pedestrians or parking. Commissioner Bostwick stated the condition states "no outdoor dining", so if they return with a new plan, it would not necessarily change the conditions. Greg Hastings indicated that there is a condition requiring compliance with whatever the approved plan is today. If Commission wants to direct staff to approve that plan in substantial conformance with what is approved today, but not knowing exactly what their plan is, it is hard to tell. Staff can bring it back to Commission as a Reports and Recommendation Item. Greg McCafferty stated sometimes restaurants place a bench outside for smoking. Commissioner Bostwick stated there is a planter on the west side of the building. When he was at the site on Saturday evening and noticed there were a couple of people sitting on the planter utilizing it as seating. Chairperson Boydstun asked if they were open at lunch because hours show 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Steve Sheldon responded the hours were mistakenly put down as 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 because the owner lives in Calabasas, however, he is moving to this area in June and is currently open for lunch. He would also like to be open at 9:00 a.m. for breakfast hours. ~ Chairperson Boydstun clarified he wanted 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 and asked if he did dinner business as late as 12:00 (midnight). Steve Sheldon responded it could constrict revenue because patrons stay longer on Friday and Saturday and would like the flexibility to stay open an extra hour on Friday and Saturday. Commissioner Bristol asked if there was a way to expand the restaurant and wine and beer without a CUP be it CH or CL Zoning. Could they expand without the wine and beer? Greg McCafferty advised that was correct. They could expand with a parking variance since it is already underparked. If it is anything beyond a standard retail, 5.5 per 1,000 use, which this would be, it would be an additional parking waiver. Commissioner Bristol asked if it would it trigger a CUP? Greg McCafferty explained in this case, if there was no alcohol use it would be a variance. Anytime there is a non-conforming use, the Code requires that before you can establish another use, you have to get a CUP for the non-conforming use, which would be the center. • • ~ ' ' • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration. Granted Reclassification No. 99-00-19, unconditionally. ~ VOTE ON RECLASSIFICATION: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) 04-10-00 Page 27 APRI~ 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Approved Waiver of Code Requirement regarding the requested parking waiver based on the parking study findings and the recommendation of approval by the City Traffic & Transportation Manager. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4189 with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Condition No. 15 to read as follows: 15. That, as stipulated to by the petitioner, the hours of operation sha11 be 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 9 a.m. to midnight Friday and Saturday. Moved Condition No. 29 to the "Restaurant Section" of the Conditions of Approval and modified it to read as follows: That the beer and wine portion of this permit for the expansion shall expire two (2) years from the date of this resolution, on April 10, 2002. Added the following condition of approval: That final plans showing the design of the smoking patio shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department for review and approval by staff. Any decision made by the Zoning Division regarding said plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. VO7E: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) ~ Sefma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 30 minutes (4:15-4:45) (This item got trailed and was heard after Item No. 10) ~ 04-10-00 Page 28 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 8b. VARIANCE NO. 4394 8c. TENTATIVE TRACT N0.16034 8d. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL NO. 2000-03 Continued to April 24, 2000 OWNER: Deterding Famify Trust, Attn: Leo G. and Margaret M. Deterding, 7655 Silver pollar Lane, Anaheim, CA 92808 AGENT: Canyon Crest Estates, Attn: Thom Falcon, 1501 Westcliff Drive, Suite 260, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 104 South Canvon Crest Drive. Property is 3.8 acres located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, 155 feet east of the centerline of Martin Road. This property also has frontages of 205 feet on Canyon Crest Drive (private street) and 671 feet on Saddleback Lane (private street). Variance No. 4394 - Waiver of minimum lot depth adjacent to scenic expressway to establish a 7-lot single-family residential subdivision. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2000-03 - To permit the removal of finrelve (12) specimen trees. ~ VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. SR1042TW.DOC Commissioner Arnold offered a motion for a continuance to April 24, 2000, seconded by Commission Napoles and motion carried. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the April 24, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in orde~ to allow for the readvertisement of this request to include a waiver of required private street standards. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 04-10-00 Page 29 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 9a. CEQA CATEGORIC, 9b. CONDITIONAL USE Concurred with staff Granted for 2 years OWNER: Roger Eickhoff, 2831 East Gretta Lane, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 2831 East Gretta Lane. Property is 0.48 acre located on the north side of Gretta Lane, 430 feet east of the centerline of Blue Gum Street. To establish conformity with existing Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing contractor's storage yard and to permit the retail sales, storage, servicing and maintenance of recreational vehicle trailers. