Loading...
Minutes-PC 2001/02/12~ . ~ CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING CC)MMISSiON MiNUTES MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2001 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRPE,R~C}~1~,~~1~ . KOOS RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 9:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Vanderbilt PUBL(C COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT H:~DOCSICLERICAL\MINUTES~021201.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net 02-12-01 Page 1 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None received. This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim Cify Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. CONSENT CALENDAR: Items 1-A through 1-C on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Arnold indicated he would like to remove Item 1-B from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Also, he explained relative to Item 1-C that there are a few changes to be made to the December 4, 2000 minutes on pages 16 & 18. Chairperson Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles to approve the entire Consent Calendar, (removing Item 1-B for separate discussion) and revising pages 16 & 18 of December 4, 2000 minutes as requested by Commissioner Arnold. Vote taken and motion carried. ~ 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1-A a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4100 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001- Approved retroactive 043231 REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME AND extension of fime REVIEW OF FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS: MarK 5cniaier, ~u~~u utcie anyon ane, Yorba in a, A 92886, requests a retroactive extension (To expire of time to comply with conditions of approval and review and approval of 08-16-2002). final landscape plans for a service station and auto care complex. Property is Ibcated at 905-985 North Weir Canyon Road. Approved final landscape plans C~ ACTION: Chairperson Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner ala o es and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the (Vote: 6-0, previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the Commissioner required environmental documentation for subject request. Bostwick absent) Chairperson Koos offered a motion seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval to expire on August 16, 2002, based on the following: (i) That the proposed plan remains in conformance with the current Zoning Code and General Plan land use designation, and that there Page 2 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • are no current Code violations on (ii) That this request for an extension of time will not extend the approva( beyond 2 extensions of time, with each extension not to exceed one year as specified in Resolution No. PC99-149 of Conditional Use Permit No. 4100. (iii) That no Code amendments have occurred that would cause the approval to be considered inconsistent with the Zoning Code, nor has the petitioner submitted plans that would render the project inconsistent with the existing Zoning Code. (iv) That the property has been maintained in a safe, clean, and aesthetically pleasing condition with no outstanding Code violations or complaints affecting the property. (v) That there is no additional information or changed circumstances which contradict the facts necessary to support one or more of the required findings for approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 4100. Chairperson Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final landscaping plans identified as Exhibit No. 13 on file in the Planning Department) for Conditional Use Permit No. 4100 on the basis that the final landscaping plans are in compliance with condition of approval no. 3 of Resolution No. PC99-149 and the Savi Ranch Master Land Use Plan. SR7911 VN.DOC • ~ 02-12-01 Page 3 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1-B a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - SECTION 15061 b) CODE AMENDMENT NO. (ZCA) 2001-00008: ~ Y'~n~ ~~ Department , 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, City- initiated amendment to Sections 18.01.090 and 18.01.940 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to definitions of "hotel" and "motel". ACTION: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded Commissioner ri~ol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that fhe proposed project falls within the definition of a CEQA Exemption Section 15061(b}(3), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation. Commissioner Arnold offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council adoption of the revised draft ordinance (attached to the Planning Commission staff report, dated February 12, 2001) amending Sections 18.01.090 and 98.09.140 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to definitions of "hotel" and "motel" with the revisions recommended by the Commission at their meeting as follows: • 1. That a recital be added to the ordinance which clarifies that it is the intent of the ordinance to address definitions of the terms "hotel" and "motel" as land uses and not to create a misdemeanor offense enforceable against occupants of said establishments. Concurred with staff. Recommended adoption to City Council with modifications. Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Bostwick absent) 2. That the text of the definitions be revised to provide for more than one caretaker/manager residential units, provided said units are in conformance with Code requirements. SR1162JD.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a City-initiated request to amend certain sections of Title 18 that pertain to the definition of a hotel/motel. This is before the City Council for its second reading tomorrow. Staff recommends that Commission, by motion, amend sections 18.01.090 and 18.01.140 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining definitions of hotel and motel. Commissioner Arnold asked Ms. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, to explain what the Motel Task Force is doing. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, advised that the Motel Task Force has been working with City Council in addressing the issues that come up with problem hotels and motels. One issue identified is that the existing definitions of a hotel/motel have problems and do not allow some of the uses that legitimately take place in hotels/motels. Also the definition of transient is so worded, because a transient is somebody who rents a hotel/motel for a period of 7 days or less, but there is no limitation on the number of times that someone can rent. The intent is to change the definition. It does not impact anyone who is residing in a hotel/motel in the City of Anaheim. It is consistent with actions taken by the City in analyzing problem motels and some conditions that have been imposed on them, such as slumlords or safety issues. ~ Commissioner Arnold stated the reference to it not being used as a legal residence or principal dwelling place, it is more with respect to the definition of land use and how it relates to land use approvals, it is not 02-12-01 Page 4 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • a restriction on registration with the school district. It is not a mandatory resfrictive prohibition on the actual occupants themselves. Selma Mann stated that is correct, it is entirely with regard to the City zone land use process, the City does not attempt to get into issues of where a child may or may not go to school, or how a district defines its