Loading...
Minutes-PC 2001/10/08~ • ~ CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS PRESE STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann, Assist~ Greg Hastings, Zonir Greg McCafferty, Pri AGENDA POSTING~ ~A Corri Friday, October 5, 2~01, irr'sii outside display kiosk ~ ~ ~Etf ; PUBUSHED: Anah~'im Bu CALL TO ORD~ER PLANNING CO~VIM1~S51~I~VIORIVIN • WORKSHOP .~~I ~Q:N,~L~CT~OF • STAFF UPDATE ~~ CQMf1~lSSl DEVELOPMENTS A~1D iSSUES; PLANNING COMMISSIO~) -n=~-,~,,.;: • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW ?~UL;~OSTWICK,.;PNYLLIS BOYDSTUN, C1L, GAIL EASTIVfAf~, JQHN KOOS ~ ~~„ Eed;~~t 10:00 a.m. on ambers, and ~also in the RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Arnold PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT H:\DOCS\CLERICAL\MINUTESAC100801.DOC planningcommission anaheim.net 10-08-01 Page 1 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any ifem under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. CONSENT CALENDAR: Items 1-A and 1-B 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 af the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-A and 1-B) as recommended by staff (with changes to the September 10, 2001 Planning Commission Minutes, as corrections were made on page 16; and a change to be made on page 37 as read into the record by Commissioner Boydstun). CONSENT CALENDAR WAS UNANIMOULSY APPROVED. 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A, a) DETERMINATION OF COiVFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM Determined to be in GENERAL PLAN - GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY NO. 2001- conformance with 00008: John lagjian, Orange County Health Care Agency, 515 North the Anaheim General Plan . Sycamore Street, Suite 618, Santa Ana, CA 92701, request to determine conformance with the Anaheim General Plan to develop a (Vote: 7-0) physical and occupational therapy services facility. Property is located at 1525 West Westmont Drive. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the County's proposal to enter into a 10-year lease for a physical and occupational therapy services program for school age children at Westmont Elementary School located at 1525 West Westmont Drive is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. SR11117W.DOC ~ 10-08-01 Page 2 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~ ~ B. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Approved Meeting of August 27, 2001 (Continued from the September 10 and 24, 2001 Planning Commission meetings.) (MOTION) (Vote: 7-0} ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of August 27, 2009. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- Approved, with corrections Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission to Pages 16 and 37. Meeting of September 10, 2001. (Continued from the September 24, 2001 Planning Commission meeting.) (MOTION) (Vote: 7-0) ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the September 10, 2001 Planning Commission minutes (with corrections to Page 16, 2"d paragraph; and correction to Page 37, under location, as indicated below: Page 16: He feels three tall flagpoles, as you drive down Santa Ana Canyon Road, is out of character with the large residential area that has a quasi-rural character. Commissioner Arnold stated he could not support the project proposed by the applicant because the project does not meet the requirements that Commission has to find in their work to approve a Conditional Use Permit. Page 37: LOCATION: 1052-1098 North State College Boulevard* and 2021 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 6.9 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of State College Boulevard and La Palma Avenue (Granada Square). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission ---------------------------------- Continued to Meeting of September 24, 2001. (MOTION) October 22, 2001. (This item was not discussed) (Vote: 7-0) 10-08-01 Page 3 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES C ~ PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04443 OWNER: Mary Elaine Meyer Trust, 207 Via San Andreas, San Ciemente, CA 92672 AGENT: Jeff Jonsson, 22365 EI Toro Road, Lake Forest, CA 92630 LOCATION: 1028 East South Street. Property is approximately 0.86 acre with a frontage of 122 feet on the south side of South Street located 155 feet west of the centerline of East Street. To permit an auto repair facility in an existing vacant industrial building. Continued from the September 24, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-146 Approved Granted for 10 years (to expire on October 8, 2011) SR8088AN.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 2 as Conditional Use Permit iVo. 2001-04443. It is for property located at 1028 East South Street, and is request to permit an auto repair facility in an existing vacant industrial building. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RE-OPENED. Applicant's Stafement: Jeff Jonsson, an architect representing Auto Trend, stated that his client submitted photos of the site illustrating the depth and the volume of the building and al! of the work to be completed there. In addition he discussed the location of the compressor and the metal container located in the back of the building in an effort to muffle noise. John Ezell, speaking on behalf of Mary Elaine Meyer, the owner of the property, stated that Ms. Meyer personally dictated the letter that was submitted to Commission and since it was quite a laborious task he felt it worth mentioning. Chairperson Vanderbilt acknowledged his statement and assured him that Commission received the letter. Commissioner Boydstun asked the applicant, Mr. Garcia, to clarify his hours of operation because in the staff report the conditions indicated the hours of operation were 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Saturday's, however she believed him to state he was opened mornings until noon on Saturdays. Mr. Garcia confirmed that he was opened mornings until noon on Saturdays. u Commissioner Boydstun asked after viewing the photos of the layout inside if he was certain all of his work woufd all fit inside. 10-08-01 Page 4 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Garcia confirmed that his work would all fit inside. Chairperson Vanderbilt recalled that when this item was discussed two weeks ago there were some Commissioners who had some concerns about the amount of noise that the type of work done at the shop might create. Following that meeting he had asked Mr. Garcia if he could come and visif his existing facility to observe the types of sounds that were created because he had mentioned in his presentation earlier that the way auto repair work is done today is much different than in the past. Mr. Garcia stated that today moldings are essentially brought from another facility and simply installed, and that makes it a lot different than the kind of banging on car parts that use to occur in the past. Chairperson Vanderbilt had the opportunity to go to the facility one Friday and spent about an hour at the shop. Mr. Garcia was not available but he did meet with his son who was very helpful. He had some concerns from that visit because while he agrees that it appears components are made of a lighter material, there was still some work done on them which created a lot of noise. There is a lot of reliance on compressors that makes noise as a result of certain types of sanding jobs that are done on cars and sometimes mallets are used to reshape damaged parts of the vehicle. Although he feels his concern about noise has not really been resolved, one of the things that he found interesting about his visit is learning that this new facility may have a lot of the work contained inside. Given the size of the structure and the need to include a lot of the work in the center part of the building, it does not seem as though it would be necessary to leave the bay doors opened. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked to explore this issue a little bit with Mr. Garcia and asked if there was some possibility that the bay doors on the eastside of the property would not need to be opened during hours of operation. He asked for a possible scenario that Mr. Garcia could think of in which that might be allowed to happen. Mr. Garcia responded that it would be possible to keep the doors closed once cars are moved in and out and maybe pull the doors down partially, possibly 50%, so that there would still be some ventilation • throughout the building. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked given the depth and width of the proposed building if it would be possible for the work to be done farther away from the actual bay doors, because he noticed in the current facility the bay doors are just deep enough to get the car inside and maybe work around the front end. In comparison, the proposed facility is essentially a wide opened warehouse and it seems like there is some flexibility in how the workstations are arranged and maybe how far they can be from the actual bay doors. He asked if his observations were factual. Mr: Garcia confirmed that the statement was true, and the work would be done against the back wall which would be the west wall, so it would be farther away from the bay doors. He stated that the photos presented would depict how deep the building is and that it is a considerable distance between that point and the actual bay doors. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that if there is some possibility that ways to mitigate the sounds could be created given the way the facility opens, then that is the kind of direction he would like to see the discussion go. Commissioner Arnold wondered if there is any way that he might be able to achieve a little bit more ventilation farther back in the building to help with the ventilation part of it. He suggested possibly some sort of modification to the buiiding so that he would not have to rely quite as much on the bay doors to provide the ventilation. Mr. Garcia responded that there are bay doors on the north and south side of the building and they could be left opened for ventilation. . Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that Mr. Garcia mentioned in his presentations that there is a railroad car that is located in the back of the building. He asked if it is his intention to enclose all of the air compressors in that structure. 10-08-01 Page 5 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Garcia responded yes, he would like to put them in that structure and he included it has a roll-up door that faces west. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Mr. Garcia based on his understanding of this structure, if it seemed as though that would reduce the amount of sound that the air compressors would create when they are running. Mr. Garcia responded that they would be willing to insulate the building and possibly put up insulation and drywall on the inside of it to help muffle the sound. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff given the proposed modifications that the applicant stated he is willing to provide, if there was any change in position on their behalf. Mr. McCafferty replied that staff could see that the applicant is more than willing to work with Commission to address the concerns of the neighboring residents to the east, however they fundamentally have concerns about this sort of use. For example, although the petitioner would be very mindful operationally on how to control some of the aspects of the use, the permit runs with the land and so staff has to take the long view of this use next to residential. He stated staff still has concerns of compatibility with the residential to the east. Commissioner Arnold stated that the Redevelopment Staff did mention in the morning session that in the long run they do not envision the neighboring parcels as being residential, and that it is not necessarily an appropriate long-range plan for the area. Referring to staff, he stated he is wondering if what Commission and staff are trying to do in this instance is really to mitigate the impacts that the report carefully identified as this sort of discussion, realizing the applicant has gone back and forth. He asked staff to help • Commission craft some mitigation measures to be imposed as conditions that would match what the discussion has been. Mr. McCafferty stated that it would take a minute or so. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant to clarify the hours of operation, specifically the request in the letter of operation where it states that the applicant would like to be open on Saturdays by appointment only. He wondered if the reason for the appointments were strictly for making estimates on car damages or if there would be people bringing in cars by appointment to be repaired. Mr. Garcia responded that it is for estimates only, and that basically on Saturdays an appointment is scheduled every 30 minutes. He stated that because there is only one estimator at the shop, appointments are necessary to prevent an overload. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he is hoping staff would try to add 4 conditions with regard to the hours. He feels there should be some clarifying language about Saturday hours being used strictly for estimate work. Also with regard to the structure that is going to be used for the air compressors, it should be conditioned to have some insulation and perhaps made of something that would have a dry wall or additional paneling to help suppress the sound. Additionally, there should be a condition that would close or limit the use of the doors on the eastside and then perhaps add some sort of time limit. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Garcia if he could operate with the doors closed on the eastside. Mr. Garcia responded that he would prefer it better if they could have the door opened at least a couple of feet off the ground for ventilation. He stated that he did not have to have all of the doors opened but possibly two out of four facing that direction for ventilation. He assured, if needed and he had to work with • them closed, he could keep the doors on each end completely opened. 10-08-01 Page 6 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bristol asked the owner, Mr. Jonsson, what he thought about Condition No. 19 which talks about extending to an 8 feet high decorative block wall, and then placing clinging vines, etc., along that wall. Mr. Jonsson responded he thinks that wouid be prohibitive. There is currently a 6 foot decorative wall with chain link on top of it and he feels to tear that down and put in a brand new wall would be asking too much of him. Commissioner Bristol stated his concern is the noise and although he still does not think this is the proper use, he feels Mr. Garcia has a history and a good reputation in the City of Anaheim, and if it could be tightened up so there is no noise or at least more comfortable than what is current to the residents then he is leaning in favor of the project. He cautioned, however, if he were the residents there would be no way he would want an 8 feet wall there because it is so cfose it takes up 60% of the visual light. With respect to fellow Commissioners, he suggested placing clinging vines, and maybe some plants, adopt a 3- foot center, and maybe some other things that would eventually take and be lot more effective than the fence that is currently there. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff for their proposed conditions. Mr. McCafferty stated that staff would like to add two conditions, the first one being that the air compressing equipment shall be enclosed within an acoustical enclosure including sound absorbing material in order to comply with Chapter 6.70 of the Anaheim Municipal Code regarding sound pressure levels. The second added condition would be that during the hours of operation, the overhead doors facing east (with exception of the southern most doors) should be kept closed. Mr. Jonsson asked if he could interject one thing, and stated that being pretty familiar with the business he • knows trying to keep the doors all the way closed would be a hindrance. To bring cars in and out and Mr. Ezell stated regarding the door issue the interior of the building was designed to have multiple tenants and it has demising walls with large door openings, so it is very easy to structure such that the offensive operations would be behind the demising walls. So the issue of creating buffers would not really be a problem, it is all in how the interior of operations is designed. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if Mr. Ezell could identify some type of work on cars that could occur cfosest to the doors that would produce very I'tttle sound. He asked if possibly there is some part of the process of preparing these cars that is the least noisy that could occur on the eastern side of the building. Mr. Garcia responded that his plans for setting up the shop is to have almost all the work done towards the west side of the building, which is the deeper end. There will be wheel alignments and mechanical work that is not really noise offensive. He states however, every once in a while an impact wrench may be used but that sound level would not be an all day occurrence. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that there is already a requirement with regard to the ievel of sound, and that should be the guiding requirement in the conditions. So it is up to Mr. Garcia as far as how he would arrange his repairs and stations in respect to the recommended conditions. opening and closing the doors all day long would be a real difficult thing to control. He suggested maybe looking at different sound proofing methods for the inside of the warehouse and try to baffle some of that sound because he feels a lot of sound would be echoed within. He stated perhaps they could put some corrugated, perforated panels along the walls or maybe some draft stops along the top that would keep sound from bouncing around, and maybe that would be a more appropriate sound attenuation than trying to keep the doors closed. • Mr. Garcia responded that the paint department is really quiet. There is no real noise there other than the compressors running. So he p(ans to set that up at the south end of the building. 10-08-01 Page 7 ocroaeR s, Zoo~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Koos attested it should be noted that the app(icant has gone to great lengths to try to find a location, and he commended him on potentially finding one, contingent on Commissions' decision of the proposal. He reminded Commission that the area is primarily industrial and that there are a lot of permitted uses that could go in the area by right, that would not have to go through as many hoops as being suggested in the discussion towards the petitioner and therefore it concerns him. He stated they have not seen any opposition in the course of two public hearings from adjacent property owners, and there are existing city codes on noise levels that apply for this facility as they do on any other auto oriented repair facility. Therefore he is concerned that they are going to punish a good Anaheim business owner when he happens to be doing his best to stay in the City +n an area that is already heavily industrial. He advised that he would not support extreme measures to mitigate noise on this property because he does not feel it is fair. Chairperson Vanderbilt asserted that this property is unique because it is adjacent to residential property. He stated the fact that these are rentals and it is known that there is a notice given to rental occupants of property with regards to this, he feels it is important to at least explore ways to mitigate environmental factors. He is not certain whether or not that is finally what has arrived here but does not feel it is fruitless to do that. Commissioner Koos contended that he also did not think it was fruitless but Commission has heard a number of ineasures, one on top of anofher, that seem unfair to him. For that matter regarding the notification, it is certain that Commission does not notify tenants in this town but duly noted in the owners letter, these residents have lower rents probably because of their proximity to industrial. As previously noted by the applicant, there is any number of permitted uses that could go into this facility and no one could say a word about it. In this case, Commission has the opportunity to lay on a number of staff's recommended conditions of approval that would never appear on permitted uses, the potential user would only have to follow City Code. • Commissioner Bostwick agreed with Commissioner Koos and added also they would not have to close their doors. They could leave them open all day and night long. Basically, other than meeting the City Code for hours of operation and noise, he feels Commission is adding extra conditions and also micromanaging the applicanYs business. He stated that this is an industrial zone and yes, the residential next to it needs to be considered, but it has co-existed with other industrial uses before and it will in the future unless there is a change to the property. Commissioner Boydstun concurred that this building has had and could have in the future, some type of manufacturing business that would operate 24 hours a day. ln such a case, they would have 3 shifts and the cars and employees would be coming in the middle of the night and late or early in the morning meeting the demands of the shifts, which would certainly be more disturbing. The applicant works normal day time hours and his crew are all there at the same time. They are not coming in the middle of the night and early in the morning to meet the shifts. She affirms Commission is pushing too hard on this one. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Arnold feels that this is a situation of something that happened some time ago and currently Commission is just in a difficult spot. During the Action: Commissioner Arnold offered a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 2001-04443 with the following changes: Condition No. 18, hours of operation from 8:30 a. m. to 1:00 p.m. on Saturday's. He chose not to impose any particular requirements about what happens, he felt that was up to the applicant. Item No. 19, removing the first sentence. And adding two additiona~ conditions; one is the condition about • the air compressing equipment that Mr. McCafferty read, and the second has to do with the overhead doors with the limits on the overhead doors facing east, at least two of those doors must be kept closed at 10-08-01 Page 8 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ all times and that one of the doors that may remain open is the southern most door. He clarified that the idea is to try and encourage that particular door because it is going to have the least impact. Commissioner Boydstun stated that instead of staying closed all of the time, they would have to be opened to bring vehicles in and out. Commissioner Arnold clarified that they should be closed on a regular basis, he understands they would obviously have to be opened to bring vehicles, but not to remain open as work is going on inside the building. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, asked if there was a time limitation on the Conditional Use proposed. Commissioner Arnold responded 5 years; October 8, 2006. Commissioner Boydstun stated that she would just assume not to have a time limit on it but at least 5 years. Commissioner Arnold responded that he is not too concerned about the time limit other than the fact that it is something that is conditionally permitted. He informed that Commission tends to use that as a way to keep track of how things are going, and if possible after 5 years some of the conditions that Commission imposes could be lifted if all is working well. Mr. Garcia called to Commissions' attention that at the September 24, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting, a body shop that had never been in the City of Anaheim was granted a 10 year Conditianal Use Permit. He stated that he has been doing business in the City for almost 7 years and if his records were ~ checked, it would be noted that they have never had any problems at all with the City. Commissioner Arnold stated that 10 years are fine or whatever is the standard Conditional Use Permit on this type proposal. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify for the purpose of City Council why he changed his position on the Item. He stated that he made a statement this morning and submitted it to Pre-hearing. He referred to Mr. Ezell and clarified that he had mentioned that his mother had been in the property for 30 years and the apartments came afterwards, and in reality the apartments were built in 1952 and 1954, proceeding his use. Additionally, when Chairman Vanderbilt and Commissioner Arnold made the changes regarding buffering the sound, and afterwards having a chance to talk to Mr. Garcia in regards to that made a big difference. And also the fact of who Mr. Garcia is made a big difference. He stated that he is concerned because the conditions go with the land, and if Mr. Garcia is not there then someone could take advantage of that. Commissioner Bristol stated, he appreciates Mr. Garcia being really careful with the residents to the east of the property. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04443 for 10 years (to expire October 8, 2011) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated October 8, 2001 with the following modifications: • Modified Condition Nos. 18 and 19 to read as follows: 9 0-08-09 Page 9 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINt1TES • 18. The hours of operation shall be limited from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9 a.m, to 1 p.m. on Saturdays. 19. Minimum 1-gallon clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers shall be planted, irrigated and maintained along the east property line, adjacent to the west side of the east property line wall. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. Added the following conditions of approval: That this permit shall expire in ten (10) years from the date of this resoiution, on October 8, 2011. That the air compressing equipment shall be enclosed wifhin an acoustical enclosure including sound absorbing materials in order to comply with Chapter 6.70 (sound pressure levels) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. That during the hours of operation two (2) of the overhead doors facing east shall remain closed at all times; and two (2) can remain open with one being the southernmost door. • • VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 37 minutes (1:38-2:15) 10-08-01 Page 10 OCTOBEI2 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04420 OWNER: Gary D. and Linda L. Schnaible, 11331 Barclay Drive, Garden Grove, CA 92841 AGENT: Farano and Kieviet, 2300 East Katella Avenue, Suite 235, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1333 South Euclid Street. Property is approximately 0.27 acre located at the southwest corner of Euctid Street and Chalet Avenue (Serenity Hall). Requests to retain an unpermitted meeting hall for self-help groups with waivers of a) minimum number of parking spaces and b) required site screening. Continued from the August 27 and September 24, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTfON NO. Continued to November 5, 2001 SR8193CF.DOC ~ Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 3 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04420. It is for property located af 1333 South Euclid Street, and is a request to retain an unpermitted meeting hall for self-help groups with waivers of a) minimum number of parking spaces and b) required site screening. This was continued from the Planning Commission Meeting on September 24, 2001, in order for the petitioner to explore additional offsite parking for the site in the immediate vicinity. Since that time Commission should have received in their packet, two additional items, one item being the draft agreement and the other item being a parking analysis. Staff continues to recommend denial based on the fact that this project cannot satisfy its parking onsite and the parking that has been chosen offsite is infeasible in terms of its distance to the location. There should be one correction to the staff report on Condition No. 1; the sentence should end after the word "resolution". THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RE-OPENED. ApplicanYs Statement: Mr. Kieviet, of Farano and Kieviet Attorneys, stated he is speaking on behalf of the applicants, Gary and Linda Schnaible, who are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow an Alcoholic Anonymous meeting to be conducted at Serenity Hall, located at 1333 S. Euclid Street, in Anaheim, California. In regards to the parking agreement signed by the school district, he reported that he has bad news; he was unable to get the agreement signed. He feels that it should be pointed out that Serenity Hall is not the current cause of the residential street parking. They have been working diligently with the school district staff in an effort to acquire a parking agreement that would allow them to use up to 20 spaces of the Loara High School parking lot. The fire department was that is adjacent to their site is still in use by the fire department and it is not • anticipated that it is even going to be open until as early as February, and that is still some months out. So they went to the fall back position of trying to secure a parking agreement for the parking lot itself at Loara High School. He stated things were looking good for the efforts they were making with the school 10-08-01 Page 11 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • district until the school district apparently started to receive comments from the neighbors after it was made known that Serenity Hall was attempting to secure a parking agreement. Essentially while they do not want to make light of the neighbor's concerns, they realize that there are concerns about residential parking and feel they must make it clear that Serenity Hail is not the cause. One of the primary causes still is beyond lawful use of the property immediately adjacent to Serenity Hall that is using its facility or its parking or its property for a car wholesale and repair business. Code Enforcement has informed that this property owner is on probation now but there are still problems with excess tires from his use being parked on residentiai streets. When the school district started getting comments by the neighbors as far as not wanting Serenity Hall's use in the area it essentially undermined their efforts to secure the parking agreement that they were attempting to obtain. He states that Commission may have seen a copy of the parking agreement and they feel that this would have alleviated the concerns raised by the residential neighbors but nonetheless they do not have it as they speak today. The parking study does still show, however, that it is possible to accommodate the parking needs of Serenity Hall onsite if tandem parking is used. While they realize Code specifically does not allow fandem parking, they have been able to keep members off the residential streets these past several months without creating problems to the residential neighborhood. The peak parking demand times are of short duration, they are primarily on Friday and Saturday nights and late afternoon hours. He feels it is not a constant parking problem. He states they still request that the Conditional Use Permit application be granted but if Commission is not in position to grant it at this time, they would need more time to explore other options as far as additional parking. They have attempted to explore parking across the way in a medical office building and in a church parking area but when they got focused on the school district, Loara High School, they put their efforts in that. He explains that it is not to say they tried to keep all of their eggs in one basket, but they felt that was the most accommodating means of accomplishing the goal of everyone here and to provide adequate parking for their use. Mr. Kieviet states that they were really present again to ask for additional time. He stated that he heard the comments made at the last meeting about the continuance that was granted to allow them to come before Commission again, as far as, perhaps, not looking upon Serenity Hall with favor, so • he explains that again they thought they had the deal wrapped up with the school district at that time and the school district was aware of the time frame they needed. He informed that he was just informed last Thursday that the assistant superintendent that he had been speaking with was not in a position to sign it apparently because of comments that had been raised by the residents and it becoming a political