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-44 (To expire 4-10-2002) SR2008DS.DOC Applicant's Statement: • Roger Eickhoff, owner of the property, at 2831 East Gretta Lane, Anaheim, stated his brother and nephew are the ones who want to start the trailer sales and maintenance business with him. He has been at that location for approximately 25 years operating the contractor's storage yard. He is concerned with Condition No. 1 that the permit shall expire in April 2001. Since the trailer sales portion is going to be new they do not want to have to move off of that property in one year, they request that the permit be extended to April 2002. The other condition of concern is Condition No. 6 is requesting a sidewalk along the frontage of the property. If they were made to do that then they would be the only property on that street with a sidewalk in front of it, the rest is all landscaping and there is no pedestrian traffic to speak of on that street. It is a cul-de-sac street with industrial businesses on it. Chairperson Boydstun stated Commission asked staff to check on that this morning because they also noticed that request and asked staff if they found out about this. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, advised that a representative from the Public Works Department was called and was on his way to the meeting to respond. Roger Eickhoff explained that there are three large pine trees on the front that would not allow for a sidewalk unless they were removed. (He continued by sfating his other concerns.J Regarding Condition No. 12, the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the drainage. These are non-motorized trailers and there really is no greasing or pollutants involved. He did not really see a need for this condition. Condition No. 19, which is the 2,500 square feet of landscape to be put on a separate irrigation meter. The planter in front of that building is only approximately 10 foot wide by 60 feet long (or 600 square feet). There is also a strip befinreen their property and their neighbor that is probably 120 feet long by 2 feet wide with some Italian Cypress Trees planted on it. He does not think the landscape area if it were 1,100 feet would be the maximum. He was concerned putting in another meter in there just for that small area does not exceed the 2,500 square feet. ~ He realizes that the staff was concerned with too many vehicles on one piece of property. They do have a property in Riverside where they could take some of these items (trailers) if it becomes a problem. He does not think they are going to bring a lot of trailers in to start with. 04-10-00 Page 30 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Greg McCafferty advised that Condition No. 17 is duplicative and can be deleted. Commissioner Bostwick stated they noticed that the applicanYs trash can is outside the fence and referred Mr. Eickhoff to Condition No. 4 that the trash container would need to be in a separate storage area built according to City plans. There is also a portable restroom behind the Cypress trees. Roger Eickhoff explained that it has already been called in for removal and does not know why they have not picked it up. He realizes it is an eyesore and agrees that area needs to be cleaned up. Commissioner Arnold referred to Condition No. 12 and he was not certain whether he was also meaning to focus on Condition No. 14 regarding the vehicle wash. He asked Mr. Eickhoff to reiterate his concern on Condition No. 12. Roger Eickhoff explained he did not feel there is a need for this Condition or to have to install a catch basin to catch the water for any reason. He explained they are going to be washing camper trailers. It is not really motorized which means there is not a grease situation. Chairperson Boydstun asked if soap and detergent would be used in the processes. Roger Eickhoff responded they would use soap and water. Commissioner Arnold explained that it is a standard condition on all of these types of permits because of the detergents that drains into the storm water system. There is an exception for spot cleanup. Chairperson Boydstun added if they are washing vehicles with detergent then there has to be a pad with a drain so that it goes into the sewer system and not into the water system. ~ Roger Eickhoff stated it has to have a separate catch basin to catch the water. Commissioner Arnold suggested they can also take the vehicles to a commercial facility. Roger Eickhoff stated that they are indicating there should be no washing of vehicles on the site. Commissioner Arnold emphasized that this is standard for all of these types of uses. Commissioner Bostwick advised if they are going to wash the vehicles they need to have a wash rack with a catch basin. Peter Gambino, Associate Engineer, confirmed that Commissioner Bostwick was correct, that is the standard. It ties back in with their Water Quality Management Plan. It is going to identify where they are going to be washing cars, how they are going to catch the water, what they will to do with the water, etc. Regarding the sidewalk. They are seeking a condition for the construction of a sidewalk. He is not certain, in this case, how much right-of-way there is. Typically they have 12 to 13 feet of right-of-way which allows for the construction of a sidewalk behind the landscape parkway. Hopefully those trees would be located in a position where they would be in a landscaped area. Sometimes there are opportunities to meander a sidewalk around existing trees to facilitate the construction of a wood sidewalk. Chairperson Boydstun stated they would like to know if anyone else out there has a sidewalk. Peter Gambino stated for the longest time the Public Works Department, City Engineer has granted sidewalk waivers to allow construction and development in the northeast industrial area without the • construction of a sidewalk. Their philosophy has changed over time because they are realizing that other modes of transportation and pedestrian walking is becoming more prominent in the