regulations. Under state law the City has no say over that anyway. Commissioner Boydstun felt it could affect children if they cannot use he address within the school district. Selma Mann stated there is nothing in the definitional ordinance with regard to how the City looks at land use that in any way affects how the school district looks at a child. Commissioner Arnold clarified that the purpose of his question was to ascertain whether this is a prohibition on somebody listing this as their address. Ms. Mann advised it is not a prohibition, it is a restriction on the type of land use and it does not apply to the occupants of the room. Commissioner Boydstun stated she has a problem with the fact that it is in there and can't be used as a legal residence. Currently it is not a problem, but at some point, someone could be enforced. If someone moves or changes districts they are required to provide a form notarized if they do not have certain identification items. She felt there needs to be wording stating it would not affect them; that it is only for the owners of the property. Selma Mann stated it would not be a prohibition on the person who is residing in a hotel, it would be a prohibition on the use. It would be a matter of bringing the owner of the property to have them comply, and that would not become an issue unless there were other problems with regard to the location. ~ Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if there was a definition for legal residence. Chairperson Koos asked Ms. Mann if Commission chose to continue this item was there an urgency for City Council to act tomorrow as opposed to 2 or 4 weeks from now. Selma Mann indicated she would inquire with the City Attorney. Commissioner Arnold agreed with Commissioner Boydstun's recitals, but does not see a need for a continuance of this item. Commissioner Bristol stated the ordinance indicates what they have gone over many times; why long- term apartments differ from motel/hotel. He agreed with Commissioner Arnold. Chairperson Koos is concerned about the process and having to act the day before the Council. He wondered whether it is worth exploring the hotel definition, does it unduly restrict resort hotels. Selma Mann asked if it would be better to add some recitals that indicated that this was intended to address the land use itself as a definitional section and not intended to create a misdemeanor for the occupants of the property, It was expressed to the Council that this is strictly a definitional section, they can craft some and bring them back for review. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated one solution could be where it states, "except for one caretaker/manager residential uniY', perhaps have "except for one or more caretaker/manager residential units". It could be determined for the hotel/motels outside the Resort Area, in the resort area they are permitted by right. The ones in the Resort do not require a conditional use permit unlike the rest of the City. • Commissioner Bristol indicated that it appears to state it is permissible for someone to have a residential unif. 02-12-01 Page 5 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMlSSION MINUTES ~ Selma Mann advised they can modify it in any way the Commission feels is appropriate to reflect what the intent is. If there is going to be changes to the ordinance itself, it would have to go back to a first reading. It is set for a second reading tomorrow, so, if they are not going to be recommending changes, going forward would be the best idea. It would be faster to have a new 1St reading tomorrow, rather than have to wait for a subsequent meeting to start the process over again. Chairperson Boydstun asked if they could insert the wording "that it involves land use and will not affect the children pertaining to school, explaining what it means". Selma Mann stated they would probably want that as a recital indicating what the intent is in having the particular definition. Definitions need to be simple, they tend to become problematic if you try to be too specific. Commissioner Arnold felt if there were any question, one would go back to the recitals and the ordinance itself to ascertain how to interpret it. Selma Mann advised if they are going to make changes just to the ordinance, and it sounds as the recital goes beyond. The City Council asked about the impact on people who are staying at one of these facilities and Mr. Jack White's response, as well as her response, was that "these are definitional sections and would not be impacting the occupants", and the Council accepted that as a response. If there will be further clarification beyond that point, that is a change in the ordinance itself, and would require a new 1 S' reading. Commissioner Bristol felt page 3(of the ordinance) states, "Whereas the City Council wishes to affirm that hotel and motel uses are for transient uses and not for use as permanent dwelling places of the occupants." That is the Council's desire and whether those 2 paragraphs say it or not, transient versus • permanent dwelling, if this is not going to be held too specific. It is better to not be lengthy, versus too lengthy on the definitions, he concurs, this makes a lot of sense. Chairperson Koos agreed with Commissioner 8ristol. Commissioner Arnold recommended two changes. That this is not designed to establish definitions with respect to land use, not to create a misdemeanor for any resident or occupant of a hotel/motel. Secondly, to recommend the change in the definitions of hotel/motel, and the exception for one or more caretaker/manager residential units. It is possible to get into a situation that would be unduly constraining. it is conceivable that you could end up with a situation, especially as the nature of the tourism industry changes over time. Selma Mann stated she can offer some comfort to that in where it says "which conforms to the requirements for such a unit under this code", those requirements establish minimum size for such a unit, as well as increased parking requirements. In effect, if they are saying all residents are taking care of this property, they would have to remodel the entire property to meet new minimum size and provide increase parking for the entire facility in order to be in conformance. Note: This comment was stated by Selma Mann at the end of the meeting. Selma Mann clarified a previous comment, made by her, relative to the hotel/motel ordinance. She stated when she said that the response to the City Council had been that it was definitional and that had satisfied the Council. She stated it would be more accurate to say that it satisfied the "majority" of the Council that voted for the ordinance. • 02-12-01 Page 6 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Approved, with corrections to pages 16 and 18 as read into the record by Commissioner Arnold. Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of December 18, 2000. (Motion) (Continued from January 17, 2001) Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of January 3, 2001. (Motion) (Continued from January 17, 2001) Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of January 17, 2001. (Motion) (Continued from January 17, 2001) Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of January 29, 2001. (Motion) Approved Approved Continued to February 26, 2001. Continued to February 26, 2001. 