issue that he was not comfortable with signing the agreement as is. So with that, they asked for more time and that the matter be continued, preferably, at least another month to give them another opportunity to explore other options. Linda Schnaible, stated that they followed all of the rules when they opened Serenity Hall. They called the City of Anaheim, Planning and Zoning, and played by all of the rules recommended by them. Ms. Schnaible states that they invested a lot of money into that bui(ding and had she known this was going to happen, they would have never picked that building. She feels it is the perfect building for them but reiterates they would have never done that had the City said no and had they been more specific. She states the City told them it was zoned for that and told them to go ahead and move, it was just fine, no problem. They invested $100,000 in the building and feels it is unfair that now the City is saying they cannot do business there. , Gary Schnaible stated he wanted to point out that they have done business at Serenity Hall a mile down the street for the last 93 years. Their business licenses for that period of time was listed as a social and civic organization or social and civic club and they have never had a problem with the City of Anaheim. He states, that as his wife pointed out, they showed due diligence in checking with the City to see that all was fine and that there was not a problem, and he too states they would not have purchased the building if it were going to be a problem. He stated that they were naive in the fact that they had leased for the last 13 years and really wanted a place to call home for their business. He called to the attention of Commission that they referred to the previous gentleman as a good businessman in the City of Anaheim, and they feel they have been the same. They have not caused a problem for the police department, or for • Code Enforcement and they work hand in hand with the fire department and as a matter of fact, the City of Anaheim rents the ofher haif of the building from them. He urged Gommission to come and see what kind of neighbors they are, talk to the fire department and see that they do not have a problem over there. He 10-08-01 Page 12 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • admits that they have done some tandem parking there and generally it is one or two maybe three cars during a meeting and they park behind their own cars. He informs that if somebody wants to leave they come in and inform that they need to leave and someone would get up and move his car and it is not a problem. He states they really do not believe that they are a problem for the neighborhood and having have followed the rules, they believe they deserve some consideration for that. Willis Baker stated that as a resident of the area right behind Serenity Hall, he feels it has an extreme negative effect on the neighborhood. It is not just the parking that is insufficient, it is large groups of people coming and going continuously during the entire week and during the entire day and evening hours. He states these groups often meet before their meetings and after their meetings in the parking lot and in the street, and they deposit trash coming and going from their cars. He asserts parking is onfy part of the problem and their neighborhood wants the establishment moved. He states that it is a residential area with a commercial operation that is affecting the neighborhood, and the building they meet in was originally designed and used for years as a real estate office. It is not designed or set up for large groups of people to meet. He hopes Commission denies the application. Gary Huniu stated regarding two items that were attached to the staff report; the parking agreement and the consultant review. The parking agreement is an agreement written by the applicant, none of fhe terms in this agreement have been accepted, approved or even solicited to the school district. So this is basically a draft agreement written by the applicant as their wish list. The times, the space, other than the parking lot, and the facility which is on Cerritos Avenue has been acknowledged by the school district. He states that the applicant did not provide any evidence that the school district is negotiating with them, they did not provide evidence that the school district has even received the parking agreement, other than it is something they wrote. Mr. Huniu states regarding the consultant report, using the parking lot, even if it is accepted, and the neighborhood waits for the negotiations to occur and go through their board meetings and have input, if a person arrives at the facility, go to the parking lot and finds the parking lot to • be full, he has two choices, he parks on the street or he decides to go to Loara High School parking lot. Either way, he either has to park on the street or he has to make a U-turn or drive through the residential street to turn around to go back to Euclid Street all the way to Cerritos Avenue, past the tennis courts into the parking lot. Once he does that, in order to get to the facility, if the gate that they are talking about is open, he has to go through a single gate through the basketball courts, onto the softball field, walk through the grass and if it is wet or raining there will be mud in order to get through the gates to go to the facility. So he feels even if they wait for them to come up with an agreement with the school district, the location of the parking lot and its access routes are unfeasible. Mr. Huniu referred to the comments regarding purchasing of the property and affirms that all the residents also purchased their property. They purchased their homes years ago. The homes there were built 30 to 35 years ago and most of the people in that neighborhood are still long term residents. They have been there for years. They bought it knowing that there was a real estate company there and some medical that they would use as part of their own daily lives. Now they see things changing in their neighborhood, it is not the same thing, not only home prices going up and down based on what goes on in the neighborhood, but also the problems with traffic. He states that he had one accident across from Serenity Hall about 5 years ago, just from people going up and down the street because the visual sights are not good. Cars coming out of the alley going to Chalet have had accidents and he feels that will occur more often. He states they would just like to have a quiet neighborhood and not have problems that they foresee happening and have seen since Serenity Hall has been in operation. So he asks that Commission deny them their Conditional Use Permit and not allow them to exist especially knowing that they do not have the proper credentials. Applicant's Rebuttal: Mr. Kieviet stated while the opposition attempts to paint a picture that this is a residential area, he informs the neighbors are in the residential area, however Serenity Hall is in the commercial area. Their property is zoned commercial and it has been in the commercial use for years. They have acknowledged that • apparently 5 years ago there were traffic concerns. It is not Serenity Hall's fault that there are traffic problems in this area. So he feels that they have and can ameliorate parking and traffic concerns for Serenity Hall. He states it is a good community service use for this area and for this property. They again 10-08-01 Page 13 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • asked that Commission give sincere consideration to approving this use, and if not in a position to approve it today they asked for additional time to allow them to explore other options to acquire parking. Regarding the distance, they read the staff report as far as the distance being perhaps unacceptable from staff s perspective, he states if inemory serves him, at the first Planning Commission Meeting they attended there was talk about trying to obtain parking for shuttle, he feels shuttle would even envision a farther away location than this one. Mr. Kieviet states that while they do not intend or desire to have a shuttle service, granted this is the closest area they could find, it is possible to shuttle. They currently carpool themselves already. If inembers park at Loara High School or anywhere else, they may be able to find parking; one member could park and they could shuttle themselves over to Serenity Hall. He suggests those are some the adequate ways to ameliorate the parking concerns they have. They again ask for Commission's approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol stated that the solution is very simple; it does not look like that they are going to acquire parking and on the other hand Commission has given extensions for other uses. He suggests they give them a shot. Commissioner Bristol stated that it was still a rather unusual request. He stated that it is quite obvious that the neighbors in that area do not want the establishment but he agrees that Serenity Hall has a right to use the site. So he asked if Commission could mitigate the parking, give them 30 days and if they do not have anything by then he agrees the limit would have been reached. Commissioner Bostwick asked Mr. Yalda why parking was taken off of Euclid Street near Loara High School. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, responded that parking has not been permitted on Euclid Street for many years. He informed that they are also installing bicycle lanes all along Euclid Street from • north to the south city limits. He advises citizens should not be relying on public parking on Euclid Street; It is a major highway and the City is trying to promote bicycle riding. Commissioner Bostwick responded that he can understand the bicycle riding but he has been over there many times and usually on the weekends there are cars parked all over the place because athletes play on the fields and cars are parked all along Euclid Street. He stated that he did not remember parking being prohibited on Euclid Street. Mr. Yalda stated that it is in the municipal code and he would be more than happy to bring the copy to show where it was approved. He stated it was approved even before he came to the City of Anaheim more than 12 years ago. Commissioner Bostwick stated that it had never been posted. Mr. Yalda confirmed his concern and added that some areas were missing and probably over the years people started moving the signs and that is the reason Transportation reinstalled all of the signs. Commissioner Boydstun attested that she used to park there to get her children to their tennis lessons. Commissioner Eastman stated that it seems to her like the question of parking on that residential street has been an ongoing thing and it is not just with Serenity Hall moving in. She stated that there seems to be a lot of problems with that and asked if the City has ever looked at prohibiting parking in the first couple of blocks off of Euclid Street to help address the residents concern of the congestion at that corner. She admits knowing that it would not help Serenity Hall with their parking problems but feels maybe it would help the residents in that area. ~ Mr. Yalda responded that Transportation is generally open to the residents for requests, and he asked if she had a house at the corner, would she want to remove her parking. He explains that Transportation looks at each case by case whenever the residents request, and they have not heard any request from 10-08-01 Page 14 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNlNG COMMISSION MINUTES • the residents to eliminate parking. He states they are very open to installation of red curbs or removal of parking in many residential areas. Commissioner Boydstun asked if they had the same type of business license before as they have now and she wondered if not, then why was it changed. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, explained that the issue was with the code. The code amendment took place between the time the original one was approved and the current permit, and stated although this is the same zone that it would be at the other property (which was by right) this one requires a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Boydstun asked if Commission required it of all others in the City. Mr. Hastings responded yes, anytime there is a meeting hall that would require a Conditional Use Permit in the CL Zone. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify that the previous permit said meeting hall. Mr. Hastings asked if she was talking about their business license, and stated he would have to check but if it did say that previously, it would have been a permitted use at the time. Commissioner Boydstun stated she knows of several in the City and has never seen a Conditional Use Permit for any of them and cannot understand why this one is being sorted out. Mr. Hastings stated that it was because of the code amendment that took place between the first business license and the second one. ~ Commissioner Boydstun asked if it the others were "grandfathered" in because they were already in that spot. Mr. Hastings confirmed that she was correct. Commissioner Arnold stated that he was not particularly persuaded at all, and really did not care what the situation is with respect to parking on the street. He also feels that the neighbors' concern abaut the type of use is not relevant. He stated the City simply has a residential area that has at its edge a commercial zone, and the parking on this site is not sufficient for this particular use. He admonished Commission does not ever allow onstreet parking to count and it does not allow tandem parking to count. Given that he stated he is having a hard time finding enough parking at the site to justify what he thinks is a very good use. He exhorts that the applicant has known for more than 6 weeks about staff's and Commission's concern with respect to the parking and there has been no resolution, and therefore he is not in favor of continuing to allow them to explore something that seems to him if there were a solution that it would have been found by now. Furthermore, it seems if the applicant was really serious about trying to do something other than tandem parking, which has been very clear from the very outset that Commission does not allow, then they would have seen something. He stated that he understands that it takes awhile to get the high school fo respond, etc., but it seems if it were rea!!y important enough that every avenue would be explored as fully as possible. He asserts that he really does not want ta continue to drag this out. He suggested they appeal to the City Council and let them give them more time to find more solutions. He feels otherwise, this would go on for months without any resolution to extensive parking in this parficufar site. He exhorts that it is not this applicant's responsibility to solve the parking along Chatet, but they have to have enough parking for what they do on their site. Commissioner Bostwick stated that not all of the parking problems are the applicanYs and they have • admitted to it but there is a gentleman in the vicinity with an illegal operation who has his cars out there with towed alleys behind him and all kinds of stuff on the street. Obviously, it is not caused by Serenity Hall, that is the business he is running out of his home. He stated that the only thing he would say is that 10-08-01 Page 15 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ there is a good possibility that they can obtain the land where the fire trucks are now sitting on the school property for extra parking from the school district given the time. Obviously, there is a time constraint. The City cannot get its fire station finished and the fire department cannot get out of there to go back across fhe street, but given enough time that might be possible. He stated that he would like to see them have the time in which to try to acquire parking. Commissioner Arnold stated he is wondering if it is possible to operate at a more reduced level in that interim, maybe spread it out, have more meetings of a smaller nature. He admits he is not sure if fhat is a possibility but rather than have quite so many people at any one time in the interim until more parking can be obtained. Considering the number of people they are going to have at any one time, and the fact that they are admitting to tandem parking which is not permitted, that in itsetf is an onsite problem. It does look like there is a possibility that it may eventually work out, so he asked what should Commission do in the interim. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that what he is operating off of is the rationale of Commissioner Arnold's statements with regard to the considerations and also the discussion that took place in earlier meetings where Commission admonished very clearly that tangible evidence was needed in terms of a parking agreement due by this date. He expressed concern that it still does not exist at this time. Ne stated that he does not know how Commission could step aside from that very powerful message that they sent then in order to say now that any kind of continuance was impossible. Commissioner Koos stated that he considers himself the swing vote based on the discussions of the continuance; currently showing a 4 to 2 vote, so that was his consideration. He stated that he almost went the other way in not continuing this item but decided to go along with the two weeks based on what Commissioner Bostwick was saying that maybe they could pull it off. He stated that he did nof see any evidence and that it is mostly at ground zero and whether or not a deal can be worked out with the fire • department and the school district is merely speculation at this point. He suggested that it would probably Commissioner Bristol stated that he disagrees with the comments. He asked Commission to just step aside for a second and forget about the comments made by the residents. He pointed aut that the Schnaible's made a purchase of a piece of property and they have rights. So granted, Commission either believe what they say or do not believe what they say. Commission either believes that Mr. Kieviet propositioned Loara School District or does not believe that he propositioned Loara School District. He reminded Commission that opportunities have been given to other applicants, for instance the church on Brookhurst, which was allowed to go out and find buses to park when they had overflow events. He feels Commission is taking someone who has been with the City for 13 years and basically telling them to go "pound sand". He contends they are not asking to commit a crime, they are asking for 30 more days to be able to go and bring a parking agreement such as was granted before with other properties. He affirms that the applicant knows he would not support any onstreet parking nor would anybody on Chalet Avenue, Falcon Street, Fann Pface or any of the Commissioners. He exhorts if the Schnaible's have an opportunity to save their investment why would Commission contest the issue. be best, based on the merits of this case, to vote on the merits alone and see where the chips fall and then let it go to City Council. He feels they could make more policy level decisions rather than purely based on the case alone. He stated that he fully concurs with Commissioner Arnold, there is a cumulative impact; tandem parking is not allowed the party has to pencil out and so based on that information, he could not support a waiver and thereby could not support the CUP. Commissioner Koos contended that Commission gave them 30 days and then 15 more days, and he asked what happens in 30 more days. Commissioner Bristol contended that as Mr. Kieviet said, they got complaints which killed the deal with Loara High School. He stated Commission could sit there and argue it and have someone go out and ~ prove that they contacted Loara High School, but since Mr. Kieviet has been before Planning Commission many years he has a tendency to believe him. The mere fact that Mr. Kieviet mentioned February with the fire station and in the morning session, in the absence of Mr. Kieviet, Commission was talking 10-08-Q 1 Page 16 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • December and he said February, make him believe that they are not lying. So he asked how would 30 more days hurt Commission. He concluded if they come back and in 30 days they do not have something then he would concur with Commission. Commissioner Arnold stated that the issue for him is not whether anybody is telling the truth or not. He believes the applicant and he believes Mr. Kieviet. He does not disagree in anyway that they have pursued this, but his concern is they simply have limited options and they are struggling to try to keep things going with the hope that maybe something will materialize. At some point or other it simply is not going to be effective and Commission has to remember that beyond their decision there is a fairly lengthy period that is going to occur before the City Council makes the final decision. Commission is aware that the City Council is likely to take this up and so a final deal will happen or not, probably some months from now, and so he is not sure continuing it until a later date makes a lot of sense. He stated if the applicant wanted to suggest some sort of reduced operations in the interim, he would support that. Commissioner Bristol stated that at the very first meeting the applicant made a comment in that regard. Commissioner Arnold stated he is hearing today that their primary hope is that Commission would allow them to do tandem parking to continue at this operation and that was the primary option with respect to parking. Commissioner Bristol admitted that he had been oblivious to that comment and acknowledged that Commission would not support anything that is not going to fit, and advised the applicant that he would suggest that they do just thaf. Commissioner Boydstun stated that the ideal place for Serenity Hall's parking is where the fire trucks are. She asserted who would have guessed that the City would run into the mess that they did and the fire • trucks would still be there. Plus once those fire trucks move, they will have 8 or 10 more parking places in Commissioner Koos stated that there are all kinds of intangibles at hand, one being that the neighborhood obviously talked to the school board in opposition to possibilities of a parking site for Serenity Hall. their lot that are currently used by the firemen. She feels Commission could do something temporarily until the fire trucks are removed because the parking lot is already padded and immediately useful. She feels that the schools are in a difficult situation and the spot of interest is useless to the school district so she does not foresee them having a problem renting the site from the school district to be able to use it for their parking. Commissioner Boydstun replied but that is for Cerritos. Commissioner Koos stated that you never know though and Commission has to base its decision on the information that is before them. Commissioner Bristol ofFered a motion for a continuance to November 5, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun, vote taken and motion carried. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated if there is a consideration of a parking agreement she would ask the applicant to contact her office because there would be provisions that the City Attorney's office would be interested in seeing in such an agreement. OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition to the subject request. • 10-08-01 Page 17 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the November 5, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to continue to explore other parking options in order to provide additional parking for the subject request. VOTE: 4-3 (Commissioners Arnold, Koos and Chairman Vanderbilt voted no) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, indicated if there is consideration of a parking agreement that the applicant should get in touch with the City Attorney's Office as there would be provisions that the City Attorney's Office would be interested in seeing in such an agreement. DISCUSSION TIME: 34 minutes (2:16-2:50) • • 10-08-01 Page 18 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • u Continued to 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION October 22, 2001 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04409 OWNER: Madison Squares Anaheim Hills, 2795 West Lincoln Avenue, Suite F, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: The Consulting Group, Attn: Duan Dao, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 870, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 7777 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is approximately 3.06 acres located at the terminus of Camino Tampico, with a frontage of 783 feet on the northwest side of Santa Ana Canyon Road located 390 feet northeast of the centerline of Eucalyptus Drive (Madison Squares Self Storage). To permit a telecommunications antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment. Continued from the August 13, and September 10, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8108VN.DOC OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the October 22, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the petitioner additional time to finalize alternative plans. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. . 10-08-01 Page 19 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04410 Approved Denied OWNER: Essex Wire, 1075 North Patt Street, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: The Consulting Group, Attn: Paul Kim, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 850, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 1075 North Patt Street. Property is approximately 8.43 acres with a frontage of 1,280 feet on the west side of Patt Street located 30 feet south of the centeriine of Commercial Street. To permit a telecommunications antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment. Continued from the August 13, August 27 and the September 10, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-147 • SR8107KB.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, Introduced Item No. 5 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04410. It is for property located at 1075 North Patt Street and is a continued public hearing from the August 27, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting to permit a telecommunications monopole (flagpole) antenna. Commissioner Koos abstained from this item with the following statement: "Mr. Chairman, I shall be abstaining from this item, due to my close relationship with the wireless telecommunications industry. While I have previously conferred with the City Attorney and determined that I do not have any financial conflict of interest, I am abstaining to avoid any potential perceived conflict." THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RE-OPENED. ApplicanYs Statement: Paul Kim, with the consultant group at 18500 Von Karmen Avenue, Irvine, California, 92612, representing Cingular Wireless, stated for this particular search ring they have explored other alternatives and other options in terms of other site locations within this search ring and find that there are not any other potential interested landlords, thereby eliminating any buildings with potential heights to go on the roof. He stated that the other option was potential design changes and based upon their past interactions with Commission and understanding how Commission feels about flagpoles, his suggestion was to either lower the height or split it within three poles. But again based upon past interaction, and judging from the other site in the Anaheim Hills area where Planning Commission was not too favorable upon that idea they decided to stick with the current proposal. Therefore, they ask Planning Commission to go ahead and make a decision on the merits of this particular project itself. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun recalled that the applicant had planned on putting the antenna on the side of the building at their main entrance which faces the houses so she asked if he had given thought to putting it • where the building cuts back in which would be the northeast area. She states that there is a Juniper and a Palm tree there that has to be 40 feet or more high, and if something were placed in there it would be 10-08-01 Page 20 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • completely blinded from everything around except the industrial area. Across from the industrial area there are huge tanks that are probabiy almost as tali as the proposed pole. Mr. Kim responded that he did know if she had reviewed the recent change in their location, because they had decided to move away from the residential area. Commissioner Boydstun informed that she was aware, however she wondered if he had noticed the Palm tree and the very tall Juniper tree standing in the corner of the building. Mr. Kim asked if she would propose to do a similar tree type structure. Commissioner Boydstun stated a tree or flagpole either one could go there, there is an entrance and a Palm tree there already and no one could see them un{ess they deliberately went to that area. Mr. Kim stated that with this site he is open to just about anything. However it has been his experience that the City of Anaheim traditionally have treated the two in similar fashion, both the flagpole and the tree The flag does not look like a real flagpole and the trees often times do not look like real trees. He fee{s they will probabfy run into that problem but would be open to Commissioner Boydstun's suggestion. Commissioner Boydstun asked staff how they felt about her suggestion and if they had seen the two trees that are on the site. Mr. McCafferty responded that staff s belief is similar to what they had described to the Planning Commission during the morning session, that the applicant has demonstrated there are other opportunities in the search ring that should be explored in lieu of the flagpole and therefore they would continue to recommend to Commission that those opportunities be explored, and that the request be • denied. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that given the statement as it is spelled out in the report and in the applicant's remarks earlier he was led to believe that there were not any vital options. Mr. Kim responded that they are currently exploring an option that is outside the search ring but the engineers are willing to compromise on their coverage. But if it means getting no site at all they would have to take something and there is a potential stealthing opportunity where they would have to work with a particular church on Harbor Street. That would allow them to create a steeper type structure and they have submitted preliminary sketches to the staff. He stated that they were willing to compromise and from the perspective of Cingular where coverage is a crucial thing, they want him to pursue in good representation of Cingular in good faith, and that is to meet the best objective for them as possible. Cingular is currently pursuing possibilities which they hope will work out but there are obvious risks in taking a denial from Commission because in the event situations do not work out with the landlord or should there be other structural reasons, then Cingular would have lost a site for the current search area. He feels there are more complicated issues with this one because of the fact that there are more structural issues involved with the building. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked, assuming this flagpole is approved would there be any need for the steeper allocation. Mr. Kim answered, no. Commissioner Eastman stated that she thinks he mentioned earlier the possibility of doing 3 flagpoles versus the one, so she actually visited the site and discovered that not far from this site there is another company that has a set of 3 flagpoles in front of their building and it is rather appropriate and attractive. It • is in the middle of a similar type of area. She desired to clarify with Mr. Kim if he had stated that he could achieve his same objecfsve if he used three shorter poles. 