area. Now as new 04-10-00 Page 31 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES development comes up they are asking for sidewalks and are no longer granting sidewaik waivers. In ~ situations such as this one where there is an opportunity they are asking that the condition be established for the construction of a sidewalk. Chairperson Boydstun stated that it would be the only sidewalk there. Peter Gambino explained that quite often they received that argument that it is going to be the only stretch of sidewalk there but over time they will get a piece of sidewalk here and there and within the next ten years or so they cou{d have the whole stretch of sidewalk which will be beneficial to the City. Sometimes it does take time and evolves over time in pieces. Commissioner Arnold asked Mr. Gambino to explain how this change of philosophy occurred. He is having a difficult time imaging a lot of pedestrian traffic in this area and he is typically very attentive to the pedestrian issues. Many commercial and retail areas often have few sidewalks and asked what evidence do they have of a lot of pedestrian traffic. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, indicated he would answer this question. This condition is usually under the City Engineers jurisdiction for all the sidewalks. They have to start at some point in building the sidewalks. They can not have a property come and chose not to have a sidewalk because there is currently no sidewalk there. There are people that are walking in these industrial areas. They have bicycles and are walking to the buses. There needs to be a sidewalk provided at one point because if they do not then it can result in liability for the City. Commissioner Arnold asked if he is indicating that there are employees in the area that are using the bus. Alfred Yalda explained during the years the ridership on the buses in this area has drastically increased. There are more people that are taking the bus and going to these destination points and walk. They are ~ simply trying to establish as many sidewalks as they can. Commissioner Bostwick asked if they have established sidewalks along Blue Gum from La Palma north. Alfred Yalda gave an example that they are going to install a sidewalk on La Palma from the train station because there are many people complaining that they can not walk from there to their properties. They are looking Citywide and trying to install as many sidewalks as they can and are applying for different funding to implement sidewalks throughout the City. Commissioner Bristol indicated there was a concern from the applicant regarding Condition No. 19. Commissioner Bostwick stated if Mr. Eickhoff physically measures it and does not exceed the 2,500 square feet then he would not have to do comply with that condition. Greg McCafferty confirmed that was correct. Roger Eickhoff stated in response to staff s comments regarding the sidewalks off of Blue Gum, there are no sidewalks coming off of Blue Gum down Gretta Lane. If they would put that sidewalk in then he did not know where people would walk to. Commissioner Bostwick thought there was sidewalk installed along Taoromina Industries, from La Palma up to White Star. Roger Eickhoff asked if they are required to install a sidewalk are they going to be able to block off for those existing Cypress trees. There are three large Cypress trees along that curb that he did not think will allow a sidewalk in there. ~ Peter Gambino explained that typically in the past that they have actually walked the site with the individual in charge of City trees and have identified where they can meander the sidewalk, where they 04-10-00 Page 32 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ will have to block out an area and construct a tree well. He thought that is what they would probably do in this case as well. In some situations, it may be that a tree may need to be removed. Greg McCafferty advised that those three pine trees directly in front of the unit are very close to the right- of-way. If a sidewalk were installed there then potentially the three existing trees would probabfy need to be removed. Commissioner Bristol stated it is rather puzzling having to remove existing landscaping. Commissioner Bostwick stated that they may have to remove one but they can go between there and the fence with the sidewalk and meander it. There are trees there that are blocking the sign and they might want to remove those in order to see the sign. Following the action: Greg McCafferty advised that the appiicant has stipulated to relocating the trash bin behind the screened fence and removing of the portable restroom structure off the property. ~ • ~ ~ - • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 32, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. ~ Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4186 with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Deleted Condition No. 17 Modified Condition No. 1 to read as follows: That the contractor's storage yard shall expire two (2) years from the date of this resolution, on April 10, 2002. That the travel trailer sales, storage and servicing use shall expire two (2) years from the date of this resolution, on April 10, 2002. The applicant stipulated to relocate the trash bin behind the screen fence and to remove the portable restroom structure off the property. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 18 minutes (3:55-4:13) • 04-10-00 Page 33 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 10b. VARIANCE NO. 4383 (READVERTISED) OWNER: Gilbert Bershatsky, 2529 Brandon Lane, Burleson, Texas 76028 Approved Approved requested waiver and amendment to the conditions of approval Evergreen Devco Inc., Attn: Tim O'Neil, 2929 East Camelback Road #100, Phoenix, Arizona 85016 LOCATION: 940-956 South Brookhurst Street. Property is 1.3 acre located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Brookhurst Street (Proposed Walgreens). Waiver of required lot consolidation and to amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to existing lot lines for a previously-approved drive- through pharmacy. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-45 SR1151JD.DOC Applicant's Statement: ~ ~ Tim O'Neal, Evergreen Devco, 2920 East Camelback Road Suite 100, Phoenix, Arizona, 85016, stated he is in agreement with the staff report, except on two issues. On page 5, item 17(c), no. 38, he does not feei that they can accommodate the first sentence of that paragraph. His understanding is that justification for the waiver is explained in the balance of the paragraph. The first sentence states that they would submit an agreement from the landowners that the three parcels for this redevelopment project would be held under the same ownership. They can not do that. That is what they have been trying to do for the past two years and that is the reason they are asking for this waiver. Chairperson Boydstun asked if it is ownership and leases. Tim O'Neal explained the fee ownership is one family but it is composed of three different interests. Therefore, they can not consolidate those interests into one to get the fee ownership merged. One of the ownerships is encumbered by a long-term ground {ease. Commissioner Arnold asked if each parcel is held together by the three interests. Tim O'Neal responded no. They are separate parcels. Commissioner Arnold asked if each parcef is held by a different interest. Tim O'Neal explained each parcel is held by the same family but different trust entities. They can communicate with one person who represents the different entities but they can not merge the entities. Commissioner Arnold explained, as he understood it that there are three different trusts each holding a different parcel. Tim O'Neal confirmed that was correct and one of those three are also encumbered by a long term ground lease. Commissioner Arnold stated that is an encumbrance and not the ownership. Tim O'Neal responded that was correct. They are happy with a lot tie agreement and feel that it would serve the purpose of the Code but they can not reconfigure the fee ownership. 04-10-00 Page 34 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Another issue is a condition recommending that they executive a covenant of all the properties as a single Commissioner Bostwick asked if there needs to be a continuance to allow time to work on the language of the covenant. parcel. They did not know that was is a"template" covenant. They were informed by staff that they would be able to submit a draft and then negotiate that draft with the City Attorney to satisfy the requirement. He was concerned with some of the language in this covenant. He pointed this out because they would probably have to work to amend some of the language in order to execute such a covenant. Tim O'Neal stated that was not his understanding and thought this would be a condition of approval which they would have to satisfy the City Attorney. His only request with the staff report is that the first sentence (in no. 38) be deleted. He understood that it would not change the motion. Commissioner Arnold stated the purpose of this is fairly specific and he was not comfortable going forward and approving this until the precise language is worked out. Different language makes a substantive difference. He understands the applicant's desire to move forward but felt it is important to work this out and for Commission to see the finai fanguage before it is approved and encouraged a continuance. Chairperson Boydstun asked Ms. Mann for her thoughts on this matter. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated they are willing to do it either way with whatever the Commission wishes to do. They would be happy to work with the applicant to see if they can come to an agreement. This is a sample covenant but the heart of it is that these are going to be tied together. ~ Tim O'Neal stated he understood and respected that but the only issue is that their time is limited because they have been working on this for a long time. They came several months ago to look for this and they know that if they receive an approval that they would still need to satisfy the agreement, which they understand. It would help them move on with the project because their contingencies are limited with the eight different groups that they are working with on the project. Commissioner Bostwick suggested a condition that would state that the legal property owners should submit a covenant to hold the three parcel as a single parcel. This agreement should be acceptable to the City Attorney's Office and return for finat review as a Reports and Recommendations item before Commission. • • ~ - e iiiie: • . e-- - •iiii •- e •- OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved waiver of required lot consolidation and modified Resolution No. PC99-228 as follows: Amended Condition No. 33 to read as follows: "33. That the 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 Revision No. 1 to Exhibit No. 1 and Exhibit Nos. 2 through 5." ~ 04-10-00 Page 35 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Added the following condition: "38. That the legal property owner(s) shall submit a covenant to hold the three parcels for subject development as a single parcel. This agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's Office and shall then be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department for final review by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item." VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 8 minutes (4:14-4:22) ~ ~ 04-10-00 Page 36 APRIL 10, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Respectfully submitted, m .~~ ~ ~..J Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary ~ . C'~4~ ~ ~ ~~ ~J MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:47 P.M. TO MONDAY, APRIL 24, 2000 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Simonne Fannin Senior Office Specialist Received and approved by the P{anning Commission on ~'" ~~' "~~ 04-10-00 Page 37