9-C Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Pianning Commission Meeting of December 4, 2000. ) (Motion) (Continued from January 17, 2001 Commissioner Arnold addressed that there are changes to the December 4, 2000 minutes, page 16, (paragraph 6, 2"d sentence) he states it should read "If they were to impose limitations on development now, it would only be on roughly five-sixths of the property and not on one-hundred percent of one ~ parcel." Also, on page 18, (paragraph 6) he states it should read "For example, if Commission were to require a 10-foot setback, Mr. Falcon's argument would be that because they are not allowing development on that 10-foot setback, the City needs to buy that 10-foot setback even though it is considered in relationship to the parcel as a whole. Currently there is one parcel and if Commission decides that the applicant can develop five-sixths of that lot, then that is not a taking." ~ ~ 02-12-01 Page 7 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2910 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000-04280) OWNER: Asmail and Mahin Rastegari, Attn: Mahin Sophia Rastegari, P. O. Box 3465, Fullerton, CA 92834 LOCATION: 1108 North Acacia Street. Property is 0.34 acre located on the east side of Acacia Street, 525 feet south of the centerline of Romneya Drive (Montessori Child Care Center). To permit an expansion and increase in enrollment of an existing preschool facility with waiver of (a) institutional setback adjacent to a residential zone (deleted)~ ~b) minimum number of parking spaces and (c) permitted encroachments into required yards. Continued from the Commission meetings of January 17 and January 29, 2001. • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-20 Denied Denied SR2060DS.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner introduced this item stating this item was continued from last meeting at request of the applicant. A Building inspector went out to the site and inspected the entire property. As a result, they found some building code violations on the second building, middle of the site, relative to patio structure. The applicant has since hired a contractor to make it comply with code. Also, the handicapped space in front is non-conforming in terms of path of travel and access, and with regard to access to the middle unit, it would not comply with the building code for a E-3 occupancy which is what would be proposed in connection with using that for the pre-school. Commissioner Bristo! stated at the last hearing he mentioned that he was concerned about the overhang. The staff report indicated that it was unpermitted. He asked about the miscellaneous electrical situations which are not up to code mentioned in the staff report. Roger Bennion Code Enforcement Division Supervisor, clarified it was actually the Building Division staff that identified the problems, and not Code Enforcement. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Statement: Mahin Rastegari owner and director of the Center. She stated they hired an architect to make changes and bring it up to code. Regarding the 13 signed petitions, they are next to an elementary school with 5,000 children, so they are really small. C ~ Leroy Miller, 1135 North Acacia Street, presented a petition signed by residents across the street. They are concerned with pedestrian and automobile traffic. Acacia is a busy street and they have a problem with the increased hazard, and additional traffic. He gave a history relative to the enrollment of the 02-12-01 Page 8 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . adjacent elementary school and the subject childcare center on how it has grown. He felt increasing it to 50 children would be too much. Mahin Rastegari stated heavy traffic is at 3:45 p.m. when the children of the elementary school are being picked up. The children of the subject childcare center are picked up at 6:00 p.m. Also, the people who lived in the middle unit are no longer there which relieves some traffic. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Napoies indicated that Mr. Miller said there were no sidewalks on the west side of Acacia. Leroy Miller confirmed that was correct. Commissioner Napoles stated he was at the site and saw some sidewalks. Mr. Miller explained there is a sidewalk at the north end at Romneya which was put in by the owners many years ago. Commissioner Napoles asked how far does he live from the Montessori school. Mr. Mi(ler sfated he is about 4 houses north, directly across from Edison School. There are sidewalks at LaPalma where the medical center is and there are no sidewalks on the rest of it. People mainly walk out in the street. Foot traffic across the street is almost constant every day and it is especially heavy on the way to and from school. Commissioner Bristol asked about the electrical issues in the inspection. ~ Chris Lee, Plan Checker, Building Division, explained it relates to a requirement of installing GFI outlets and having proper conduits for electrical extensions. They observed some electrical cords being extended with extension cords on the exterior wall. Commissioner Bristol asked which building. Greg McCafferty stated building 2. They also needed some ground-fault interrupter outlets near some of the sinks in building 2. The extension cord Mr. Lee is referring to is in building 1, sleep room, they used a long extension cord for their cassette player. Commissioner Bristol stated they had the same issue on building 1 approximately 5 years ago. Commissioner Arnold stated traffic is increasing due to the student population at Edison Elementary School. It does not seem as there will be any impact on traffic whether this is granted or denied. He asked what are the concerns that specifically relate to the property and the increase use that are distinct from general traffic quantity? Greg McCafferty stated it is not so much the concern about the levels of traffic in the area that have increased over time. With regard to this specific property, they are concerned that the expansion in children means that there will be additional parents coming to the site for drop-off and pick-up. Based on the existing configuration of their loading area and access to the back that is problematic because it is only a one-way access. Additional traffic to this parficular site creates problems in terms of people backing out into the right-of-way and not being able to efficiently circulate on the property itself. Commissioner Arnold clarified that it poses additional hazards to children on the property, not just additional cars on Acacia. • Commissioner Bristol stated if parking was placed where the overhang is currently, where would the children play? Unless you restrict use of apartments and restrict traffic to know it only pertains to the 02-12-01 Page 9 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ school, there is no way for egress and ingress. The stacking issue is also a concern because if three cars come at the same time, a car would be out at the curb in the right-of-way and there is no place on the property to turn around and come back. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: Received a petition with 13 signatures in opposition and one person spoke in opposition. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Denied waiver (a) pertaining to institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone since it had been deleted. Denied waiver (b) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces on the basis that: (i) That due to a potential vehicle overtlow that could occur in the front loading zone area during peak weekday hours, this child care expansion could increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. (ii) That this expansion will increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking and loading area provided for such use, particularly within the front semi- circular driveway (loading zone) area of the property. (iii) (iii) That this child care facility expansion request will result in a significant increase • in traffic flows within the front yard drop-off and pick-up area, and may impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties or upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. (c) pertaining to permitted encroachments into required yards on the basis that: (i) That there are no special circumstances applicable to this flat and rectangularly- shaped property, such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity. (ii) That the petitioner has not demonstrated that strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive this property of privileges enjoyed by other properties, and by other similar preschool uses, under identicai zoning ciassification in the vicinity. Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2910 (CUP Tracking No. 2001-04280) for an expansion and increase in enrollment for an existing preschool facility on the basis that: (1) That the size and shape of the site for the proposed use is not adequate to al(ow for an expansion and increase in enrollment in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare due to an inadequate lot size and site configuration to accommodate adequate on-site vehicular circulation and loading /unloading for the expansion of this operation, as well as insufficient vehicular ingress and egress. (2) That the proposed use may adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the • growth and development of the area in which it is located due to potential 02-12-01 Page 10 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • congestion and circulation problems occurring in and around the site during peak morning and afternoon hours. (3) That the traffic generated by the proposed use may impose an undue burden upon the streets designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area located due to possible vehicular congestion, and the potential for heavy use of on- street parking for drop-off and pick-up purposes. (4) That the proposed use may create stacking and circulation problems and create an unsafe condition for the children. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 27 minutes (2:06-2:33) ~ J ~ 02-12-01 Page 11 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04284 OWNER: Southern California Edison, Attn: Louis R. Salas, 14799 Chestnut Street, Westminster, CA 92683 AGENT: Katella Operating Properties, Attn: Gregory J. Knapp, 151 Kalmus Drive F-1, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 LOCATION: Property consists of two parcels located on the east and west side of the cul-de-sac on South Claudina Way between Cerritos Avenue and Katella Avenue. Portion A: 1611 South Claudina Way and 1621 South Claudina Wav. Property has a frontage of 270 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, 1,035 feet south of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue. Portion B: 1610 and 1620 South Claudina Wav. Property has a frontage of 270 feet on the east side of Claudina Way, 1,450 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue. • To establish a multipurpose storage yard for building materials, recreational vehicle/boat and vehicle storage with accessory modular office building. Continued from the Commission meetings of December 4, and 18, 2000 and January 17, 2001. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to March 26, 2001. SR7908KP. DOC Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion for continuance to March 26, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Bristol, vote taken and motion carried. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to March 26, 2001 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 02-12-01 Page 12 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04294 OWNER: Southern California Edison, Attn: Louis R. Salas, 14799 Chestnut Street, Westminster, CA 92683 AGENT: Katella Operating Properties, Attn: Gregory J. Knapp, 151 Kalmus Drive F-1, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 LOCATION: Property consists of finro parcels located on the east and west side of the cul-de-sac on South Claudina Way 'between Cerritos Avenue and Katella Avenue. Portion A: 1611 South Claudina Wav and 1621 South Claudina Wav. Property has a frontage of 270 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, 1,035 feet south of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue. Portion B: 1610 and 1620 South Claudina Wav. Property has a frontage of 270 feet on the east side of Claudina Way, 1,450 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue. To permit a wholesale automobile auction facility with on-site storage of vehicles. ~ Continued from the Commission meetings of December 18, 2000 and January 17, 2001. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to March 26, 2001. SR7914KP.DOC Commissioner Napoles offered a motion for continuance to March 26, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Bristol, vote taken and motion carried. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to March 26, 2001 Planning Commission meeting as request by the petitioner. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 02-12-01 Page 13 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 5b. VARIANCE NO. 2000-04404 Withdrawn OWNER: Watt Commercial Companies inc., 2716 Ocean Park Boulevard, #3040, Santa Monica, CA 90405-5218 AGENT: San Pedro Electric Sign Company, 701 Lakme Avenue, Wilmington, CA 90744 LOCATION: 5729-5799 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 9.9 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Imperial Highway and La Palma Avenue (Canyon Village Plaza). Waiver of prohibited signs to construct roof-mounted signs on a new parapet building wall. Continued from the Commission meetings of August 28, September 11, October 23, and December 4, 2000 and January 17, 2001. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. II SR7907KP.DOC u ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request for withdrawal of Variance No. 2000-04404. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 02-12-01 Page 14 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CfTY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2001-04309 Continued to February 26, 2001. OWNER: Lamb of God Evangelical Lutheran Church, 621 South Sunkist Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Pamela Kay Benson, 621 South Sunkist Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 Compass Telecom Services, Attn: Marc Myers, 17870 Skypark Circle, Suite 102, Irvine, CA 92614 LOCATION: 621 South Sunkist Street. Property is 2,53 acres located at the northwest corner of South Street and Sunkist Street (Lamb of God Lutheran Church). To permit a 64-foot high "monopalm" telecommunications antenna and accessory equipment with waiver of required rear yard setback. Continued from Commission meeting of January 17, 2001. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ~ • SR7905KP. DOC Commissioner Napoles offered a motion for continuance to February 26, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Bristol, vote taken and motion carried. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to February 26, 2001 Planning Commission meeting as request by the petitioner in order to allow additional time to redesign the facility and obtain the property owner's concurrence with revised plans prior to Commission's review. VOTE; 6-0 (Commissioner Bosfinrick absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 02-12-01 Page 15 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • AGENT: West Coast Islamic Society, Attn: Abdel-Jabbar Hawdan, 708 North Valley Street, #T, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 1717 South Brookhurst Street. Property is 1.97 acres located at the southwest corner of Crestwood Lane and Brookhurst Street. To permit a religious and cultural education center with waiver of (a) required setback for institutional uses adjacent to residential zones (deleted), and (b) minimum number of parking spaces (deleted). Continued from the Commission meetings of December 18, 2000 and January 29, 2001. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-21 II SR7912KB.DOC 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04289 Granted, in part, without a time limitation OWNER: Sanwa Bank, Attn: Stan Olson, 601 South Figueroa Street, W11-4, Los Angeles, CA 90017 • Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request to establish a mosque at 1717 S. Brookhurst Street. He pointed out at the last Planning Commission meeting the petitioner submitted a revised site plan. Staff has reviewed the site plan and as a result, the petitioner has delete the parking waiver request. Therefore, both of the waivers have been deleted and staff is recommendi that the Conditional Use Permit 2000-04289 be approved. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. d ng Abdel Alomar, 1144 North Gilbert, Anaheim, stated he is representing the owner of the subject site. He indicated he talked to the owner of the adjacent property and stated they will cooperate with the neighbors to ensure them that they will not impede into their parking. They hired a security company and conducted a survey befinreen the hours of 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m., Fridays, which is the busiest hour of the week. The study indicated the maximum number of cars is approximately 30. According to the plans they are meeting the requirements. He would be happy to address any concerns. Jae Ha Yu, 1705 South Brookhurst, Anaheim, stated he has been at the business for 10 years, there use to be a training school in the adjacent building which caused many parking problems. The cars were also parking on the street which is a concern because there is a lot of children in the neighborhood playing. The parking space is small and he is concerned relative to how many customers would be visiting the subject site. The traffic on Brookhurst is heavy and very busy. There are so many car accidents. IYs a safety issue and he wants to protect the customers and neighborhood. He asked for a continuance of the subject request because the neighbors were not available to attend today's meeting. Chairperson Koos asked Mr. Yu if he read the staff report and Mr. Yu confirmed he had read it. Chairperson Koos explained that in the staff report there is a condition (Item No. 23, page 9) which states, "The owner/operator of the proposed cultural religious education facility shall not oppose the assignment • 02-12-01 Page 16 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • of customer parking spaces located directly in front of the abutting commercial retail building". He asked if that condition would satisfy his concerns. Mr. Yu replied it would. Chairperson Koos asked then why should the subject item be continued. Mr. Yu explained their business hours are 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. The subject site has about 5 services per day in the morning and late evening, it affects their parking space. Commissioner Boydstun suggested if they put a"customer parking only" sign in front of their building, that they can tow the car away if someone parks there. Mr. Yu stated they dealt with that problem previously for ten years, they had a sign and they had cars towed. Commissioner Boydstun explained that the previous school had different people parking and the subject center will be by membership, therefore, it will be the same people. They will not continue to park in their parking if their car gets towed away. Mr. Yu indicated it was a school with regular students who received 6-months/1-year training, training being in the morning, afternoon and night. A security guard was hired which did not help, he still had problems and had to cal! the tow company. Commissioner Bristol asked if he is the owner of the property or owner of the business. Mr. Yu replied he is the owner of the janitorial/cleaning supply business. • Commissioner Bristol asked if he spoke to the owner of the property. • Mr. Yu replied yes and that the owner is present today. Mr. Yu presented a petition by neighbors/customers who oppose the subject request relative to the parking issue. Chairperson Koos asked if he believes that posting would solve the issue. Mr. Yu replied no, because he has been fighting ten years relative to the parking problems. Chairperson Koos asked if he is opposing the subject use in general. Mr. Yu replied yes. Commissioner Vanderbilt spoke relative to the number of parking stalls being increased and asked if that would ease any of his concerns. Mr. Yu replied no. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated for example, if they were to add another 25 parking spaces would that satisfy Mr. Yu. Mr. Yu replied yes because currently there is not enough parking spaces for the shopping center. He further explained that they have heavy traffic with cars coming in and out, especially on the weekends, early morning and late afternoons. Some cars double park when there is not enough parking space. 02-12-01 Page 17 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Vanderbilt indicated those problems occurred when the school was in operation, therefore, currently there must not be any parking problem. Mr. Yu was in agreement. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated he has witnessed the previous parking problem, but relative to the subject request they are trying to gauge whether the new applicant would be able to mitigate the parking based upon the conditions set. He indicated to Mr. Yu that he is trying to determine what extent would he be comfortable in allowing the subject request. Chris Na, 9351 Darrow Drive, Huntington Beach, stated he is the owner of the property at 1705 South Brookhurst, Anaheim. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Na whether he has a reciprocal parking and circulation agreement with the property owner to the south. Chris Na indicated the previous owner did. Commissioner Bristol asked if he accepted the reciprocal agreement and if it's still valid. Chris Na replied yes. Commissioner Bristol asked if he is in disagreement to the subject conditional use permit. Chris Na stated the problem is the tenant, Jay Yu, had parking problems in the past. Currently, they are happy with the parking situation. In the past, they could not even have their delivery truck or trash trucks come into the center. There were too many cars parked and a lot of problems with towing cars. A few of • the tenants such as the check cashing and liquor store have "in & ouY' customers. If the customers experience parking problems some will simply leave the center rather than hassling with the center's parking. Commissioner Bristol asked if he read the conditions in the staff report. • Chris Na replied he had. Commissioner Bristol indicated he believes there are 32 parking spaces in front of their retail center. Chris Na agreed. He pointed out he just reviewed the revised plans which show the changes of the parking spaces from horizontal to straight. Also, it requires moving the entrance from Crestwood Lane, 10 feet east towards Brookhurst Street. He felt that would create a hazardous condition for cars making a left turn into the shopping center. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Na if he favors a concurrence of the current reciprocal agreement: He explained if not, iYs recorded but it is hard for the property to the south to have any value if they can't park. He pointed out it would be the same courtesy to Mr. Na's property. Chris Na was in agreement and he indicated he's speaking on behalf of his tenants Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, stated he was not aware of any changes to the location of the driveway. Abdel Alomar explained that they moved the driveway approach approximately 10 feet, or less, because it has to line up with the driveway in between the two rolls of parking. He indicated that he doesn't believe it would cause any danger with cars making a left turn into the shopping center. 02-12-01 Page 18 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Alfred Yalda concurred with Mr. Alomar and he indicated that moving the driveway10 feet would not make a difference relative to the egress and ingress and it would not cause a hazardous condition. Mr. Dalati (who had completed a speaker card) decided not to speak before the Commission. Aleem Bilwani, 2130 W. Crescent #1104, Anaheim. He stated he doesn't understand why the next door neighbor is having a problem with the subject request. Since they are getting free advertisement and it will bring more business to them. The parking area would only be used once a week. Applicant's Rebuttal: Abdel Alomar stated some of their staff went to the shopping center and the liquor store to show support for the subject request. The liquor store brings the most customers. They want to cooperate with their neighbor because they want to keep things in order. They have security during the Friday prayer, from 12:00 p.m. -1:00 p.m. which is the busiest time. The other 5 times a day, usually an average of 4-5 cars show up. He will instruct the security to cooperate with the neighbors. Also, the neighbors have the option, according to the staff report, to post parking signs. He will respect the signs relative to the parking and they will make their members aware of the signs and request them to obey the signs. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun asked if there is a time limit. Greg McCafferty referred to Condition No. 23 in the staff report relative to the parking in front of the retail center and stated it doesn't state the mosque would be responsible for stripping, it just states, "They shall not oppose the assignment of customer parking spaces located directly in front of the abutting commercial retail building". • Chairperson Koos asked if staff had any intentions of including a time limit on the subject request. Greg McCafferty stated the subject request is in an industrial area and it has been discussed at the I.D.C. (Inter-Departmental Committee) meeting. Staff did not feel a time limit was appropriate because it was an office building and they are reusing the office building and are essentially complying with code for the most part. Therefore, staff felt comfortable not recommending a time limitation to the Commission. Commissioner Boydstun stated being surrounded by residential, as it is, would it make it more workable if a time limit was established. She noted the petition seems to be from the residents in the neighborhood. Greg McCafferty agreed relative to establishing a time limit if the Commission feels it is going to be a problem for the residents, but explained that he does not recall any comments of concern from the surrounding residents at the last meeting. Commissioner Arnold commented that part of the problem is that the tenants are leasing from a landowner that has agreed, as an assessor in interest, to a recorded easement pertaining to parking. Therefore, the applicant has a legal property interest in parking on the sites where there is question about interfering with business. It seems that iYs a private property arrangement that has been worked out among the owners of the respective parcels. Staff can try to tinker with that from a land use perspective, but it is something that the property owners already agreed to. The owner of one parcel can try to buy out the owner of the other relative to the easement. But, it seems to him that if the tenants who are operating businesses on the one parcel are upset about the amount of parking than it is an issue they have with the landlord and with the adjoining owner not with any permits the Commission could approve. It seems they do not even have a variance relative to the parking, iYs within code. Therefore, there is no issue for the Commission to address. • Commissioner Bristol also spoke relative to the reciprocal agreement and says it works both ways and they are only hearing one side. 02-12-01 Page 19 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Alfred Yalda indicated if the subject request is approved he would like to add a condition pertaining to the new driveway being constructed to meet Standard No. 137 because he was not previously aware of the driveway being reconstructed. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated for the record that he was not present for the meeting of January 29, 2001, but had reviewed the minutes of the meeting. Therefore, he felt comfortable in participating with the vote. OPPOSITION: 2 persons spoke with concerns and a petition was submitted with 204 signatures in favor of the proposal. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Denied waivers (a) pertaining to required minimum setback for institutional uses adjacent to residential zones, and (b) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces on the basis that they were deleted following public notification. (a) Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04289 (to permit a religious and cultural education center), in part, with the addition of a new condition of approval on the basis that: (i) That the proposed religious and cultural education center is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code. • (ii) That the proposed religious and cultural education center (with no daycare facilities nor private school for children) will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located since all the activities for this facility will take place within the existing building and will not affect the abutting residential neighborhood or the adjacent commercial businesses. (iii) That the size and shape of the site for the proposed religious and cultural education center is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare. (iv) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area. (v) That the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04289 under the conditions imposed, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Added the following condition: That the reconstructed driveway on Crestwood Lane shall be constructed with ten (10) foot radius curb returns as required by the City Engineer in conformance with Engineering Standard No. 137. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. CJ 02-12-01 Page 20 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent). Vanderbilt stated for the record that he had read the minutes for January 29, 2001, as he was absent that day. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 27 minutes (2:34-3:01) ~ • 02-12-01 Page 21 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 8a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 321 (P (EIR TRACKING NO. 2000-00325) 8b. VARIANCE NO. 2000-04417 OWNER: Tejas Partners, Attn: Mr. Michael Moore, 1748 West Katella Avenue #206, Orange, CA 92867 AGENT: Robert Jacques, Architect, 11757 San Vicente Boulevard #4, Brentwood, CA 90049 LOCATION: 1501-1551 South Douglass Road. Property is 7.25 acres located on the west side of Douglass Road, 690 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue. Waiver of minimum landscaped setback abutting a freeway, and approval of Final Site Plans to construct one (1) two-story and one (1) four-story office building. Continued from Commission meetings of December 18, 2000, January 3, and January 29, 2001. • VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. Continued to February 26, 2001. SR1089TW.DOC Item Nos. 8& 9 were initially trailed and later heard following Item No. 10. Chairperson Koos indicated relative to Item Nos. 8 and 9 that the applicant requested a continuance and they are not present today. He stated the items should then be continued, but stated based on discussion this morning that he concurs with staff on keeping the two items separate, not to combine them. He asked Greg McCafferty to inform the applicant that the Commission requests that Item Nos. 8 and 9 be kept as separate items on the agenda. Greg McCafferty stated staff would soon meet with the applicant and would address it to them. Planning Commissioners were in agreement. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion for a continuance of Item Nos. 8& 9 to February 26, 2001 and requested the items be kept separate on the agenda, seconded by Commissioner Arnold. Vote taken and motion carried. Selma Mann asked for clarification relative to Item Nos. 8 and 9. If they are to be kept separate in the sense they are two separate land use approvals, not necessarily to consider them at different times. Chairperson Koos indicated the applicant suggested the items to be heard as one item, therefore, Commission wants to discourage the applicant from thinking that it would be heard as one item. • 02-12-01 Page 22 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to February 26, 2001, as applicant was not present but had submitted a letter requesting a continuance after the staff report was written. Commission requested Item No. 8(Variance No. 2000-04417) and 9(Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04324) be considered as separate items and not heard as one item, as the applicant had requested. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (3:10-3:12) ~ • 02-12-01 Page 23 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04324 Continued to February 26, 2001. OWNER: Tejas Partners, 1748 West Katella Avenue #206, Orange, CA 92867 AGENT: Robert Jacques, 11757 San Vicente Blvd., #4, Brentwood, CA 90049 LOCATION: 1501-1551 South Douqlass Road. Property is 7.25 acres located on the west side of Douglass Road 690 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue (1501- 1551 South Douglass Road). Request approval of a conditional use permit to permit a commercial event parking lot in conjunction with a proposed office complex. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR1090TW.DOC Item Nos. 8& 9 were initially trailed and later heard following ltem No. 10. Chairperson Koos indicated relative to Item Nos. 8 and 9 that the applicant requested a continuance and they are not present today. He stated the items should then be continued, but stated based on discussion this morning that he concurs with staff on keeping the two items separate, not to combine • them. He asked Greg McCafferty to inform the applicant that the Commission requests that Item Nos. 8 and 9 be kept as separate items on the agenda. Greg McCafferty stated staff would soon meet with the applicant and would address it to them. Planning Commissioners were in agreement. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion for a continuance of Item Nos. 8& 9 to February 26, 2001 and requested the items be kept separate on the agenda, seconded by Commissioner Arnold. Vote taken and motion carried. Selma Mann asked for clarification relative to Item Nos. 8 and 9. If they are to be kept separate in the sense they are two separate land use approvals, not necessarily to consider them at different times. Chairperson Koos indicated the applicant suggested the items to be heard as one item, therefore, Commission wants to discourage the applicant from thinking that it would be heard as one item. • ~ ~ ~ ' • ~ • ~ ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to February 26, 2001, as applicant was not present but had submitted a letter requesting a continuance after the staff report was written. Commission requested Item No. 8(Variance No. 2000-04417) and 9(Conditional • 02-12-01 Page 24 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Use Permit No. 2001-04324) be considered as separate items and not heard as one item, as the applicant had requested. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (3:10-3:12) • • 02-12-01 Page 25 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 10a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 10b. VARIANCE NO. 447 (VAR. TRACKING NO. 2001-04414) Approved reinstatement, in part, to expire in 3 years OWNER: Cesar Gonzales and Wayne Cheung, 300 South East Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Steven Lazerson, 13854 East Whittier Blvd. Whittier, CA 90605 LOCATION: 300 South East Street and 1200 East Broadway. Property is 0.44 acre located at the southeast corner of Broadway and East Street (Anaheim Service Station). Request reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (modified on March 16, 1998 to expire on March 16, 2001) to retain an existing gasoline service station. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-22 . • (To expire on March 16, 2004} (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Bostwick absent) SR7910KB.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for a reinstatement of Variance No. 447 for property located at 300 S. East Street and 1200 E. Broadway, to retain an existing gasoline service station with accessory automotive repair. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. ApplicanYs Statement: Steven Lazerson, 13854 East Whittier Blvd., Whittier. He stated he is the agent for the owner. Commissioner Bristol asked if gas is pumped at the subject site. Mr. Lazerson replied, yes. They pump gas, but not very much. The pumps are always open during normal business hours. Commissioner Bristol indicated the subject property looks much better. One of his concerns, page 5 of the staff report is relative to the hours of operation. He asked if the applicant has any objections changing the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on Sundays. Mr. Lazerson indicated they are closed on Sundays. Commissioner Bristol stated then there would be no objection to changing the time, since it goes with the land. Mr. Lazerson was in agreement. Commissioner Bristol asked if they are open at 7:00 a.m., on Saturday. Mr. Lazerson indicated they open at 8:00 a.m., on Saturday. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 02-12-01 Page 26 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Greg McCafferty stated staff would like to let the Commission know in their recommendation in the staff report relative to the factors they considered when recommending the time limitation for the reinstatement is the sensitivity to the surrounding residential land uses and staff wants to ensure that the use variance continues to operate in a manner that is not detrimental to the surrounding land uses. Therefore, staff recommended a limited reinstatement of the subject request. Commissioner Arnold asked for clarification if it is because this is a use variance. Greg McCafferty replied that is correct and in order to accommodate it they modified the findings in the staff report. Further discussion/clarification was made between the Commission and staff relative to the hours of operation. I FULLOWING IS A Sl1MMAKY UF fHE PLANNING COMMISSIUN ACTION_ I OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, Section 15301, as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is therefore, categorically exempt from requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation. Approved reinstatement of Variance No. 447 (VAR Tracking No. 2001-04414) for three (3) years (to expire on March 16, 2004) to retain an existing gasoline service • station with accessory automotive repair as follows: (i) That this permit is being exercised substantially in the same manner and in conformance with all conditions and stipulations originally approved by the approval body as required by Subsection 18.03.093.040 of the Zoning Code. (ii) That the petitioner has provided factual information to support each and every showing for the reinstatement of this permit. (iii) That this use is being exercised in a manner which is not detrimental to the surrounding areas or land uses, nor to the public peace, health, safety and general welfare. (iv) That without the modification of the time limitation, this business would not be allowed at this property as a service station with accessory automotive repair uses. (c) Amended Resolution No. PC98-32 in its entirety, and replaced by a new resolution with the following conditions of approval: That the subject use shall expire in three (3) years from the date of this resolution on March 16, 2004. 2. That the property owner shall record and maintain an unsubordinated agreement with the Office of the Orange County Recorder agreeing to remove the service station structures, including underground tanks, in the event that the service station is closed for a period of • one (1) year. A service station shall be considered closed during any month in which it is open for less than fifteen (15) days. 02-12-01 Page 27 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • 3. That trash storage areas shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Streets and Sanitation Division, Department of Public Works, to comply with minimum requirements including the installation of doors to screen trash bins from the public's view. 4. That no outdoor storage of, or display of, vehicles or vehicular parts shall be permitted; and that no outdoor work of any kind (including any operations where only part of the car is inside the building, except for smog checks on front wheel drive cars) shall be conducted on the property. 5. That the existing public telephone shall remain located within the service station building or removed from the property. 6. That the owner of the subject property shall be responsible for the removal of any on-site graffiti within twenty four (24) hours of its application. 7. That the property shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plans showing compliance with the latest revisions of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. 8. That landscaping consisting of trees, shrubs, groundcover, and flowering plants shall be planted and maintained in landscape planters and large above-ground planter boxes or pots. 9. That clinging vines shall be maintained on maximum three (3) foot centers adjacent to all masonry walls and trash enclosure walls visible to the public rights-of-way. 10. That overnight vehicle parking shall be limited to inside the building or to the fenced yard to the rear of the building. 11. (a) That only gasoline sales, oil changes, smog checks, brakes, tune-ups, air conditioning services and diagnostic services shall be permitted; and, (b) That automobile body work, major transmission repair, major engine overhaul, painting, and retail sales of automobile parts or tires shall not be permitted. ~ 92. That no canopies, awnings, or similar types of overhead shade coverings for the purpose of providing an area for outdoor work or any other activity associated with this business shall be permitted anywhere on the property. 13. That the primary use of this business shall be gasoline sales in accordance with the original approval of this Variance No. 447. 14. That no propane tanks shall be permitted. 15. That all vehicles awaiting service shall be parked on-site and that the public streets shall not be utilized for any parking related to this business. 16. That the existing wall sign on the north elevation ("Anaheim Service Station - Smog Check") is permitted; and that any new signs, including any freestanding sign, shall comply with the standards of the RM-2400 Zone unless a separate variance application is submitted and approved by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council. All new signs shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item. 02-12-01 Page 28 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 17. That a maximum of six (6), maximum fifty five (55) gallons each, drums may be stored immediately adjacent to the rear of the service station building in leak-proof enclosures. Such drums shall not to be located within the view of the public rights-of-way. 18. That the approved plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection and a plan for recycling shall be adhered to as approved by the Streets and Sanitation Division, Department of Public Works. 19. That any tree, shrub, or flower planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased, and/or dead; and that any trees or other landscape material shall not be unreasonably trimmed. 20. That this approval is granted subject to the business operating as a gasoline service station, properly maintained in conformance with all conditions of approval and Code requirements. 21. That, as stipulated to by the property owner, the hours of operation shall be limited to: (a) 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily for the gasoline sales portion of this use permit; and, (b) 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Saturday, and 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Sunday for the automotive repair portion of this use permit. ~ i 22. That this property shall be developed and maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the property owner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1, and as conditioned herein; provided, however, that the proposed snack shop is not longer part of this approval, as stipulated by the petitioner at the March 16, 1998 public hearing. 23. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (3:02-3:09) 02-12-01 Page 29 FEBRUARY 12, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~~~,~~~~~~~%~~~~~%~~~~~~~%~%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~%~%~~~~~%~%~%~%~%~~~~~~~%~~~~~~~~~%~~~~~~~~~%~%~~~~~~~~.~~~~~%~%~,~~~~~,~,~,~~~~~~~ FURTHER D/SCUSS/ON FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEAR/NG: Commissioner Arnold addressed a concern and asked whether the audible portion of peopfe's cell phones could be turned off during the meeting, as it's a distraction. He suggested having a posted sign that indicates to turn them off. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:15 P.M. TO MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2001 AT 10:00 A.M. FOR HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND WORKSHOP ON THE A.B.C. (ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL) PROCESS. Respectfully submitted, ~ ,,~a,~~ ~'~2/YYt.c~,z a~d Elly Fernandes Senior Secretary ~jAy~ ~vx~i ~~~'v'~- i"-'_ . Simonne Fannin Senior Office Specialist Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ^~- cx1~ - l~ r ~ 02-12-01 Page 30