10-08-01 Page 21 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Kim responded yes, it would be similar to the one project in the Anaheim Hills area, the Madison Public Storage. Commissioner Eastman clarified that they wouid be smailer poles which would be more appropriate to the flagpole look rather than being so thick. Mr. Kim responded that would be subjected still. It would be a situation where one pole would perhaps be 50 feet and the other two would be 45 feet, give or take a minus 5 feet. Depending on what the engineers would be satisfied with in terms of their objective coverage, but it would be very similar to that Madison Squares Self Storage where it would not be as high as 55 feet. He states that they would obviously prefer 55 feet, but if they go any lower than that it is still possible. However, once the height is reduced, the coverage ring substantially decreases accordingly on the height. The other issue is the flagpole. The Madison Squares Self Storage flagpoles demonstrated were at approximately 20 inches diameter and each individual flagpole was reduced about 12 inches. They will not taper obviously. To have 12 inch poles going up at that height in diameter is another issue that staff and Planning Commission would have to comment on aesthetically. Commissioner Eastman stated that she is cognizant of at least two flagpoles in the City that are acceptable as the stealth design. She inquired of the size of those. Mr. Kim stated that he believes staff has based their decision upon opposition flagpoles that are currently in the City and so it is probably a case where once you see it you now know what you do not want. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Mr. McCafferty if he had a statement he would like to insert. Mr. McCafferty stated that just for Commission's clarification paragraph 13 identifies the search ring. The • western boundary is Citron Street, which is West of Harbor Boulevard. So that is the church that they were exploring the stealth opportunities within the search ring. The other point with regard to flagpoles, he feels as staff and Commission they should be a(ittle guarded in thinking flagpoles are the panacea for antenna. He reminded Commission that they went that way with the monopalms and have had some mixed results, and henceforth have had some mixed results with the flagpoles as well. There is one on Center Street that they are not proud of and because the carrier is detached often times from the property owner, they have seen there are some maintenance issues with the flags. So he asks that they be very careful in their deliberations in thinking that maybe a series of flagpoles at this location is appropriate. Commissioner Arnold referred to Mr. Kim and replayed a number of discussions where Mr. Kim stated "well, gee we might have this possibility with this church but I am not sure and if it does not work out, I would really rather have this one approved instead", and another instance where Commission mentions reducing the heights of flagpoles and Mr. Kim stated, "well I need this but, plus or minus" ... etc,., etc. So he asked Mr. Kim if he had been at the City Council hearings on these sorts of things and heard their degree of frustration with the kind of bargaining approach, the extent to which you come in and say, "this is what we want" and it is kind of the whole toy store and then we spend a lot of time going back and forth essentially negotiating at the tax payers expense over what will achieve your minimal objectives. He advises him that it is not what he would like to have, but what would be ideal. He asks how could Commission facilitate telecommunications in the City of Anaheim and yet minimize the adverse impacts on the surrounding land uses, which is what their job is. He states what he is hearing today is much of the same which is, "well, we really want you to go ahead and give us what we want and maybe we could do this, and maybe we cannot, we would have to see". He stated that it just seems to him not at all productive. He asked Mr. Kim if he had given any thought to just waiting until he knows for sure what could be done and then coming back, because that would actually probably take lot less time for him. He informs that a lot of stealthing proposals end up being approved administratively very efficiently. • Mr. Kim stated that he is clearly aware of that but in this particular project he was told by the Planning Commission at the September 24`h meeting to explore other options. He feels he made it clear in terms of his questioning whether the Planning Commission would be open to exploring as a possible option a 10-08-01 Page 22 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • reduction in height. He stated that he did not get a positive feedback and that coupled with the interactions he has had with the Planning Commission with past flagpole. His assumption has aiways been that they were going to take this project back to the Planning Commission just as it is, recognizing that other options for this particular site have been pretty much ruled out by the Planning Commission. He informed that he was not planning on tafking at this particular point about any reductions in height, although he is more than willing to, simply because what he took away from the past meeting was that from the past actions of the Planning Commission and from that past hearing that Commission would not entertain a reduction in height or a change in the style of the flagpole. Therefore, his intention was just to come to Commission with the merits of this particular project and not wheel and deal in this case. Commissioner Arnold stated that obviously it is contexts specific and he believes that part of what they were talking about in regards to Santa Ana Canyon had to do with the nature of that particular area but he had wished that Mr. Kim would have taken from their prior meetings and discussions the desire to work really hard on the idea of a stealth thing in the church and would come back with the results. Mr. Kim stated that they are aggressively working with that one but would like as much as possible to keep that separate from this particular issue, even though they are attached in certain ways, because there is not a concrete idea which way it is going. Also, another reason why they would aggressively pursue the church option is because from experience as well, they would like to avoid fhe situation where in the event that this project is approved, there is obviously a discrepancy or a missing of minds between the staff and the Planning Commission and those typically have been called out by the mayor, and that is an extended period of time that we do not want to deal with so that is why they are also aggressively pursuing the church as well. But from his point of view, Cingular has hired him as a representative and he needs to faithfully carry this out to the best of his abilities, and he needs to take a decision on this as soon as possible so that it can provide them with direction. • • • ~ ~ - • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04410 based on the findings as stated in the staff report dated October 8, 2001. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 19 minutes (2:51-3:10) • 10-08-01 Page 23 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04404 OWNER: Synod of Southern California, 1501 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90017-2205 AGENT: The Consulting Group, Attn: Paul Kim, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 850, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 2580 West Orange Avenue. Property is approximately 2.6 acres located at the southeast corner of Orange and Magnolia Avenues (St. Paul's Presbyterian Church). To permit a telecommunications antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment. Continued from the August 13, September 10 and September 24, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to October 22, 2001. SR8075VN.DOC I FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. r OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the October 22, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the petitioner additional time to finalize revised plans. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. r ~ ~ 10-08-01 Page 24 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. CEQA CATEGORtCAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 7b. DETERMlNATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2001-00001 OWNER: Office Max, 2781 West MacArthur Boulevard, Santa Ana, CA 92704 AGENT: Art Rodriguez and Associates, Attn: Peter Impala, 709 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 200, Pasadena, CA 91101 LOCATION: 620 North Euclid Street. Property is approximately 8.82 acres located at the northeast corner of Euclid Street and Crescent Avenue (Smart and Final). To allow the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption within a proposed market. DETERMINAT(ON OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-148 Concurred with staff Approved SR8100VN.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced item No. 7 as Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2001-00001. It is for property located at 620 North Euclid Street; the proposed Smart & Final Store. It is a request to allow the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption • within an existing market. He stated there are some changes to the staff report and that would be on page no. 6, Condition No. 21 that in addition to requesting determination of Conditional Use Permit N 3723 staff would also recommend that Commission also require a determ+nation of Conditional Use Permit No. 3833 and that is to permit an outdoor garden center in the storage area in conjunction with home improvement center which is the old Orchards project, and that Commission also strike from Condition No. 22 Condition No. 16. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. o. a Applicant's Statement: Peter Impala commented the staff on preparing a very accurate evaluation. He stated that they desired to have only one condition removed and that is Condition No. 9: that no person under 21 years of age be permitted to sell alcohol and beverages. He stated that Smart & Final Stores routinely hires employees under the age of 21 and all the employees in the Smart & Final Stores do everything from stocking, sweeping the floor, cleaning the parking lot, picking up trash to checking out customers. He added that none of the other stores licensed in the state of California have this requirement. lt is not a state requirement. The ABC licenses do not have that age limit. He feels the age limit is more like 16, in order to be able to make sales of alcohol in a retail operation such as this. Chairperson Vanderbilt wished to clarify that besides Item No. 9 he was content with the staff report. Mr. Impala responded absolutely, they were in full agreement. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to clarify with regard to the 21-age requirement. 10-08-01 Page 25 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. McCafferty stated that fhey were not opposed to fhe deletion of the condition, but what staff was trying to do is put into the condition whatever ABC would require and since that is really a police department generated condition staff assumed it was just to be consistent with what the ABC regulations were. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that he did not see anyone from the pofice department present and felt it would be best to get some clarification. Commissioner Bostwick stated that he thought the 21-year age limit had to do with serving alcoholic beverages such as in a restaurant or a bar. A person would have to be 21 to serve it buf fo sel( it he was not sure. Mr. McCafferty stated that the bottom line is that if it is a requirement by ABC and they would have to comply with it anyway, so it could be eliminated from the conditions. Commissioner Bostwick asked Mr. McCafferty that since this is the old Office Max project why was staff asking for the garden shop to be placed on the other end of the building. Mr. McCafferty stated that typically if it is all one property and if there were any clean up zoning actions staff recommends to Commission to do it in conjunction with. Commissioner Boydstun asked if he would not limit himself to who that part could be rented to, because so many stores such as Target have a garden shop and this site is laid out for such a big facility as this one. She feels that Commission would be limiting themselves because K-mart has it and any of the home improvement stores have them. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated that if Planning Commission wished they coutd leave it ~ on there. Staff was hoping to have RedevelopmenYs input on this particular item since it is a redevelopment area, but that would be correct. 7he Conditional Use Permit does run with the land, and if it is appropriate for another use to go in identically to what was there that would be appropriate to leave it fhere. Mr. Hastings stated that actually the way the CUP is worded, it is an outdoor garden center and storage area in conjunction with a major retail home improvement center so it would have to fit that or staff would have to bring it back to Commission for modification. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked in regards to Item No. 9, if staff had a recommendation or someway to leave it in and perhaps when it goes to City Council it could be recommended. Mr. McCafferty stated he preferred to just delete it. • • ~ •- • ~ ~ • ~ • OPPOSITlON: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristof offered a mofion, seconded by Commissioner Arnold and MOTIOIV CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. • Approved the request for Determination of Pubic Convenience or Necessity No. 2001- 00001 (to permit sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption within a 10-08-01 Page 26 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ proposed market) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated October 8, 2001 with the following modifications: Modified Condition No. 22 to read as follows: 22. That prior to commencement of activity authorized by this resolution or within one (1) year from the date of this resolution, Condition Nos. 2, 99, 20 and 21, above- mentioned shall be complied with. Deleted Condition No. 9 DURING THE ACTION: During the motion for Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2001-00001, discussion took place indicating "the reason for approval is based upon the fact that the subject request is a unique nature of a wholesale business, and also that the beer and wine would be sold warm and therefore would be permissible:' VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DtSCUSSION TIME: 8 minutes (3:11-3:19) ~ ~ 10-08-01 Page 27 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Sb. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04450 OWNER: Price Partners, 3818 East Coronado Street, Anaheim, CA 92807 Sherwin-Williams Company, P. O. 8ox 6027, Cleveland, OH 44101 AGENT: Rachei Price, 3818 East Coronado, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 3818 East Coronado Street. Property is approximafely 4.52 acres located at the southeast corner of Coronado Street and Je~ferson Street (Samson Motors). To permit accessory motorcycle sales in conjunction with a motorcycle parts manufacturer. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-149 Concurred with staff Granted SR1026CW.DOC Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 8 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04450. It is for property located at 3898 East Coronado Street and is a request to permit accessory motorcycle ~ sales in conjunction with a motorcycle parts manufacturer. There are a couple of changes to the staff report: Paragraph No. 3 should read 63,985 square feet instead of 63, 895 and on Paragraph 8, the chart, the total at the bottom should also be 63, 985 square feet, and we are recommending thaf you de(ete Condition No. 7 on page 6. THE PtJBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. ApplicanYs Statement: Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant if there were any questions or concerns wifh regard to the staff report as modified. Rachel Price stated that one thing she is concerned with is the conditions state that they cannot have any flags or banners and they currently had a flagpole out front and desired to put a flag on it. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that constitutionally you are okay there, but wondered other than that if she had any concerns with regard to the staff report. Rachel Price responded, no. However she inquired about the condition that said no special events and stated that once a year they have an event for the YMCA. Commissioner Boydstun stated that they applied for a permit and that was fine. Mr. McCafferty stated that actually it is an industrial zone, and staff did not want to hear about that event. It is not a commercial zone so the code does not allow them to have the special retail events to promote their products. • THE PUB~IC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 10-08-01 Page 28 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bostwick asked what kind of products the company made for motorcycles. Ms. Price responded that they make exhaust products and that is it. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMtSSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04450 subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated October 8, 2001 with the following modification: Deleted Condition No. 7 VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (3:20-3:24) ~ 10-08-01 Page 29 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04448 OWNER: SGF Limited Partnership, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 1003, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Hardin Honda, Attn: Dennis Hardin, 1381 Auto Center Drive, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1330 Auto Center Drive. Property is approximately 2.95 acres with frontages of 399 feet on the south side of Auto Center Drive and 366 feet on the north side of Sanderson Avenue located 445 feet west of the centerline of Phoenix Club Drive. To establish an automotive sales lot with employee parking in conjunction with an existing automotive dealership with waiver of required parking lot landscaping. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to October 22, 2001 SR8114KB.Q4C FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE Pl.ANNING COMMISSION ACTION. ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the October 22, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the applicant to finalize agreements with the City of Anaheim pertaining to this property. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 10-08-01 Page 30 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1424 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04446) OWNER: Corky Robert Smith Trust, P. O. Box 5440, Los Ange(es, CA 90054 AGENT: Excel Auto Body, Attn: Jon Thompson, 554 South Atchison Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION; 2223 East Katella Avenue, Unit C. Property is approximately 5.48 acres located north and west of the northwesterly corner of Katella Avenue and Howell Avenue. To amend the exhibits of a previously-approved automotive sales and service facility and to permit a modular office building. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ~ ~ Continued to November 19, 2001 SR8106KB.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the November 19, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to readvertise the subject case to reflect the multiple automotive businesses operating at the subject location. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSStON TIME: This item was not discussed. 1 ~-08-01 Page 31 OCTOBER 8, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Information was iven b sfaff re ardin the Se tember 2v~'' and O tober 2"d • g y g g p c City Council meeting actions which pertained to Planning Commission related items. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Mr. Hastings for a report he wished to issue at the end of the meeting. Mr. Hastings stated that at the of September 25, the Council did adopt the clean up ordinance which Commission had before them regarding fencing, freeway signs and dry cleaners. They denied the request for rehearing of the Lincoln and reinstatement. They approved the two-lot subdivision at 1628 West Orangewood, which was before the Commission, originally it was three lots and it went to two lots. On that particular one, the Planning Commission would be receiving as a condition of approval, final specific plans regarding those homes, how they sit on the lot, window placement, etc., and the Council asked that staff notify the residents of that, so there would be a Notice Report & Recommendation. Mr. McCafferty stated at the October 2, 2001, City Council Meeting, Item B-2, which was fhe telecommunication antenna at 2720 West Yale Avenue was set for public hearing. Item B-5, which was Conditional Use Permit No. 2001- 4415, for another telecommunication antenna at 621 South Euclid Street was also appealed. Item B-6 another telecommunication antenna at 2719 West Ball Road was set for public hearing. Item C-1 the public hearing for the vineyard signs was approved by the City Council. They are going to have 1 marquee sign flanked by two smaller monument signs for the Vineyard Church School and Paramount Schoof. Item C-2 which was the auto repair on Anaheim Boulevard, City Council approved it and modified the condition slightly to allow him to have a little later hours for pickup of vehicles. Item C-4 which is a public hearing for the telecommunication antenna at Knott Street and Lincoln Avenue, was approved by the City Council. Item C-5 the telecommunication antenna at 2720 ~ West Yale was also approved. Item C-6, the telecommunication antenna which was a flagpole on Chaparral was denied by the City Council. Item C-7, a telecommunication antenna at 653 South Walnut Street was continued to the November 6 City Council Meeting in order for the applicant to submit a landscape planned for the landscaping on Walnut Street. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:26 P.M. TO MONDAY, I OCTOBER 22, 2001 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. ~ Respectfully submitted: ~~.~~~ ~ Pat Chandler Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2001. 10-08-01 Page 32